/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10659288]

The observer effect in the double slit experiment (which for anyone who doesn't know is when the particle can tell that it's being observed and chooses to act in a certain way) proves that particles have consciousness, so doesn't that guarantee undeniably that the universe is a simulation?

[Anonymous No.10659291]

>>10659288
All it tells us is that interacting with the particles affects what happens to them which isn't revolutionary. The weirdness is in what the effects of the interaction are.

[Anonymous No.10659292]

>>10659291
No the particles can tell

[Anonymous No.10659294]

>>10659288
>The observer effect in the double slit experiment (which for anyone who doesn't know is when the particle can tell that it's being observed and chooses to act in a certain way) proves that particles have consciousness, so doesn't that guarantee undeniably that the universe is a simulation?
define "consciousness"

[Anonymous No.10659327]

>>10659292
Noo they can't

[Anonymous No.10659330]

>>10659292
They can only "tell" in the same sense that, in classical mechanics, a body can "tell" that there is an electric or gravitational field present and "know" to accelerate according to it. The body can't actually tell or know anything, it just follows natural behavior. In QM, interaction affects the state of a particle.

[Anonymous No.10659340]

>>10659288
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.10659353]

The double slit experiment was misinterpreted. Google "pilot-wave theory"

[Anonymous No.10659362]

>>10659330
Wrong.
Your first class in anything to do with quantum mechanics would have informed you otherwise. The reason the observer effect exists in quantum mechanics is our current experimental and theoretical methods are so limited that we need to use these assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10659392]

>>10659362
I've taken courses on quantum mechanics, and done plenty of study on my own initiative as well. Quantum mechanics requires consciousness no more than classical mechanics does. Measurement is just thermodynamically irreversible interaction.

[Anonymous No.10659403]

>>10659288
please show me in the equations of any physical model where any of that garbage line of reasoning is implied

[Anonymous No.10659435]

>>10659392
Have you studied anything about Bohmian Mechanics and pilot wave theory? I read some articles about it and I'm shocked at how unpopular the theory is even though the math works perfectly

[Anonymous No.10659467]

>>10659330
But you're not interacting with the particle, you're just observing it.

[Anonymous No.10659484]

>>10659392
I don't mean measurement/interaction, I mean observation. You don't have to interact with the particle at all. If you flip a coin, it's going to land on either side 50/50 whether you observe it or not. If you toss a cat in the air, it's like shroedingers cat. You don't know whether or not it landed on its feet until you observe it. But if you observe it, then it lands on its feet, because its conscious.

[Anonymous No.10659503]

>>10659467
>>10659484
The most important realization you'll ever make to help you understand QM is that it is completely impossible to measure something without interacting with it. Any observation you can ever make with a system inherently requires interaction.

[Anonymous No.10659507]

>>10659288
>my perception of the universe is an inner hallucination
>therefore the actual universe must be my perception of it

Let me know when you reach sapience.

[Anonymous No.10659517]

>>10659294
BOOM ANON DESTROYED

[Anonymous No.10659522]

>>10659484
>I don't mean measurement/interaction, I mean observation. You don't have to interact with the particle at all.

[Anonymous No.10659535]

>>10659435
brainlet here,
Could you please explain the main differences between Pilot wave theory and the common assumptions that are being made nowadays?

[Anonymous No.10659544]

>>10659435
I have yes, quite a bit in fact. Bohmian mechanics is very alluring when first encountering it because it seems to line up with classical intuition so well. However, a deeper investigation has disillusioned me. A one particle state can be imagined as a particle riding on a real physical wave that occupies real space. This neatness disappears when describing states of more than one particle. Now, this wave has three spatial parameters for each particle (so 6 for 2 particles, 9 for 3, etc). It's not a single wave occupying real space in the intuitive sense, and it's not just a combination of single-particle waves.

Also, there hasn't been a successful relativistic formulation. Several have been proposed over the decades, but none are without major issues. Meanwhile, standard QM was made relativistic back in 1928. Given how often relativistic quantum experiments have been performed over the decades, this makes Bohmian mechanics essentially useless to working physicists.

Standard QM and QFT have done extraordinarily well, and have been consistent with experiment to the absolute boundary of measuring capability. Bohmian mechanics just has almost a century of experimental evidence to catch up with if it wants to be taken seriously again.

[Anonymous No.10659556]

>>10659503
I disagree, I observe things very often in my daily life without interacting with those things.

