can someone redpill me on the double slit experiment? My professor said that it was because human consciousness was actually influencing the particles. When I asked him if it was just that the act of measuring the particles necessarily acted on them he said that was wrong. Is human consciousness really affecting reality on a quantum level? seems to retarded to be true, but I don't know enough about quantum physics to have a valid opinion.
>>7691203
>My professor said that it was because human consciousness
What bum school do you attend
>>7691203
>>7691203
It's just self interference of guiding waves
>>7691203
Consciousness stuff is one interpretation (called the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation - see the Wigner's Friend thought experiment) but to say it can't be what you said is wrong. If someone tells you for sure that they know what's actually going on they're usually an idiot. We don't know, that's why we have multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics. Copenhagen, von Neumann, Many Worlds, Many Minds, Pilot Wave (Bohmian), etc.
It's a common (stupid) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It has nothing to do with the science or the observation, it's just what some people choose to believe.
The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was meant to demonstrate to people how absurd it is to attribute quantum states to macro objects, but people thought it was "like so deep how something can be like two things at once" that they chose to create a pseudo-philosophy around it even though such ideas go along with more traditional physical models just fine (which should probably tell you how irrelevant they are). "If I don't know what's behind that door then it could be anything." Whoop-dee-doo.
>>7691218
>If I don't know what's behind that door then it could be anything
This is a common misunderstanding as well. It's not that the particles are actually in an unknown state until we interact with them, it's that they are actually not in any particular state at all until they are forced to be.
>>7691203
Nope. People make this mistake a lot. QM allows for unintelligent observers. It has nothing to do with consciousness. Interaction between systems causes wave function collapse.
>>7691223
But that's the thing. When are "they forced to be?" Are they "forced to be" as soon as one particle interacts with another? Are they only "forced to be" whenever the system of information comes in contact with human observers? Or were they always "forced to be" what they were going to be from the beginning?
These questions are unanswerable by the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics and are entirely philosophical (in the worst kind of way).
so basically no one knows for sure? The human consciousness idea is still ridiculous r-right?
We observe the electrons by bombarding them with either photons or other electrons. This interference disrupts the wave aspect of the electrons passing through the slits. So instead of acting like waves, they act like newtonian objects.
Technically, the whole experience and experiment is an extension of our conciousness, but thats just hippy bullshit because so is football and all you can eat buffets.
>>7691203
Particles have a Doppler effect with the space ahead of them
That sum's the mojority of QM up in a nutshell for you OP
>>7691272
Explain the interference pattern seen when emitting 1 photon per measurement/recording.
>>7691227
>QM allows for unintelligent observers
In more ways than one.
>>7691287
Look up quantum decoherence.
>>7691293
'no'
>>7691203
>My professor said that it was because human consciousness was actually influencing the particles.
Unless this professor teaches sociology, or something similar, you're just making up bullshit.
>Is human consciousness really affecting reality on a quantum level?
Nigger, we can barely affect reality on a macroscopic level.
>>7691309
>Nigger, we can barely affect reality on a macroscopic level.
What is global warming
>>7691309
he teaches physics and seems to understand everything he teaches really well. He doesnt teach quantum physics though. Other than this shit he's actually been a great teacher and I like his class. Thats why I was so surprised when he started spouting this memery.
>>7691311
also the butterfly effect. me farting right now could have set in motion a complex series of events that will eventually lead to a massive earthquake in california and hopefully everyone in that liberal shithole dies.
>>7691302
Why are you so hostile?
>>7691415
'no'
>>7691243
That's what experiments such as delayed choice, etc. address.
>>7691317
You should try to entertain his viewpoint then. Though the consciousness stuff of quantum mechanics is not a wildly popular interpretation, it does have a few good points to it.
>observation requiring consciousness meme
change school OP
>>7691216
It's not falsifiable, tho.
>>7691429
>..good points
>citation and elaboration, please...
QM consciousness stuff is hippie pseud-scientific nonsense.
All so-called "observations" are just interference, because it is impossible to extract any information about the system without interacting with that system in some tangible, physical way that inevitably changes the state of the system a-la Newton's Third Law.
It's like poking a finger in a black box with an object suspended on a string inside. A single poke lets you know where the suspended object is, but it doesn't tell you anything about its shape, center of mass, and a number of other characteristics so you have to guesstimate. Meanwhile, the act of you poking the object disturbs the object. Sure, you can try to poke softly, but this only decreases the magnitude of resulting disturbance you add to the system and it is only viable up to a point. You will always introduce an element of uncertainty to the knowledge of the system via the simple fact that you change the system via measuring; and that's uncertainty in simple measurements of classical systems. When you get to a low-enough scale, the rules of the measurement game change because not only are you disturbing the system with your prodding, but your understanding of physics is not up to par so you have two ways to interpret the situation, either a) Your current understanding of the laws is correct and the system's behavior is not just practically, but fundamentally irreducibly random at that scale. OR b) Your understanding of the laws is flawed in ways that contribute to your measurement error, thus making the whole thing seem more capricious and random that it actually is.
On face of it, both (a) and (b) have the same practical consequences of you not being able to measure the thing, however, if you believe (b) you are likely to keep trying to prod for a better model of physics that would help reduce the measurement error.
>>7691449
this is why beginner physicists hate QM
they're fresh off an education where they're being told over and over "good science is always falsifiable" and then they get exposed to QM which may, possibly, be unfalsifiable so they kneejerk and develop a distaste for it
>>7691849
And even if you have the perfect model, your measurement error will still be there because of the practical problem of computability (how many decimal places do you need? enough to wait 1 million years for the calculation?) and inability to take a complete snapshot of all the information in a real system a-la Laplace's daemon that can't actually exist because it is itself a part of the system it is trying to simulate.
