Doesn't the fact that I can fully control my arm which is

File: maxdiscard.gif (712KB, 600x525px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 600x525px

Oh cool, another Quantum Theory of Mind thread. I'm puzzled why everyone always thinks theyre so original when they post this shit.

>>8325480
It keeps coming up because everyone keeps putting it down

>>8325483
Its been debunked, there has been no new theories or evidence in over a decade. Just let it go.

>>8325491
How can you say it's been debunked? There are theories that might oppose it but you it's never been proven.

You really got the answer to the observe-wave relationship?

>>8325502
>the observe-wave relationship
maximum woo

>>8325507
we still don't know why that happens

Einstein said that if you are really interested in physics, you'll be convinced there is spirit and that everything is made

>>8325511
XD muh god doesnt roll dice
checkmate atheists

>>8325515
You keep avoiding that you cannot actually explain it, so it's kinda open for interpretation right now

>>8325511
>we still don't know why that happens
You mean why popsci faggots use imprecise vocabulary? We do, it's because they don't know shit.

>>8325521
god of the gaps pls go

>>8325524
>>8325525
Please explain to me why any observer collapses a wave into a particle. Clearly you know.

>>8325527
they dont muggins

>>8325530
Obviously. But they dismiss any idea and act like it's been resolved

>>8325541
the observer doesnt collapse shit, you can use the mathematics of a wave or of a particle to describe an electron, the wave/particle is not an 'object'.

>>8325542
Clearly I'm referring to the double slit experiment. Any observer will smack a wave into a particle.

>>8325543
no.

>>8325543
No it wont. Dicking with the quantum environment can cause results that seem more particle-like than wave-like though

no quantum system can store more than 0.25 bits of integrated information. not enough for consciousness. now fuck off

>>8325546
Photons act like a wave unobserved and act like a particle when observed.

Honestly, why are you guys even here if you don't know this shit?

>>8325551
>Photons act like a wave unobserved and act like a particle when observed
This is literally the popsci bullshit explanation to allow idiots to think they know what is going on

>>8325551
You really shouldn't keep asserting anything until you understand the math behind it.

>I know and can control all the position and momentum of the atoms

First of all this is wrong, you don't.

>DISPROVE

No, wouldn't it prove it if anything (if your shitty logic was right)

>>8325551
lol
why wont they accept my premise so I can spout Deepak Chopra waaaaah

>>8325557
>>8325558
>>8325567
Then why did the wave-like pattern turn into 2 lines after being observed?

Considering this was the oddity of the experiment that doesn't seem to be accounted for.

>>8325574
Short answer is because you interfered with it

>>8325464
Yay gorilla posting is back!

>>8325464
Don't do it op she still loves u physics is just ur alter ego and subconscious mind figuring out and understanding itself and working.....

>>8325574
>Then why did the wave-like pattern turn into 2 lines
You can't do that without fundamentally changing the experiment.

>>8325576
With your eyes? Gtfo.

>>8325587
Yes you moron. Why do you think your eyes are magically exempt from physics? Also more specifically you do it with your detection equipment

>>8325587
>With your eyes?
Yeah bro you're just like, looking at the photon moving lmafuckingo

>>8325586
In what respects? The photon still moves freely through the slits. It's obviously still a mystery as to why this happens, my original point.

No. Principles of quantum mechanics only apply on the quantum scale.

For example... if you arm weighs say 10 kg and is at 37 C, we can calculate the uncertainty of such a "molecule." It would be somewhere around 1/10^14 of a planck it my napkin math is right. In other words, you are retarded.

>>8325604
>In what respects?
Tell me which of the modified double slit experiment you're talking about first, and then I'll be able to answer your question.

>>8325521
>so it's kinda open for interpretation right now
it actually is

I cant decide who is worse in this thread. The faggy gorilla poster who takes wave–particle duality way too literal or all thos other faggots who think that there is a clear consensus on the double slit experiment?

Why did you want to be friends, laying and giggling at a frown.

>>8325521
the path integral gives nice aprroach of answering such a question, and while doing that it doesn't have to include the concept of waves or with the uncertainty principle(at least not directly).

the wavefunction makes quantum mechanics just very confusing (if you start learning it), while the path integral approach gives a elegant intuition

>>8325527
that's bullshit an observation causes changes in the system that's the origin behind the uncertainty principle and that is what physicists mean when they say a wavefunction collapse

>>8325604
no if you shoot a photon with lots of energy because it travels at LIGHT SPEED you will shoot it to a random direction which will mess with the probability so that the paths don't interfere destructively anymore (at least not in a way as before you shot the photons)

>>8325464
>quantum phenomena must extend to macroscopic scales
kys

File: 90400423.jpg (50KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x510px

>>8325464

>>8325544
>>8325546
>>8325557
>>8325558
Why are you guys all acting like belligerent idiots? The double slit experiment shows a wave pattern when you don't observe the slits and makes a particle pattern when you do observe them, even if you set up the detector to determine which slit the photon passed through after the photon has hit the board that shows the pattern.

The photon is demonstrably both part le are wave. You guys are acting like isn't in some vain attempt to act smart, but it's making you all look like complete idiots.

>>8325621
>Principles of quantum mechanics only apply on the quantum scale.
Are you just pretending to be retarded

>>8326677
>>8326680
>>>/x/
We all know that's where you came from.

There's a reason we call quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics.

If you think everything works the same all the way down and all the way up in scale you are retarded.

>>8327006
Try to explain superconductivity (i.e. a macroscopic fenomena) without quantum mechanics

>>8326677
>and makes a particle pattern when you do observe them
this is why we are acting "belligerent". This is a meaningless sentence.
Answer >>8325622 and we'll be able to explain what happens to you.
You never just "observe the slits", that's a meaningless sentence.

>>8327045
Did I say it had no effect?

>>8326677
It's a meme. People here like to pretend that there aren't any conceptual issues in quantum mechanics

>>8326677
The observer doesn have to have consciosness. Its just another way of saying this thing, a particle for example, interacted with the system in some way, and thus needs information from it.

>>8327092
Or in the slit experiment, the electron detector at one of the slits. It can only detect electrons by interacting with them.

>>8327096
No. A lot of people like to give away that explanation because it's very demystifying, but it's really not a good picture.
It's not so much about actually interacting with a particle than it is about the measurement being possible in principle.
If you look at the quantum eraser experiments of Mandel or Zou, they mention that if they set up the experiment such that the idler photons are perfectly aligned (and thus not measurable in principle), you recover your interference patterns. Otherwise you don't see any pattern.
You don't have to actually turn on your sensors for that to be true.

>>8326524
the uncertainty principle has absolutely fucking nothing to do with observation or the "observer effect". that's just an analogy. it's clear that you have never taken even an intro to qm. heisenberg uncertainty is built in to the mathematics and can be derived from first principles, viz. the position and momentum operators do not commute. their is a minimum quantitative amount of uncertainty before anything is observed and even if it never is

*there

>>8325546
I dicked ur mum's quantum environment until her wavefunction collapsed.

>>8327045
I guess scale doesn't matter, therefore I can use [math]distance^{-2}[/math] to perfectly describe orbital interactions between a nucleophile and an electrophile.