[Anonymous No.10659559]

>>10659544
this, there is a reason why bohmian mechanics is so unpopular with actual physicists as opposed to an internet fad, it just doesnt work for anything remotely complicated

[Anonymous No.10659565]

>>10659556
When you see something, an astronomical number of photons are bouncing off of it and being absorbed by your eye. This is a strongly coupled interaction.
When you hear something, it is colliding with air molecules, which collide with other air molecules to set up vibrations which propagate to your ears and exert forces on your eardrums. This is a strongly coupled interaction.
When you smell something, it is releasing volatile compounds into the air, which travel into your nose and interact with receptors in your nose.
All observation inherently entails interaction, and all interaction affects the states of the particles involved.

[Anonymous No.10659569]

>>10659288
>if i kick a ball and its moving, the ball has consciousness
observing doesnt mean mere looking as a passive observer. observing is active, its interacting, sending energy that translates into a particle differently than without the energy by the active deed of observation.
gr8 b8 m8

[Anonymous No.10659610]

>>10659569
>observing is active, its interacting, sending energy that translates into a particle differently than without the energy by the active deed of observation.
no

[Anonymous No.10659616]

>>10659610
Nice counterargument

[Anonymous No.10659624]

>>10659288
I don't think any science will ever prove undeniably or at all simulation hypothesis or Idealism but there is sound Philosophy in support of it .

[Anonymous No.10659629]

>>10659288
you've got bamboozled by "What the Bleep Do We Know," a pseudoscience move that's been critisized by most scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXQjRBLwsQ
the above video is false, wipe it from your mind

[Anonymous No.10659634]

>>10659288
lol no your eye is just producing a fundamental particle when it interacts with light. the double slit experiment is just a sensor that detects it.

[Anonymous No.10659636]

>>10659616
You didn't make an argument. Only a claim.
About energy being transmitted by observing

[Anonymous No.10659639]

>>10659636
I'm the one who made this post
>>10659565

[Anonymous No.10659651]

>>10659639
oh okay sorry.

[Anonymous No.10659712]

>>10659634
You might be onto something, can you extrapolate on this a little bit?

[Anonymous No.10659721]

>>10659330
sounds like you are arguing sematics.

[Anonymous No.10659731]

>>10659712
i would think what i said seemed pretty straightforward but basically i guess you could view the fundamental particle leaving your eye as a radio wave for example. you can't see it but it is interacting with the matter causing a "interference pattern" if you will. reminds me of radio antenna.

[Anonymous No.10659739]

>>10659731
But particles don't leave your eyes? You don't smell things by breathing out

[Anonymous No.10659751]

>>10659731
>eye
>sends particle
Wtf?

[Anonymous No.10659766]

>>10659739
bosons are things like light and if they didn't leave your eye you couldn't see people's eyes... lol.

[Anonymous No.10659770]

>>10659288
>can tell it's being observed
>proves that particles have consciousness
This guy is going to lose it when he finds out that an external observer in this case doesn't even need to be a conscious, living thing. It can literally be the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.10659783]

>>10659751
light enters and exits your eye. im talking about a theoretical particle that would leave your eye when light interacts with it.

i think you're confusing particles with fundamental particles. bosons are a fundamental particle. the weird thing here is they consider light to be a particle but not a material thing. now try and wrap your mind around that. electrons are all fermions are considered to me material even tho solar power gives us electrons. it gets pretty wack but i think you'll be able to get it.

[Anonymous No.10659811]

>>10659783
So is light "observing" your eye? This doesn't make any sense lmao

[Anonymous No.10659816]

>>10659770
That's literally exactly what I'm saying, the universe observes you observing it.

[Anonymous No.10659826]

>>10659811
omfg... lmao. leaving thread.

[Anonymous No.10659857]

>>10659288
>the particle can tell
>and chooses to act
It doesn't choose or think rationally anymore than when any truly random process chooses its next outcome. The observer effect is in no way evidence that particles know they're being watched, it's evidence that measuring a particle can change it's behavior

[Anonymous No.10659903]

>>10659816
So tell it to mind its own business. This isn't hard.

[Anonymous No.10659962]

>>10659857
>no way evidence that particles know they're being watched

That's the definition of the observer effect, you're essentially telling science that it's wrong

[Anonymous No.10659999]

Why isn't pilot wave theory more widely accepted? This drop of oil shit convinced me. Maybe I'm a brainlet who's easily impressed but god damn if it that doesn't look exactly like what's happening on the quantum level.
So it requires non-local hidden variables. So what? Quantum entanglement is non-local and we know that's real.
And it's no more crazy than the Copenhagen interpretation which I guess scientists at that time were so dazzled by the results of their experiments that they turned to mysticism and avoided adding extra mathematics to explain what's happening so they went with "it is what it is".
Schrodinger & Einstein even said God doesn't play dice i.e. the universe is not probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.10660011]

>>10659467
In order for your eyes to see something we need photons to be provided to interact with the object before hitting our eyes.

