Nothing makes my skin crawl more than reading up on quantum mechanics and learning how flimsy the fundamental principles of our reality are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
TLDR:
> Light is shown through 2 slits and exhibits an interference pattern, meaning it is acting as a wave and not a particle.
> Detectors are placed by each slit to keep track of which slit the photons go though.
>Suddenly, the light stops showing an interference pattern, meaning it is acting as a particle.
>Thinking the detectors might be interferon with the experiment, scientists leave the detectors on, but don't allow them to record any of the data.
>The light makes an interference pattern again.
>Photons behave a certain way only if we are directly observing them.
>Reality is relative and not as objective as most people make it out to be.
>>17743892
Fake and gay
>>17743894
You think what is fake exactly?
>>17743894
This is a real scientific phenomenon you ape.
Wow OP you sure are fucking retarded, please remove yourself from the gene pool
>>17743900
the universe is fake and gay
>>17743919
Ok, you try to explain this then. What do you think about this phenomenon?
>>17743929
>quantum physics in a nutshell
>>17743892
They have also done a variation of the experiment called the Delayed Erasure experiment where they had the detectors record the data, but destroyed the information before the results were viewed. Still exhibited a interference pattern.
>>17743953
That means it's the process of measurement that's interfering, not the act of observation. Not that spoopy, anons.
>>17743976
Its literally the exact same experiment, the only difference is whether we look at the data from the sensors or not. If we look at the data, there is no interference pattern. If we don't look at the data, there is an interference pattern. The process of measuring the data is consistent.
>>17743892
>how flimsy the fundamental principles of our reality are.
Just because we haven't fully understood the extent of the universe physical laws and constants doesn't make it "flimsy", or "spooky", or even "supernatural". Is it weird? Fuck yes it is. Can we explain how and why it behaves that way? Not yet.
Your entire post and point is just dripping with "It's scary because I don't understand it! HURR!"
go to /sci/ with this, they could shed better light on it than the nutjobs here could. You're about to trigger more cancerous "we in da matix bro", "ITS BECUZ SATURN DEATH CULTZ WAKE UP SHEEP", and "CERN GUNNA DESTROY WORLD WITH BLACK HOLES HURR" type of bullshit bringing it here.
>>17744005
I'm not sure about that, Anon. Can you link me to sauce?
>>17744011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhMIz_iJtzQ
The scientist begins talking about it around the 12 minute mark.
If you want me to cite the actual experiment itself, It would take me a bit more time to dig up.
>>17744007
Whats scary about it isn't simply that we don't understand how it works, but that it takes the most basic principles of science and flips it upside down. Im not saying its supernatural or anything, hell I'm not even jumping to that conclusion. I just find the notion that we don't know nearly as much as we think to be rather unsettling in a more subtle.
Huh, so this is actually how Schrodinger's Cat works. I never really understood that before.
>>17743953
Isn't that literally a disproof of omniscience? If knowledge of which slit the photons go through causes a change, then no being knew which slit those photons went through until the scientists looked at the results from the detectors.
>>17744067
No, an omniscient being would likely just view reality and particle/wave duality differently than we do.
>>17744039
Honestly I find it to be even stranger than most supernatural things. At least with the supernatural weird things exist within their own sphere of influence, but with this all matter is essentially "supernatural" in it's very nature.
>>17744067
Yes. If a particle has a known position, it has no knowable momentum. If a particle has a known momentum, it has no knowable position.
It's not that it's not measurable by any known science. It's that it's literally impossible for that to happen. It's undefined. Like dividing by zero.
This is why Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." He didn't disagree with quantum mechanics, he was just really uncomfortable with the implications of its consequences.
>>17744123
Didn't he literally call it spooky science?
>>17744132
He described some aspects of quantum mechanics in an attempt to dismiss it. And was later proven wrong.
That's not an appeal to the paranormal, that was just another case of him being uncomfortable with the implications.
