>consciousness creates reality!
Give me your best rejoinder.
>>537783
Total bullshit
>>537783
The best rejoinder is a silent, incredulous stare.
the term "observer" is analogical in quantum physics talk, it doesn't mean that literally looking at things messes them up, it means that introducing new forces to a system messes them up. On the quantum level things are so small that the light produced by e.g. a microscope is enough to push a particle in one way or another so you can never have a completely accurate measurement. Not because of any weird consciousness magic but because on that scale there is no such thing as a negligible amount of force.
>>537805
10/10 post
Pls /his/, save this post and read it the next time you think you have an "opinion" or an "insight" regarding physics.
>also /thread
>>537805
We cannot know precisely both the momentum and position of a particle. The more precisely we know one thing the less we know the other.
Why that is, is hard to say. You say its all explained by the nature of measuring but you are confusing the uncertainty principal with the observer effect. Heisenberg was not arguing these inaccuracies were caused by our measurements he was saying this is just the way things are.
>>537892
Also \thread
Heisenbergs Uncertanty Principle >>537805
>We cannot know precisely both the momentum and position of a particle. The more precisely we know one thing the less we know the other.
This is a FUNDAMENTAL property of nature. It cannot be overcome with better instruments or techniques
Observer Effect
>changing the state of a phenomenon by the act of observing it
This often CAN be overcome by better instruments or techniques. It is NOT a fundamental property of nature but simply a practical nuisance.
Particle/Wave Duality
>The fact that fundamental particles (like electrons) exhibit both particle-like and wave-like properties
Also a FUNDAMENTAL property of nature. The double slit experiment is a demonstration of wave-like behavior of electrons. Trying to explain this by using the particle model gives paradoxical and counter intuitive results (i.e. a particle is said to pass through both slits at the same time!)
OP’s pic refers to the “wave function collapsing”. Which non-beta’s misinterpret as having some deep philosophical meaning.
>So OP’s pic and statement are both total bull crap.
Apparently a FUNDAMENTAL property of 4chan
>>540520
>Trying to explain this by using the particle model gives paradoxical and counter intuitive results
But if this is due to the observer effect as in
>our tools are influencing the results
How do we know that the particle/wave duality is actually a thing?
>>538310
He was actually talking about the common misunderstanding of what the term "observer" means in discussions about quantum physics. Most of this post isn't on topic.
>theory supports the experiment
>the experiment proves the theory
Top kek
