Anyone here can explain to me the problem of observation of quantum particles and how the simple observation can change reality?
I think that people is misunderstanding the whole point and adhering to it every kind of mystic beliefs. I love science but the quantum physics world is beyond my studies, so I'm reading on it but I can't figure the experiment point on my own.
>>8015831
>Anyone here can explain to me the problem of observation of quantum particles and how the simple observation can change reality?
It doesn't.
>>8015831
remember those cards we had as kids were seeing it from one corner would wield a different image than looking at it from another corner? which image was the true one?
>>8015836
so the quantums have multiple "faces"?
Why all the importance of the discovery then? They make it sound like is much more than that
>>8015838
You can't be certain which face you're going to see.
If you do the double slit experiment with electrons you get interference. If you however, measure from which slit each electron goes through, you don't get interference.
If you have two quantum entangled particles and you measure one property, you instantly collapse both wave functions. Whether or not this means anything or is just spooky action at a distance is up for you to decide.
>>8015838
not faces, like the sides of a coin. i can't for the life of me remember how they're called. A and B see different things
at any rate, you don't know which one you'll "see" and what you "see" actually affects reality and the world around you. and here come's Schrödinger's Meme
>>8015847
i spent 3 million years in paint and forgot to post the image
>>8015834
You can just stop posting in this thread now.
OP you should google heissenberg uncertainty principal. Momentum position is one example of operator pairs that are linked such that observing one destroys knowledge about the other.
Quantum mechanics has always been very confusing to me until I discovered pilot wave theory. Apparently it is an earlier version of QM but is not as developed. Its maths/predictions should be the same though, but its premises are different. While QM says that the particle IS the wave (which is very counterintuitive to me), pilot wave theory says that the particle GENERATES a wave which propagates it in certain directions. Therefore, the particle movement is pretty random but because of that self-generated wave there are places where you are more likely to find the particle so these are your eigenfunctions. If you measure the particle, you disturb its momentum and thus change the wavefunction. This might also explain entanglement altogether - it is not faster than light communication but two particles which had initial conditions that influenced their wavefunctions in an opposite way and this propagates forward until you measure them and destroy that correlation.
This is a layman's view on QM so I might be talking complete rubbish but I think the idea is good.
>>8016179
>>8015831
And by the way, this theory gets rid of all that Schrodinger's cat or Multiverse rubbish and is much more deterministic. I have no idea why QM is the mainstream theory since if you have two mathematically equivalent theories and one sounds like science fiction surely the other one should be preferred by the scientific community? Seems not.
>>8015831
Imagine a tire gauge, you can guess what your pressure is with greater or lesser accuracy, however when you pop off the cap and insert the pressure gauge, that measurement will always be slightly different than what it actually was before you measured it. Say, for instance, some air leaks out or something of that nature. Consequently, you can never actually know what it was before you measured it, only a probabilistic bound of what it could be. Tire pressure isn't a quantum effect, this is just an analogy to conceptualize what's going on.
>>8016199
> I have no idea why QM is the mainstream theory since if you have two mathematically equivalent theories and one sounds like science fiction surely the other one should be preferred by the scientific community?
Well, the vast majority of physicists who are much smarter than you agree on QM as opposed to pilot wave theory, so apparently you're missing something.
>>8016209
Well mate there was a time when the vast majority of scientists were thinking that statistical thermodynamics was rubbish and the "aether" existed and there were also times when the idea of quantisation was also dismissed as complete nonsense. Bottom line is, if a theory is consistent with every observation, then it is equivalently legitimate because the rest of it (the premises) only boils down to belief in the end.
I am trying to teach myself more QM and eventually QFT to make sure that I am not missing something obvious but so far I cannot see anything that is valid in QM but not valid in Bohmian mechanics.
>>8016225
Doubt some kid on 4chan can get really far desu but the sky is the limit I guess
>>8016225
The problem with Bohmian mechanics is that it cannot be made Lorentz invariant and thus cannot be extended to regimes where relativistic effects occur. More traditional QM interpretations, however, are extendable and hence QFT. Thus, once you start talking about comparing Bohmian mechanics to QFT, you are comparing apples and oranges: one is Lorentz invariant and compliant with special relativity, while the other explicitly is not due to its inherent nonlocality.
>>8015831
You have to understand, that if you observe something, you must interact with it.
I always thought of it in this way:
Imagine measuring the velocity of the car with a radar gun. You are sending photons against the car and measuring the Doppler shift. You can determine the velocity of the car from it, but there's a catch - the photos had some momentum and when they hit the car and bounced back, they slowed the car! Of course, the momentum of photons is negligible compared to the macroscopic car.
But now imagine if we tried to do the same with an electron.
>>8015831
It's the method of observation.
If we had a way of observing the very tiny without shooting electrons at it and hoping a few bounce back after hitting it, then we wouldn't see that kind of phenomena.
>>8016297
Not really true. If it were, we wouldn't see things like Aharanov-Bohm effect or Berry's phase.
>>8015831
no you dont affect anything, you merely observer
the universe already is and already going to be
before you observe, you can be in any kind of universe, all possibilities are possible
but when you observe, all the possibilities collapse and you are left with one scenario, the one you observed
>>8015853
>uses ambiguous metaphors to describe something unambiguous
>>8016225
>aether
top banter