So does this concept make the idea that we are living in a simulation seem more likely? In a way it sounds like the universe doesn't fully render things that aren't being viewed directly, similar to how old computer games would have fog covering distant areas that you haven't reached yet.
Has anyone tried lying to the people conducting the experiment about which slit the photons go through to see if it's actual knowledge that causes it or if it only requires belief? Like have the detectors record, delete the data, then give the scientists conducting the experiment fake data and see if they still see an interference pattern.
>>17744145
I mean thats one way of looking at it. The main theory is that when its not being observed these photons (this experiment has been done with electrons as well) exist not as a definite thing, but a statistical possibility. Its only when we make an observation that the event becomes concrete.
Nothing makes my skin crawl more than reading a post on /x/ where someone tries to explain quantum phenomenon.
fix'd
>>17744156
Shit anon, thats a good idea. Id be really interested in seeing the results of that variation.
Literally the first thing anybody learns about quantum mechanics. How do you people not know this?
>>17744145
No. You're still not grasping the consequences of the Uncertainty Principle.
Listen, people talk about quantum mechanics here, and on Discovery channel documentaries, and other places using vague metaphors about billiard balls and waves and breaking eggs. These metaphors are all really bad and fail to give a real description of what's going on. The only real way to discuss quantum mechanics is with math. And the math is too complicated for casual conversations with normal people, or for TV documentary audiences. So that's why they use the bad metaphors. So I'll try to explain this without directly getting into math.
In QM, they use equations to describe everything. An atom sitting in a lattice. An x-ray. An electron flowing down a wire. You can even use equations to describe completely hypothetical things like imaginary particles in a one dimensional box.
So every particle has an equation, and the equation literally describes fundamentally everything about a particle. Doesn't matter the particle. An electron, an iron atom, you, me, an elephant at the zoo.
The equation can describe its mass. Its position in any x,y,z coordinate. It's speed, if any. The direction it's going in, etc. Now the problem is that for any particle there's uncertainty. You, me, the elephant, we're all so big that it's immaterial. But for small particles it becomes important, and measurable, observable.
cont...
>>17744170
There are two important variables in this equation relevant for discussion, there's an operator for position, and there's an operator for momentum. And those operators don't commute. What does that mean? It means if you have one, you can't have the other. It means they are in essence mutually exclusive. They're incompatible with each other, at a fundamental level. If you had some magic magnifying glass and could record an objects position, you can never understand its momentum, it would be completely undefined, again like dividing by zero. And vice versa. In most cases you have a vague idea about a particles position, and a vague idea about a particle's momentum. If you try to gain information about one, you lose info about the other. What once was a clear discrete particle, is now smeared out into an indistinct wave.
And this is fundamental. God can't know both the position and momentum of a particle any more than divide by zero or make 1 +1 = 3. Same would be the case with anybody running a "simulation." They wouldn't be able to determine both either.
>>17744161
It kinda seems like there is some sort of system in place that keeps track of what is being viewed. It would be interesting if there was some way at looking at the particles that haven't been observed yet and seeing what the non-concrete state of reality actually is.
>>17744161
No, that's the classic misunderstanding.
>>17744177
Cool!
>>17744177
Mate, divided by zero gives perpetual motion... which the cosmos is in.
(:|
Its in cycles of perpetual motion.
>>17744228
>cycles of perpetual motion
>=0
Machine cosmos
In perpetual motion, which is a constant {recycling transitions}.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443B6f_4n6k
>>17744065
That's not really related to Schroedinger cat
The cat works of principle that stuff is undecided unless observed
This is something behaving differently if it ever gets observed by humans
Too bad they didn't test it on animals
You put millions of hrs of energy in, to gets tiny weeny bit out...
All is not wasted.
From that teeny weeny bit, you gets all that back and more.
Or do you, gets more, muahhahahahha.
>>17743892
>Thinking the detectors might be interferon with the experiment, scientists leave the detectors on, but don't allow them to record any of the data.