Wavelength of visible light too large to see the beyond the nano world.

However shortening the wavelength of light needs more energy. Lasers do the trick.

Hyper charged photon will interact with the superposition of the particle somehow yet in that process you billiard ball the particle away from its previous location.

Hence saying you cannot observe something without interacting with it.

>My preschool basic understanding of it anyway.

[Anonymous No.10660016]

>>10659999
see >>10659544
They summarized the problems of Pilot Wave Theory well.

[Cornelius Vanderbilt No.10660018]

>>10659288
What does this have to do with being in a simulation?

The only thing it proves is that particles are sentient. Anything, theoretically, can be sentient.

[Anonymous No.10660040]

>>10659291
But if they store the information of the interaction, but destroy it before seing the pattern the patter hoes back to wave.

[Anonymous No.10660087]

>>10659962
But there's no evidence that they know anything. When you use a photon to image something the photon bounces off a particle and affects the result, it doesn't know anything it just does

[Anonymous No.10660385]

>tfw you realize Godel's theorem is proof human beings are not automatons

[Anonymous No.10660407]

>>10659288
>Be dumb enough to mistake the Observer Effect with the Uncertainty Principle.
>Have something valuable and correct to say about QM.
Pick only one, OP.

[Anonymous No.10660419]

>>10659288
time does not exist for particles traveling at the universal constant. so each particles no matter when it goes through the double slit interacts with all those that have gone before it. hense an interference pattern.

[Anonymous No.10660699]

>>10660018
It's because it occurs with the most basic of particles. There are no subphoton particles, so there's no neural structure for the photon to make decisions. Therefore, a transcendental source of that decision making must exist.

[Anonymous No.10660708]

The universe is not a simulation, free will doesn't exist, consciousness is the sum of many feedback loops running simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.10660714]

>push ball down hill
>IT KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO PUSH IT
>IT CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE TO ROLL

[Anonymous No.10660739]

Hasn't this already been explained before? When you're speeding down a road and the cop points his speedometer at you, what is happening is radio waves are *bouncing* off your car and the speedometer calculates how fast you are moving. The key word here is bounces. This means an incredibly small amount of energy is added to your car. We don't notice it because it is so minuscule, but imagine doing the same to a particle? The bounce would deter its original path of going straight. It's not that the particle knows you watching, it's because you're blowing wind at it and it steers astray.

[Anonymous No.10660854]

>>10660739
Blowing wind? That would imply the observer effect is gone in a vacuum which it isn't

[Anonymous No.10661092]

>>10660854
Not literally you tard. He meant any observation requires interacting with the particle in some way, such as bouncing light off the particle. That would cause the particle to diverge from its path.

[Cornelius Vanderbilt No.10661121]

>>10660699
But who said a neural network was the only way of decision making possible?

Maybe particle decisions are made by groupthink.

[Anonymous No.10661131]

>>10659288
Wrong. Observer effect is due to smacking particles with other particles.

[Anonymous No.10661133]

Ya'll naysayers are ignorant, literally look up the quantum eraser experiment.

[Anonymous No.10661143]

>>10661133
What do you think the quantum eraser experiment means?

[Anonymous No.10661219]

>>10659435
>even though the math works perfectly
Math can be made to work perfectly in many situations, it doesn't mean it's experimentally valid. For example: me + your mom = sex

[Anonymous No.10661234]

what a grabage threat my god
I wish I could kill all of you through "interactions"

[Anonymous No.10661274]

>>10661143
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

>While delayed-choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.

Basically, the past can be altered by events in the present or future, and there is no time paradox because the altered events in the present happen as if they were caused by a different event than how they were recorded to be.

Also, you can assume some form of natural or manufactured animism or the work of some form of "simulation", whether it's 4 Dimensional, a Universe primary to our own, or just the work of highly advanced or even godlike extraterrestrials to be at play in the particles' decision making.

[Anonymous No.10661304]

>>10661274
You just quoted something that said you’re outright wrong.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07884.pdf

[Anonymous No.10661369]

>>10661274
>If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.
There is no alteration of the past unless you deny superposition, which is one of the very cornerstones of the theory of quantum mechanics. DCQE was entirely predicted by standard QM before it was performed.

[Anonymous No.10661398]

>>10659467
you have to interact to obserseve otherwise you dont have any data

[Anonymous No.10661441]

>>10661398
Interacting with the particle might make your observations more precise/accurate, but I just mean observing.

