Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
File: maxresdefault.jpg (268KB, 1701x1134px) Image search:
[Google]
268KB, 1701x1134px
the concept of observation affecting the state of reality is preposterous. there is no physical difference between a particle which a non-interfering instrument is pointed at and one which is not.
it is not our observation that changes the particle, it's because we can only be certain of its qualities if and when we measure.
i know there's supposedly experiments that prove this but there has to be something missing. this and quantum entanglement sound like spooky magic bullshit, and there has to be something else going on that we don't understand.
>>
>>9100699
>spooky magic bullshit
That's because it doesn't follow our macro view and experience of the universe.
>>
>>9100699
>the concept of observation affecting the state of reality is preposterous.
Observation requires interaction which changes the state of reality. That's not even unique to quantum physics.
>there is no physical difference between a particle which a non-interfering instrument is pointed at and one which is not.
If it's not interfering then it's not interacting, not getting information, and not observing. You're not even wrong. Your point is moot.
>it is not our observation that changes the particle, it's because we can only be certain of its qualities if and when we measure.
The particle's behavior changes when information about it is obtained. That's what the double split experiment shows. So your claim is empirically false.
>I dun get id sos itz rong
Shitty bait. Fuck off.
>>
>>9100699
Look into quantum decoherence. I agree with OP, every time we have some kind of human/observer-centric phenomenon, it tends to not really be the case, and I have no reason to believe that QM should be the exception to that.
>>
>>9100717
Did you even read the OP? He's pretending to be retarded by denying measurement causes the collapse.
>>
>>9100705
Usually that means it's wrong, by intuition.
>>
File: walklittle1.gif (588KB, 250x183px) Image search:
[Google]
588KB, 250x183px
>>9100699
>i know there's supposedly experiments that prove this but there has to be something missing. this and quantum entanglement sound like spooky magic bullshit, and there has to be something else going on that we don't understand.
So you know it's true, but you don't want to believe it. No sense talking to you then...
>>
File: 20170806231637_1.jpg (312KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
312KB, 1920x1080px
Imagine that particles are 4D objects (ie, can be in many places at the same time), but we live in a slice of the 4th dimension (a time infinitesimal, or dt).
i.e. we are moving on time one 1/inf of second at the time (in reality is not 1/inf, its planks time).
When we "observe" a particle, the location of the particle got "fixed" in our time line.
Why? Because we can only see one dt of our 4D timeline (i.e. one 3D slice at the time), in this 3D slice, the particle was in a single location.
But the particle was also in many other locations in other 4D lines.
Helps if you watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA [Embed]
After the 6th dimension it gets really unbelievable, but the superstring theory seems to back all this up.
The video is really dumbed down, though.
>>
>non-interfering instrument is pointed at
No such thing. A microscope for example shoots light at your thing under study and you see how it bounces back.
>>
>>9100699
By definition you are interfering when making an observation as light will hit whatever you're observing.
>>
>>9100889
>microscopes shoot light.
wow, you learn something new every day here on /sci/.
>>
>>9100699
There is no "state of reality" there is only the data measured by an observer.
>>
let me make this simple
assume that a particles wavefunction doesn't collapse when it's measured
if the tool i use to measure its position is of x length, and it detects the particle, then there is a 100 percent probability distribution across that x length.
but, the wavefunction doesn't collapse, which means that the distribution has to either be greater than 100 percent across the wavefunction, or it is still possible for the particle to not exist in the measuring space.
both these cases are contradictory, and as such, the wave must collapse to adhere to the conservation of probability, or what we call unitarity.
when you increase momentum, this collapse is less apparent, and that's when the wave-function is like a point. this why you see shit classically, with certainty, even though it's not really the case if you have a precise enough tool.
>>
>>9100901
Nice try anon
>>
File: 1501541448124.png (17KB, 626x624px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 626x624px
what the fuck is even the point of this post? everyone agrees the QM->IRL(ie classical physics) situation is retarded hence the search for a unified theory
go back to redd it pop sci if you want to circle jerk over nothing where the only response is yeah bro i dont know man
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5