Gr8 b8 m8. All observations strictly refer to measurement devices and not conscious beings. In the experiment, the observation was always the sensors and never the observers. There's a quantum interaction happening that obeys Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
All particles have a wavelength contained in some volume. A photon is not some ball of happenstance energy following throughout, it's a three dimensional wave of the electromagnetic force propagating through a medium.
>>17744039
>it takes *our current understanding of* the most basic principles of science and flips it upside down.
FTFY
>I just find the notion that we don't know nearly as much as we think to be rather unsettling
Still reading as "it's scary because I don't understand it".
>>17744122
>with this all matter is essentially "supernatural" in it's very nature.
This is self contradicting. If something is a natural occurrence (and despite our lack of understanding, the odd behaviors on quantum scales are still strictly natural) it is not "supernatural".
C'mon guys, take this to /sci/. It's a very interesting topic, to be sure, but you aren't going to get anything out of it here other than pseudo-scientific bullshit and delusional nut jobs playing pretend at knowing anything.
>>17744458
>take this to /sci/. It's a very interesting topic
It's really not. Pretty much everybody that's studied quantum mechanics has likely heard of the experiment.
>>17744132
He said quantum entanglement were "spooky action at a distance m"
Realists have been BTFO since QM was discussed at Copenhagen. The Schrödinger equation shows that there is no objective reality, determinism is an illusion and most of all, that there has to be a conscious observer. This is pretty unambiguous in the model, but Einstein was so butthurt about it that they framed the "copenhagen interpretation" which just pretends that the bits of QM that realists don't like can just be ignored.
This again was BTFO since by the von Neumann interpretation, and by many clever experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser which prove EMPIRICALLY that there is no objective reality without an observer and that determinism is an illusion.
>>17744007
/sci/ is as retarded as /x/ when it comes to this experiment. Also they made a complex version of this experiment where it was proven that we can decide de outcome just by measuring the data. It doesn't matter what we use to do it, but we still CAN alter the outcome.
Does this mean we are psychic? No. It means, though, that we are valid observers and can build systems that alter the outcome of this experiment. This means something really spooky is going on, as it doesn't matter how you do it or where, but observing alters light and therefore matter and energy. As self-aware observers, that gives us quite some power.
The extended version of this experiment simply means that it doesn't matter if you erase your data as long as there was an observer in that point in time.
How much did I misinterpret this fuckery?
>>17744449
>implying spontaneous measurement
Mainstream physics has been trying to do away with that scenario and wasted a century doing so, leading to junk, unprovable theories like superstring and many-worlds.
Both of these have been trying and failing to shoehorn gravity as a quantum force, fortunately it is now becoming more mainstream (again) to consider the role of a conscious observer in QM; which was the mainstream thinking in the early days of QM.
>>17743892
Neo-platonism bro.
>>17744656
>determinism is an illusion
Any good books or articles explaining this bit?
Ok so correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean conscious beings have the power to turn probability to physical reality by observing? What kind of being has the power to do this - human, animal, computer?
>>17745071
That is what many would like to believe, whatever the truth is? Who knows
>>17743892
Radiant energy and measured speed, I would say.
>>17743892
Quantum entanglement will blow your mind.
>>17744145
Do you really think that if the universe were a simulation, you would be able to tell by identifying aspects of reality that are vaguely similar to how the technical aspects of exponentially less complex "simulations" like video games work?
That seems really silly to me, to assume that a simulated universe would work anything like the video games contained within it.
The universe is vibrating strings nigga
>>17744662
do you think humans are self aware?
>>17744677
Dubs don't lie my friend.
>>17745301
To some extent. It has moments of lucidity. Neurologically speaking the brain can change the brain.
The brain knowing it can change itself gives us some power.
>>17745071
That would play pretty nice with this whole law of attraction theory
>>17744169
We're all 12
The quantum eraser experiments kick it up a notch further....
Google it.
>>17743892
>double split experiment
>double split
>split experiment
>split
>SPLIT
>>17745479
>mfw this entire thread and every high school dropout posting in it
>>17745510
If nobody is there to observe the banana, it doesn't split when it's cut in half....
