Why does knowledge of the particle's path collapses the wave function?
Measuring it with a device changes their property. It doesn't know anything. The "observer" isn't a human, it's a device that interupts the process.
>>8124826
The measuring devices in a quantum eraser are identical.
I collapse your ass if you do not stop creating these threads.
>>8124822
think about it this way:
I give you a gift.
Until you open it, you don't know what it is.
So say it has a probability 1/100000 of being a hair dryer, 2/4762 of being a dildo, 7/56 of being a cock-ring etc.
The probability distribution is the wave function.
Once I give you the exact price, the size or once you open the gift, you collapse the "wave function" because you know exactly what you have.
>>8124943
>2016
>hidden variables
summer kids...
>>8124964
I'm a third year physics student. The comment above is not mine but I thought the hidden variable thing was true, elaborate why it isn't, I want to know.
Particles are shy and try to hide
>>8125000
Not the above poster or knowledgeable on this.
Look up Bell's theorem / experiments.
>>8124822
Wow, Wikipedia has an amazing explanation of the quantum eraser experiment, and it's amazing.
>>8124822
>knowledge of the particle's path
AKA
>measurement of the particle's path
>measurement=the particle interacts with something
>>8124964
what hidden variable?
you retarded mate
>>8124826
>the number 1 mistaken idea about quantum shit
I love when people try to prove consciousness or whatnot using weird "observer logic"
>>8126667
The point of the quantum eraser experiment is the following:
If, after a photon passes through one of the two slits, it is linearly polarized one way or another so that after detection, it can be retroactively determined which slit it passed through, then there is no interference pattern.
However, if the photons are polarized as above, except the polarization is effectively randomized (so that it cannot be retroactively determined which slit it passed through; this is the "erasure" part), then there is the same interference pattern as if the polarization hadn't happened at all.
>>8125000
Third year and doesn't know about Bell's theorem... experimental pleb
