Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1477700100731.png (348KB, 700x700px) Image search:
[Google]
348KB, 700x700px
Lets talk quantum mechanics.
I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5KIwIb-EWM and the "particles act as waves unless observed" just completely fucked my brain up.
But it doesn't answer some of the questions I have.
What level of observation is needed until it collapses from a wave into going through a particular slit?
They went over a recorder making a beep whenever one was detected going through the top slit, but did they ever take it steps further? They unplugged the recorder, and it went back to being a wave.
What would happen if they used the device to record it but never looked at the results?
What would happen if they used the device, recorded it, but then did a second run where they only recorded 1 particle and, since it only has a 50% chance of going through the recorded slit, use that to determine if you'll look at the recorded data or not. Basically use it's randomness against it to force it into giving an answer.
It would be unnerving if you did my proposed experiment and could tell what the result of the secondary recording would be based on the pattern. But then you get the mindfuck of deciding to not look at the results from the initial experiment anyways, would that alter the initial experiment even if you only decided to not look at the results regardless of the secondary experiment only after the results of the second experiment.
Another thing is what counts as an observer? Does it have to be human? What if the recorder only beeps in a sound only dogs can hear, and you put a dog in the room and no human observes the recorders results? Has anyone tried that?
>>
>>8489421
This post is definitely a joke right? You're being ironic.
>>
>>8489425
Basically my question is "what counts as an observer". Is it just the device recording the results or the human looking at the results?
>>
>>8489428
It's anything that interacts with the situation in such a way that the relevant information can be recovered. You can make the measurement, not look at the result and it will still collapse.
>>
>>8489687
So all those people using it as evidence as human consciousness being special are just being dumb?
>>
>>8490039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs
>>
>>8490051
I only started giving a shit about physics yesterday. Why are are physicists so afraid of non locality, that information can travel faster than light between an entangled pair? The universe emerges from a reality where there is no space right? No space, no distance. Not really surprising that we can find something in our universe that works that way. Yet physicists readily accept virtual particles that don't have a real location and non determinism. Both models sound equally strange but equally acceptable when you realize the universe doesn't give a shit what you like.
>>
>>8491060
>that information can travel faster than light between an entangled pair?
would break general relativity which implies no information can travel with faster than light speed and general relativity is considered to be correct (in almost every aspect)
>>
>>8491068
Well, I probably won't understand the answer, but I'll ask anyway. Does general relativity really require that NO information can travel faster than light? Wouldn't it just mean that general relativity can't be used to predict and explain everything? Like how Newtonian physics are correct, just not under all circumstances.
>>
>>8491086
>Does general relativity really require that NO information can travel faster than light?
yes
>>
>>8491240
Ok I got it
What if the information isn't traveling?
>>
>>8491579
>What if the information isn't traveling?
then what about it?
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1