>>17745623
>mfw people make fun of high school dropouts posting on a Malaysian furry porn image board, despite ending up at the very same place as said high school dropouts
>>17745467
>quantum eraser experiments
That is fucking sorcery, what? It was weird before, this is much weirder. It doesnt even matter when its measured? Who coded this reality?
>>17745649
It's some fucked up shit, is it not?
NOBODY has been able to offer a reasonable explanation for this shit.
>>17745626
If you're making a banana split, start with a hot fudge enema and finish with whipped cream and a cherry
>>17745655
Im not really smart enough to follow this stuff past a certain point. What is this implying about cause and effect and time if it doesnt even matter when you measure it?
>>17745681
>What is this implying...
That we're a lot dumber than we think we are.
What's really fucking crazy is that ever since they figured this shit out, they've been using larger and larger particles in the experiment, and they're getting the same results.
So when you have MULTIPLE joined particles moving in ways that don't make sense, you have to ask yourself where does it end? How large can you go before shit starts making sense again?
>>17745692
>they've been using larger and larger particles in the experiment, and they're getting the same results.
This isn't just light? what else does it apply to?
I guess for me, as an uneducated lay person who's just interested in science... it means that there is some fundamental element of reality we have failed to grasp. I mean that's not new, it comes up all the time, but this one is a doozy.
It really does, from this information, feel as if reality is being written "on the fly" somehow, as it is observed, it's almost as if there is a finite amount of information and in order to save space, the information isnt encoded until its required, and its erased when it no longer is.
Which honestly sounds fairly supportive of a simulated reality.
>>17745704
>This isn't just light? what else does it apply to?
>>Researchers have sent molecules containing either 58 or 114 atoms through the so-called "double-slit experiment," showing that they cause an interference pattern that can only be explained if the particles act like waves.....
Link: http://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experiment-largest-molecules.html
>Which honestly sounds fairly supportive of a simulated reality.
There's quite a few people that propose this, however, I think it's way too soon to come to that conclusion considering how little we actually know about the quantum world, and the interactions that take place at that level.
>>17745725
>it's way too soon
oh well certainly, Im just some idiot speculating on the internet, Im not really concluding that, I just think its interesting.
if literally everything including complex large molecules behave in the same fashion I think its safe to assume that they will behave in the same fashion across the various slit experiments.
For me, the more simple solution Im wondering, is whether we are not missing something very fundamental like "particles themselves dont exist" like, particle physics in its entirety is flawed and were misrepresenting very old data based on how were observing it.
I dont know how to express what Im saying here but maybe its that particles as we think of them don't actually exist so our experiments are flawed, if everything is just varying wave forms, and weve misinterpreted certain wave forms to be "particles" then what the test is actually showing is that the waves can change based on observation. Not that they fundamentally change their structure?
Again, Im kind of too dumb to fully follow this stuff.
>>17745751
>we are not missing something very fundamental
We are.
IMO, we don't actually understand what "space" is, or how matter and energy interact with it.
Hell, we probably don't even understand what the fuck matter is either...
>>17744007
So you're saying that the saturn death cultists at CERN are not going to break the matrix with black holes and free us all?
>>17745764
>IMO, we don't actually understand what "space" is
considering that all signs point to all of time existing at once, and our perception of linear time being a flawed perspective, Id say thats a fair bet.
>Hell, we probably don't even understand what the fuck matter is either...
yeah, black holes pretty much completely prove that.
>>17745791
And yet people make definitive statements all the time, like "faster than light travel is not possible...", and assorted other stupid shit based on our own ignorance.
>>17743892
>be OP
Hello Tom Campbell.
I enjoyed your Calgary lectures very much. The spiritual shit was a bit shit and to be frank I didn't watch the last one, but your take on the double-slit experiment has now left me with enough material to create a thread on an inconspicuous malaysian hentai bulletin board and argue with retards who have no idea as to what the fuck I'm talking about.