Incidentally, these hurdles also mean that you will never be able to completely validate whether your "perfect model" is actually perfect.
>>7691203
>can someone redpill me on the double slit experiment?
Can u redpill me on redpills first bro?
Measurement induces a collapse of the wavefunction (ie localization of the particle in space) because that's the way our universe chooses to quantize fields. Nobody knows why it has to be this way, except for consistency of physical law. The universe is a strange place and everything in it is weird. But it certainly doesn't give a fuck about some human consciousness and an experiment. Hence we know now that electrons aren't particles classically, but rather wave excitations in a quantum field that behave like particles when its logically necessary. Their mass prevents them from retaining a wave nature that's immediately understandable to macroscale humans.
>>7691320
>also the butterfly effect. me farting right now could have set in motion a complex series of events that will eventually lead to a massive earthquake in california
Does anyone with /sci/entific background really believe this?
It always struck me as stoner-grade bullshit.
Consider the sun.
Look how many trillions of trillions of quantum particle interactions per second are going on, each of which is truly random, and yet no matter how these go, we're very certain what the future holds for the sun.
>>7691897
The point is not that little things inevitably cause disasters (they mostly don't), but that the effect of little things over long periods of time and chains of interaction becomes increasingly more significant to a point where two dynamic models with all initial conditions identical except for some small disturbance in one of the models would look distinctly different after evolving through some set long period of time or long chain of interactions.
This is called sensitivity to initial conditions. That's what chaos is.
>>7691449
>It's not falsifiable, tho.
Sure it is.
Just look (figuratively) at quantum systems that aren't being observed consciously.
For instance, did the sun's fusion reaction work before conscious observers evolved?
And if humans have enough consciousness to trigger quantum events, you could test to see what other animals have what level of this same effect.
You could do Schrodinger's cat for real, but with different animals.
Just add a device that records when the wave function collapses.
If it happens before the box is opened, the animal has consciousness.
Except that nobody can do this because consciousness isn't required to collapse the wave function.
Clearly falsifiable.
>>7691909
Except that you're just repeating the original idea, not adding any actual explanation.
For instance, how would one quantum interaction in the sun (or a trillion for that matter) going a different way cause the sun to look "distinctly different"?
Nah, there are so many other people farting in that windstorm that the effect of one is lost in the shuffle.
>>7691920
Well the clear implication is then that consciousness is a property which is attributed to the universe itself or to particles, which is why many people dislike it. May be scientific, but people had thought of these objections basically right away
>>7691203
Your professor is either retarded, spends too much time reading Roger Penrose, or both.
Who /hiddenvariable/ here?
pic unrelated i don't think
>>7691203
I think the main problem is that physicists really fucked up with the terminology. In particular with the word "observer". It does not mean the same thing in QM (where it means something that interacts with what is to be measured) as it does in vernacular language (where it implies some sort of conscious entity). If they had just thought for 2 seconds they would clearly notice that it was a bad idea to use this word, and would instead settle on some word that doesn't ask for misinterpretations and ignorance.
This is not necessarily the case with your professor, as some people actually argue that a conscious entity is necessary for measurements (toplel), but most people's misunderstandings seem to stem from the specialized use of the word "observer".
>>7691955
>consciousness is a property which is attributed to the universe itself
Now you're just playing with semantics.
>>7691211
He was either high as fuck or not actually a professor\anyone with common sense .
Or he might be a /sci/fag trolling you .
Saying electrochemical stuff in your brain affect behaviour of quantum level stuff is like saying a rusting nail or a burning match affects light refraction.
>>7691926
Define "distinctly". You expect chaos theory to produce some effect that is emotionally significant to you. That's not what chaos theory is about. Chaos is about rearrangement of information, and while the sun may seem as white to you today as it would have a million years ago, the momenta of particles would be different than in some other parallel universe. Similarly, you can put a 1ml of blue paint into 1L of water and the dynamics of diffusion would be chaotic, i.e. the diffusion process would produce different looking trails of particles depending on slight changes in the shape of paint droplet, the ripples of water in the surface, the ever-slight liquid turbulence. But, the paint would still diffuse at a seemingly constant rate and your end solution is still going to have ratio of 1 to 1000. Sensitivity to initial conditions does not preclude statistical regularity at higher orders of magnitude.
>>7692128
There's more to consciousness than electrochemical stuff, you know.
>>7692135
Yeah? Like God? /x/ - the post
>>7691203
Nothing special about observation. Any interaction is an observation, and its not limited to a living thing looking or touching anything. Nothing special about consciousness either. No reason why it should be such a special thing to affect quantum effects. Your prof is a joke, or maybe he is fucking high.
>>7691243
It has been proved that they are in fact not "forced to be" what they were going to be from the beginning. (Bell's Theorem) The same can be said for it having anything to do with consciousness, but the proof for that is rather trivial. Like, if it had anything to do with consciousness then the fucking universe would just not work.
shut your faggot face and calculate
>>7692023
The best use I've found for "The Emperor's New Mind" is as a shim for a table. With the spine facing the wall to spare me any social embarrassment.
>>7691859
being falsifiable is one of the fucking condition to be considered science in the first place you fucking moron
>>7692938
>implying theoretical physics is science
>>7691420
I like this meme
>>7692938
False. By your reasoning evolution wouldn't be science.
