Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment, where they fire atoms at a photo sensitive wall, and they behave differently as if grains of sand or waves, depending on if there's a fucking camera that's on, observing them?
>>8177082
Yes, I've heard of it but unfortunately it does not interest me. The lowly physicist can provide an adequate explanation, but the phenomena will never be as perplexing as the intricacies of pure mathematics.
>>8177082
Yes, I heard of that.
> depending theres a camera
It's a measurement device that actually interferes with the process retard, not just a camera.
Next time read the fucking paper rather than just the title of it.
Nope never heard of it but it sounds like irrefutable evidence that conciousness plays a central role in the cosmos and can literally reshape reality. Makes me feel like we should all become Zen monks instead of worrying about numbers and shit.
Experiment only works during full Moon and in the presence of a quantum fairy.
>>8177093
I just watched this video on youtube with this guy that didn't even explain the experiment very well, because I was talking to my friend on skype and he wanted to show it to me. I thought it sounded weird so I thought I'd make a thread about it on this forum, that was one of the first things I asked him was what kind of "camera" as he called it was being used, would the same results apply if it was just someone looking at it or standing their with their eyes closed so they couldn't see? Absolutely I think the condition of the experiment plays a role, but all I have is this shitty youtube video my friend showed me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
>>8177088
you need to get laid.
>>8177391
scholars of the pure sciences such as us don't need to get laid. Personally I'm still on my way to becoming a wizard despite being a male model. The 95/5 men/women ratio in our fields also helps.
>>8177397
>implying you wouldn't lay qt men
senpai...
>>8177096
Kill yourself.
>>8177082
The problem is you want to fight it and you don't believe it and that's normal but you need to give up before you can begin learning quantum mechanics otherwise you'll never "get" it since you'll be too busy fighting it that at most you will only be able to rote memorize facts. Accept it, and allow yourself to build on it and that's when you will learn.
The predictions of quantum mechanics are probability distributions. If you repeat the same experiment multiple times, what happens in the long term.
This is an actual picture of the wall when this experiment is done. Only particles are sent through. The probability distribution becomes the wave, you can't see this probability wave, only its effects of interference in the long term.
At the end of the day QM is a model that matches up with reality, and if you take the predictions seriously we end up with all sorts of weird stuff and no one's proven it to be seriously wrong yet.
>>8177082
DUDE
ELECTRON ARE SOUND WHEN U LOOK AT THEM :O
>>8177464
DUDE
HAHAHAH
LIKE
WAVES
LMAO
>>8177455
So I don't understand what he means in the video when he talks about the particles behaving as either grains of sand or waves. That makes absolutely no sense, but what was even more annoying is that people are trying to claim that the particles are somehow self aware, and they act differently when they're not being observed, or something. That doesn't make any sense at all, we're viewing the experiment (if this even is a real experiment) at a quantum level, right? So, the apparatus responsible for the experiment must be responsible for recording it somehow, something must be going on in the experiment that is causing the particles to behave differently while they're being monitored by whatever device is monitoring then.
>>8177535
Welcome to the wave-particle duality kid. Some behavior is like a wave, some is like a particle. Confusing? It'd be more concerning if it didn't confuse you.
>>8177082
>depending on if there's a fucking camera that's on
DELET THIS
It depends on the amount of decoherence imparted on the photons. Plz stop reading pop sci.
>>8177535
>So, the apparatus responsible for the experiment must be responsible for recording it somehow, something must be going on in the experiment that is causing the particles to behave differently while they're being monitored by whatever device is monitoring then.
Yes. Any measuring device necessarily interacts with the particles. This interaction causes decoherence which destroys the superposed state of the particle and collapses it into a definite state "early" as opposed to the same happening when the photon hits a detector. It has nothing to do with "observing" and everything to do with "interacting".
>>8177082
The double slit experiment is where I fuck your mom and sister at the same time
>>8177791
Not quite. It's actually information-based. If they use the plate to record the position of the photon as it is entering and look at it, then the interference pattern will be a normal (non-wave) distribution. As long as the data exists, showing that the particle is in fact a particle and not a wave, then the distribution will show it as a particle.
However, if they record the data, then erase it, then a wave-formation is shown. It's the presence of the data that determines if the distribution is wave or normal. Look up the delayed erasure double slit experiment.
It also gets even more freaker when they entangle two particles and send them on different path. One particle almost immediately hits a screen, and the other particle goes through a series of deflectors that determine if it will be a wave or normal distribution.
Since the particles are entangled, they should have the same behavior. And they do. But that behavior is not determined until the second particle passes through the deflectors. The particle that hits the first screen always shows the distribution pattern of the second particle, even though the second particle technically hadn't hit the screen to determine the distribution yet. Essentially, the first particle knows what the other particle is going to do in the future. Which makes since for some particles since they travel at the speed of light and thus do not experience time.
>>8178017
*sense
Here's a good video about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
>>8177954
>>8178017
Thanks for the fairly detailed explanation. I had heard of delayed-choice but it's been a little while and of course there are plenty of bad resources available among the good ones.
>>8178044
I tried to go in with with a completely open mind, and was irritated by the use of loaded terminology like "knowledge" and "consciousness". It was mostly good, but it seems impossible to find any explanations of QM phenomenon that do not attempt to impose an interpretation. Sticking to "information" seems much more honest, in my admittedly uneducated view. Feel free to tell me if you think that's an overreaction. Thanks.
>>8178067
I'm not a physicist and I don't know if there's any actual physicists on this board, just a lot of shitposters. Even if we did have a physicist, it's unlikely that they specialize in this area. But yeah, I agree that consciousness isn't the right term. It's whether the data exists. If the data is recorded on a computer somewhere or any other knowledge of that information, then that suffices.
I want them to try is a new experiment similar to the Kim et al one, with the two entangled particles. Except the second particle has a much longer travel distance. Enough travel distance that you could analyze the results from the first particle. So then you could tell what path the other particle is going to take. Then switch the instruments so that the particle actually takes another route. In theory you should be able to see the data that was recorded actually change. Hell, it might even change what you perceived you saw the data as, your memory of the data. How else could it possibly work?
I try to reproduce experiment result with my flashlight at home and i don't saw any interference pattern.
What i do wrong?
>>8178145
You were looking at the experiment, so your consciousness changed the outcome.
>>8178085
Interesting thought. Maybe that's what's happening all the time. I mean how would we know right.
>>8178145
I'm not a physicist and can't promise you which details matter, but I would suggest it might be lack of polarization of light from a flashlight. A couple years ago I cut a couple slits in a folded double-thick piece of paper and shined a cheap laser level at it in darkness and was able to see a very faint interference pattern.
Another possibility is too much light going around/through the material you put the slits in.
>>8177455
That's not a very accurate explanation. It makes it seem like the particles act only as particles the whole time and it's the average path of the particles that's the wave. What quantum physics tells us is that each particle is actually a wave. The board that the particle hits is a also measuring device, and only when it hits the board does it "coheres" into a point. If you put a measuring device at the slits, then the particle "coheres" before it hits the board and takes the normal path of a particle.
>>8178145
the problem is in light source. flashlight emits "white" light, which has wide spectrum of colors (wavelengths) and interference depends on wavelength. To fix it get some laser or LED.