To be honest, Tom, I don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about myself.
It's great!
Yours Sincerely,
Anonski.
/OP
>>17745893
You know it's this, OP.
>>17743892
Reality is not "flimsy", there are rulesbin place that give seemingly random outcomes. This is no different from a random number generator in a videogame, input-> randomization-> outcome. Just because you don't understand the middle step does not make it unstable or flimsy.
You all need haramein
>>17745646
>mfw u r so mad about it tho
>>17743892
CONSCIOUSNESS IS EVERYTHING. USE YOURS TO CREATE YOUR REALITY.....
The thing that you call realisty is just one of the possible combination that you consciousness is observing at the current moment.
It's not simulation, it's not magic, it's just that our consciousness is "flawed" in certain way, that we only grasp one possible effect from infinity combinations.
The "your thoughs become reality" is truth, but most people interpretate it in the wrong way. You are not changing anything, because there is nothing to change to begin with, everything already happened and time is a made up term.
>>17746454
Do people like you envision yourself as some wise sage passing knowledge onto "lesser people." Your bullshit spiel is the definition of babble.
>>17743892
It's people like you, who don't actually understand science, that make stupid lies like this popular. If you want to learn about Young's doubles slit experiment, and maybe even the preceding single slit experiment, go look it up on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with reality being relative at all, and you thinking that it does just goes to show how idiotic and gullible some people can be.
You used wave particle duality to demonstrate this? Really? Look up something called the quantum zeno effect, much better illustration at the point you're trying to male, not that its a good effect...
>>17747399
You know what, you're probably correct. But listen, people like you might be the reason why "normal" people are scared to learn science, because when they do, all these vitriolic people start shaming them for not knowing as much as they do or misinterpreting something, which leads people to turn to "fake science". Realise you're also a part of the problem.
>>17743929
But gay in the happy meaning
>>17746327
Scientologist detected
>>17744005
Wait a second. If no one is looking the data, how do we know what kind of pattern it has?
>>17748380
Ask anyone why science is scary and the obvious answer is that it's hard
people getting their shit rightfully kicked in on 4chan has nothing to do with that, you're just trying to be self-righteous. die
>>17744260
>This is something behaving differently if it ever gets observed by humans
But that's the point of shrödinger's cat. The radio active material inside the box will not radiate and kill the cat unless you look inside box, because the radiation behaves as wave forms when not observed. When looking inside the box they appear as partilces and thus the cat would die.
But this is assuming the cat can't observe.
The only thing quantum mechanics proves is that we are all as dumb as we think we are smart
>>17749193
>die
Okay yup you proved my point faggot
>>17749472
>waaah someone on /x/ said mean thing
>science as a field is mean
you need to realize how dumb you are
>>17749472
>thinking I'm a scientist
>thinking that 4chan comments prove your point
>not realizing you are getting insulted for a good reason
>>17749481
Nice strawman, never said science as a field is mean. Just said that shaming or being vitriolic towards people who are interested in the field might turn a lot of people off.
>>17749381
This guy gets it. There is nothing inherently creepy or even weird about quantum mechanics. It is just the modern age equvalent to lightning, comets, mental illnesses and other stuff people couldnt understand.
>>17743892
>flimsy
No. If they were flimsy then you could phase through your couch. Do you phase through your couch very often? No? Well then that's because it isn't flimsy, it's exceedingly reliable. Have you ever heard stories about people phasing through their couch? No? Well that's because if it wasn't as reliable as it is, then it would be an entirely separate quantum world where you could say it was flimsy. In ours, it's rock solid. Literally, the fundamental forces are powerful enough to hold rocks together on a mass scale.
>>17749681
but as it turns out phasing through couches is possible, it's just astronomically unlikely on a macroscopic scale
>>17749685
You're literally retarded, I feel sorry for you. Seek help.
>>17749687
damn, right through my heart, anon. Tell my wife I lvoe her
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
>>17749706
>le wikipedia meme
I will not fail for the bait. I will not fail for the bait.
