Quantum Shit

>>8675074

Too deep for 4chan

>>8675074
>As a sloppy example, if I want to measure a glass of water and I pour it into a measuring cup, the act of pouring the fluid causes residue to be left behind in the original vessel, changing the quantity.
>That's how measuring water changes the measurement, right?
People don't actually think like this, right?

It's like flipping a coin in mid air. When the coin is spinning in the air it's in superposition. In order to see what side is facing up you need to stop it from spinning, or interact with it. Making the coin stop spinning is what collapses the wave function. Kinda like that, but with microscopic particles moving at the speed of light.

>>8675074
>copenhagen nonsense

non-determinism is false, get over it

>>8675074
"collapse" is gibberish. stick to many-worlds, and it will make sense.

>>8676496
(assuming you know a bit of the math, i mean)

>>8675074
>But, what is it about taking a measurement that makes this happen?

How do you think you measure something smaller than the eye can see? You fire a particle at it, and observe which way the particle bounces off. Naturally, firing a particle at something the size of a particle will move the thing you're observing, just as if I were to throw an elephant at you, you would be moved by the impact force.

"Measurement" just means interaction. It doesn't matter if a person observes the interaction

File: 1486557677348.webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>>8675074
You know how some kooks think that the universe is a computer program or hologram? If you look at it from the perspective of "ocular occlusion" [like in Minecraft] it makes a little more sense. That "anomalies" are just the universe trying to be as efficient as possible. Nothing is rendered until something beholds it. Since nothing was looking at it, the result is different than when something actually looks at it.

>>8676496
>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right

if this isn't religion, nothing is

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8676496
>many-worlds

File: 1486950043322.jpg (163KB, 800x670px)

163KB, 800x670px

>>8676546
that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard

>>8676582
>no matter how close we look we see something new
>99.999999% of everything is empty space
Sounds reasonable to me. Let me guess, only thing not stupid is darwinism and big bang?

>>8676610
Since the other guy didn't say it, I will. Kill yourself sub-human brainlet.

>>8675074
Well done. You copped on.
Welcome to the server. We are now in open beta.

File: 1443730330959.jpg (101KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x600px

>>8676610
holy shit you're dense
you're implying that natural selection and cosmic inflation are stupid while suggesting that the world works like a Minecraft game
if you're so fucking smart go build a time machine, travel backwards 14 years and abort yourself

>>8676634
Not OP here but CAAAN do :D

>>8676549
>>8676563
the idea that many-worlds involves active "universes popping up" is a common misunderstanding. many-worlds is literally just what you get when you assume that quantum mechanics scales up as-is to describe the whole universe, not just sufficiently-small stuff which we aren't looking at. quantum mechanics already has all of the math for describing a system of multiple particles; if you treat the entire universe as a system of particles, then many-worlds is literally just "and then that giant system of particles obeys the laws of quantum mechanics". this is "many-worlds" because it means that the entire universe is in superposition, same as how with collapse, tiny systems are in superposition.

I mean, I guess if you feel like really big systems obeying the same laws as really small systems is too WEIRD and SUPERNATURAL, you might have an issue with that

>>8675074
>But, what is it about taking a measurement that makes this happen?
Sort of because it involves interacting with the system but people don't really know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

>How do we "know" that the universe was not in that state prior to measurement?
We don't but there are ways of showing that if the universe was already primed in that state prior to measurement without an inherent uncertainty then the idea of locality must be thrown out of the window.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

>>8675074
Here's how it works:

- If there's no detector, the wave function for the single-electron system evolves in the normal double-slit pattern thanks to destructive interference with itself.
- If there IS a detector, then our system involves a single electron AND the detector. So the wave starts as a spike at "electron at starting point and detector untripped". As time passes, the spike propagates toward "electron near slits, detector untripped" and spreads out, just like before. But then the wave "splits" into a front at "electron in left slit, detector untripped" and a front at "electron in right slit, detector trpiped". As it continues to propagate, we DON'T get destructive interference, because the two fronts don't come near each other in the "tripped-untripped" axis.

That's it.

>>8676763
(of course, this explanation assumes that the electron and the detector form a quantum system together. if you're a "collapse" type, you probably don't believe that's possible, since the detector is too big.)

>>8675074
>Everybody and their mama knows that making a measurement of a quantum system causes the quantum wavefunction to collapse from a superposition of probable states into single state.

No, everybody who falls for the fallacy that what cannot be measured cannot exist believes that.

Reifying ignorance is perhaps the biggest mistake in the history of science.

>>8676769
>russell's teapot

>>8676582
I thought I was being rather ironic. Sorry, if that didn't come through well enough.

>>8676634
It has been debated via philosophy since the first unheard tree fell in a forest.

>>8675074
Everything is "subjective," a reaction to a state that is "in the past." The brain-stunted believe in subjectively-fabricated objectivity. Without feelings to affect our thoughts, people are no better than rocks.

>>8675074

OP here, you all suck and that didn't help at all. Also you're adopted fags and your mothers are whores. I know this to be true because I typed it. I go forth into the rest of my life confident in this conclusion.

Just kidding. Thanks y'all.

>>8676685
>what is Schrödinger's Cat

>>8679053
"suppose that atom theory was true. now think about a cat. a cat would have to be made of atoms. that's ridiculous, cats have macro-scale non-atom like behavior. so clearly the resolution is that things are only made of atoms when we look at them under microscopes."

File: card.gif (870KB, 240x162px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 240x162px

>>>My question is, how do we "know" that quantum measurement changes the state of the universe? How do we "know" that the universe was not in that state prior to measurement?

we don't lol

the problem is foundational (the current limit of physics) we only measure the results of phenomena without ever knowing the true 'cause' of the manifestation of ANY of it...(the basis/origin of matter, what mass TRULY is, etc)

People know...but this knowledge is withheld for good reason...that's your only clue here...

nb4 Reeeeeing which why I'm glad it's suppressed desu senpai-kun

>>8676563
>Comp sci jobs

Top Gtelektheth.

>>8680190
exactly, and that's why many-worlds is a steaming pile of bs

>>8676549
Are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally?

>>8681532
amen brother

From what I recall, the idea of a probability density that collapses upon measurement is mostly a mathematical one.

Aren't quantum tunneling and particle diffraction physical phenomenon that prove that mathematical interpretation though?

>>8681479
so you agree that it's absurd to think that things are always made of atoms, instead of just when we're looking at them?

>>8681479
so you agree that it's absurd to think that things are always made of atoms, instead of just when we're looking at them?