>>17749722
You just did! Hahahaha!
>>17749685
>astronomically unlikely on a macroscopic scale
That's what I said. Our reality isn't defined by the quantum foam the way a reality where macroscopic quantum tunneling was a thing would be. In that kind of reality, you'd see macroscopic divergence all over the place. We don't see that so we know we're not in a macroquantum reality. We may co-habit a spacial rift where such realities do occur in simultaneity to our own, but since we see macrophysics work the way it does here, we know that such a world is macroseparate from our own.
>>17743894
You are fake and gay and real and straight and neither
>>17744007
>implying
>>17749722
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
Better?
>>17749359
Yeah, assuming the cat is an observer the experiment doesn't work because the wave function is already collapsed when you open the box.
(Your main reason for posting was the fact that you could use that image, be honest.)
>>17743894
top kek
>>17743892
Just means humans fucked up their experiment. Come back in 20 years
>>17746454
>everything already happened and time is a made up term.
SOLID. STATE. UNIVERSE.
>>17748382
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lKFQxdLXgs
>>17749359
>>17750116
I think a lot of people misunderstand the "observer" part of this thought experiment. Any device that can measure how active the material is, would be considered an observer.
>>17750162
So basically the universe is lazy and doesn't calculate the answer to the observer's "question" of what happened until some observer "asks"
>Thought physics was pretty cool
>Find out about the delayed quantum erasure experiments
>If the collapse of a wave function doesn't have a discernible effect on the future, it doesn't collapse even if it was 'observed'.
>Oh neat, that looks like... code optimization...
I. AM. AFRAID.
>>17750174
Ya know, like how a game wont render a part of the world until the user is there to see it.
>>17750226
Light makes connections forward in time and gravity prunes the dead paths. It's a massive meta-time brain.
>>17750174
It think it is more about how we dont understand enough about the universe. We basically have two different sets of theories to explain the universe. But they are mutually exclusive and fall apart at certain things
>>17750270
like how if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it doesnt make a noise
>>17743894
lol perfect example of the "skeptic" fedora type. >Hurr saying everything out of the ordinary is fake makes me look intelligent.
>>17751561
no and no
>>17750116
It makes the argument more interesting.
Does a character in anime wear panties or not under the skirt?
Sometimes it looks as if they don't because you can't see them at all when you should have seen part of them. Sometimes it could be explained by them wearing string.
But it's a real issue.
When Moomin was being animated, they had to ask the author what one of the characters was wearing under the skirt because in the comic book the skirt never flew up so they couldn't know.
The author was first offended because she had never considered it. They ended up giving her pantalons under the skirt, which can be seen clearly with all the jumping and falling in the anime.
So it's not a made up thing. Is she wearing panties or not? It could be both, until you lift the skirt high enough, because a drawn character has neither if not shown.
>>17753014
But we assume the universe exists outside of perception
>>17745893
kek
>>17745467
>The quantum eraser experiments kick it up a notch further....
Maybe we are in a computer program after all, and all this is just how the computer conserves processing power.
"Assuming a very basic background in what quantum mechanics is generally about, the paper "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness" in Annalen der Physik does a great job of answering your question (http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-...).
But even without getting into the delayed choice experiments, the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation and Von Neumann chains, etc., consider the simple fact that if we very narrowly examine what "observation" is in quantum mechanics we can see, from a layman's perspective, why the observer wouldn't have to be conscious. For example, when we "look" at something, we're bouncing photons off of it and then collecting some of the photons back again. This bouncing causes something to happen at the subatomic scale. And it turns out there isn't really any way we can measure/observe something without affecting it in such a way, no matter how minute the effect might be. So the reason observation causes wavefunction collapse (or the appearance of wavefunction collapse) and all this seemingly spooky behavior in quantum mechanics isn't because of some underlying metaphysical theory of consciousness - it's just because measurements always affect systems at least a little bit.
"
>>17743892
>>Reality is relative and not as objective as most people make it out to be.
Welcome to the rabbit hole. OP.
>>17743953
>They have also done a variation of the experiment called the Delayed Erasure experiment where they had the detectors record the data, but destroyed the information before the results were viewed. Still exhibited a interference pattern.
This is interesting because it means the wave or particle nature of the photon can see into the past and future with regards to measurements (interactions) made (about to be made?).
Point: Never fuck with a quantum physicist. They know things you can't even imagine. LIke, what if people can use this technology to sample a data stream and see from the nature of the stream now whether or not an interaction will ever occur in the future? You could, theoretically, tell who you are going to marry, who is going to be president in your timeline, things like that. What if they have this technology, and quantum physicists (or maybe some, or even just one of them) just keep it from people?
>>17743953
wrong explanation, and sadly very hard to correct if you don't have sufficient background in qm
>>17745071
interaction of any system with another at sufficient magnitudes affects the outcome.
>>17755145
No, measurement causes collapse, not interaction.
You can make a measurement without any kind of interaction taking place.
OP, just delete this thread. First of all learn to spellcheck. And all you who fell for it and started arguing science, go to sleep, you're pathetic troll-ees.
>>17743892
Nothing is real
>>17743892
This isn't right. If the detectors are left on the interference pattern is destroyed regardless of recording it or not.
>>17743915
>>17744667
>>17750095
>>17750120
>>17751589
>le fake shit is real cause I said so gaiz!!
Go back to redshit you fucking retarded prole.
>>17744065
Schrödinger's cat is a paradox (a cat can't be alive and dead at the same time) intended to challenge ideas of quantum mechanics rather than support them.
>>17743929
This
>>17743892
Fuck thats horrifying, I mean I've heard of this phenomenon before but I never really understood it until now. You realize this literally means
A) Nothing is real and everything is a simulation
Or
B) Light is alive and knows when we are watching, what do you think it's doing when we're not looking?
>>17743953
Source
>>17755337
>You can make a measurement without any kind of interaction taking place.
Thats silly
>Needs observer {you can make} to interact and measure.
>>17744156
sounds like some literal SCP testing shit
>>17744169
>ever learning about quantum mechanics in conventional education
who would need it and why waste time and money teaching it? those who haven't been taught will assume it's too complex for them to want to look into it.
>>17745704
haha, why vampires have no reflection? ghosts can't be photographed?
>>17751849
yes, because sound is only vibration until it is perceived by an organ or otherwise measuring device that can translate vibration into auditory form
>>17744177
>Measure its momentum= Never know its position.
>measure its position = never know its momentum.
Ok well how about measurement of its position over a period of time? We should then gain knowlwdge of its position momentum amd direcrion(s) of travel.
Or am i just farting into a baloon here with that idea?
>>17756100
Me again.
Had an idea:
Is the particle somehow interfered with, by observing it?
Is this interferance great enough to cause it to be fundamentally changed in its nature?
>>17756153
Yes you need to interfere with a particle to observe it. It's not like taking a photo of a bird flying past a camera, the observed photons must go into the camera.
>>17744005
You're an idiot.
Anon is right, it is the act of measuring that collapses the probability function and makes the photon act as a particle. Rather, it is being tied to a non-quantum event that does so.
When we're talking about quantum phenomena, observation does not mean CONSCIOUS observation. It could be called interaction to be less confusing, but this is technically incorrect.
>>17756100
You're onto something. Quantum chem noob here. Stay with me, a bit of background info first.
A wave-function is literally a function that's a wave. That means it can be described by trigonometric relationships, just like all vibrations in nature. Fancy guy, Pythagorus. Wave-functions as they apply to quantum are used to describe the probability density of a given particle/wave. Say you shoot a photon into an electron cloud. The illustrations of molecules in Chem textbooks is like the 90% probability border that an electron interacts with an electron. That there is nothing beyond this wave/particle nature is what freaks people out.
Basically look up the Schrodinger equation and understand that it's not derived, but a fundamental relationship of nature, sort of like F=ma. Basically some operator, H (known as Hamiltonian), performs on a wave-function psi, and returns the energy of the wave-function times the wave-function. Input an eigenfunction and get an eigenvalue. The lowest energies determine what wave-function the system adopts. Multiple particles can be understood as one wave-function or many through Fourier transformations, look up quantum statistics. Check out Wikipedia's video on Bose-Eintstein condensate; super helpful.
Look up particle in a box. You can do the math yourself, it's easy as high-school math. If you can do particle in a box, you can get a gist of the idea behind basic quantum as it can be applied to molecular systems.
cont.
>>17756693
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle arises from how we construct a wave-function. When constructing a wave-function, one uses a maximal number of commutable variables, that is variables that are integrable to one another to ensure that a wave function is continuous over a given vector space. For example, we could and do use velocity and momentum as variables because integrating the velocity gives us the momentum. This is handy in that the Hamiltonian operator uses these same variables to calculate energy as a result of the potential and kinetic energies, giving us the basis of which we use to 'fit' a wave function over a set of other parameters.
So think back to calculus now. Remember the sandwich rule? When we have an instantaneous point on a function, it's impossible to calculate the derivative, or slope, because a single point does not mean continuity through a space. Derivatives are properties only of continuous functions. So when we know that a particle has been in a certain location, the wave function collapses because the interaction of the particle at a certain point means it was 100% at one place. From thereon the wave-function grows again as long as it does not interact with anything else.
The only thing that Heisenberg means is that the Schrodinger equation really is fundamental like F=ma. It's like a law. What does that mean? Ask a philosopher, forreal.
>>17754755
>it's just because measurements always affect systems at least a little bit.
The quantum eraser experiment disproves this belief.
>>17756740
>Ask a philosopher, forreal.
No.
Because those guys are self absorbed faggots that just ape shit aped by some other faggot...
>>17756829
Philosophy is responsible for the scientific revolution. It all started with Montaigne, who revived ancient Greek skepticism by establishing that to evaluate any viewpoint requires another subjective viewpoint, therefor all aspects derived from the sense doors can never reach true objectivity. This remains true today.
Anyways Leibniz, the guy who invented calculus along with Newtown, was an extensive private philosopher. Galileo, father of the scientific method, himself described primary and secondary qualities, philosophical concepts which he used to deconstruct much of the theological groundwork of the Church so as to open them up to scientific inquiry. All of modern political theory that literally governs international relationships draws a great deal from Plato's Replublic.
If you don't want to study philosophy, fine. But just be wary that thought carries real world implications.
>>17756909
>Philosophy is responsible for the scientific revolution.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Science is a method, and a method that exposes "philosophy" for exactly what it is....bullshit spewed by pretentious faggots.
Philosophy is little more than idiots trying to find new ways to justify whatever particular bullshit appeals to them.
>>17757119
>Being 15: The post
>>>/b/
>>17757119
lol ok cave-dwelling fish-eater
>>17757119
shower me with your golden wisdom oh great one
>>17757150
>Best guess for this image: anime smug
>mfw
>>17744177
hm.
>>17757150
>>17757215
>>17757219
>defending philosophy with empty insults
I would expect no less...
>>17757436
>Give insults
>Get insulted
>Win?
There's some philosophy for you.
>>17750226
I don't get this please explain
>>17757436
what matters what we say? maybe dust the street.
>>17743892
>Reality is relative and not as objective as most people make it out to be.
/sci here. You really are going off the deep end.
>>17744449
>implying spontaneous measurement
>>17745623
>calling people names
>>17745704
Quantum properties have been observed in photons, particles, atoms and molecules. There is no demarcation, we and everything around us is made of quantum objects therefore everything is quantum. For an interesting extrapolation of this, research biocentrism and morphic fields.
>>17750066
>macroscopic
Quantum denialist detected. There is only probability, not scale.