[Anonymous No.10661447]

>>10659288
>the particle can tell that it's being observed and chooses to act
>particles have consciousness

[Anonymous No.10661454]

>>10661441
You have to interact to observe.

[Anonymous No.10662393]

>>10661447
No particles don't have consciousness. Rather consciousness has particles.

[Anonymous No.10662397]

>>10659288
To observe in science is to have an observable which necessarily requires an interaction

so its not 'consciousness' or 'recognition' of existence it is simple that to observe a state we must interact with it, this act collapses the wave-function.


you do not understand quantum mechanics at all

[Anonymous No.10662402]

>>10659629
It's actually not pseudoscience you brainlet. It's just you don't need quantum bullshit to prove this. The truth is literally nothing in physics can be shown to exist without consciousness observing that it does exist. Simply because showing something exists and participating in science requires conscious entities to function as a system. The "objective" reality is nothing more than an agreed or shared subjective reality.

[Anonymous No.10662431]

>>10662402
Quit talking about shit you don't know a fucking thing about. Invoking consciousness in physical processes should always be a last resort for a very good reason: all attempts to do so thus far have inevitably descended into woo. Nothing breeds more baseless speculation, mysticism, and unfalsifiable bullshit in science than discussions involving consciousness.
The fact of the matter is that invoking consciousness is not necessary to describe quantum mechanics, so it should be avoided at practically all costs. Few physicists actually believe consciousness affects wavefunction collapse because the framework of QM works fine without it.
Media like "What the Bleep Do We Know" have done a great deal of harm to the public perception of quantum physics. They make it seem like esoteric blabbering when in reality QM has made countless accurate predictions about concrete physical reality, and allows us to model it in many useful ways. QM certainly has some counterintuitive notions at its core, but once you learn how it actually works you see that those strange concepts are very specifically defined and have very precise consequences.

Sorry for the rant, I'm drunk and quantum mumbo jumbo really pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.10662433]

a > b
b > a

[Anonymous No.10662469]

>>10659826
Occular deltrons?

http://realityshifters.com/pages/articles/williamtillervacuum.html

[Anonymous No.10662491]

>>10662431
I see the point you are making in that the quantum model doesn't require consciousness. Yes it is just a model it has nothing to do with consciousness. But reality does require consciousness to be explained. And the quantum world could suggest that as well but like you said it isn't necessary.

[Anonymous No.10662496]

man is the measure of all things

[Anonymous No.10662508]

>>10659288
>quantum woo + string theory predictions

Checks out.

[Anonymous No.10662588]

/sci/ is for learning and discussing, this "This is how it is and because that's how it is I'm right and there's no need to discuss" bullshit can stay on /x/, because holy shit no, I'll let other people explain because they can far better but you somehow took the retards oversimplification of the two experiments/effects and retardedly oversimplified them further to the point of blatant untruth. And before you say "keep an open mind" or some other /x/ conspiritard bullshit, yeah, we can't objectively prove we're not in a simulation but we can't objectively prove Finland exists either. It's called an unfalsifiable argument, just because we can't disprove something doesn't make it true. And it DEFINETLY doesn't mean we should continue on assuming Finland doesn't exist and building our knowledge base off it not existing because "well there's a chance it doesn't"

[Anonymous No.10662592]

>>10659484
Geez for someone pretending to have done courses in Quantum Mechanics you sure are a pretty fuckin massive idiot.

[Anonymous No.10662613]

>>10659288
>proves that particles have consciousness
wrong, the particles cannot observe and observer observing them. it proves that a conscious being can affect matter without interacting with matter. which means, matter is derived from consciousness not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10662644]

Particle... Move... When... I... See!
Particle... Have... Brains!

[Anonymous No.10662695]

>>10659783
what in the ever living fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.10662698]

>>10660854
you're not observing the particle with your naked eye, so what are you using to detect which slit it goes through

[Anonymous No.10662957]

>>10662698
You are observing it with your naked eye, that's literally the whole point behind the observer effect.

[Anonymous No.10663400]

>>10660419
They should attempt to disprove this by moving the source, slits, and screen in sync to a random position btwn each photon/particle firing.

[Anonymous No.10663435]

>>10663400
why do you think that would disprove anything? space is not absolute

[Anonymous No.10663700]

>>10662592
>pretending

[Anonymous No.10663703]

>>10663435
If the proposal is that the interference pattern from single photons is caused by interference with a "memory of the photons that went through the slit before it" then wouldn't it make sense that that memory is only present in the space where it happened?

I guess you could posit that the "memory" would move in line with the equipment and if thats the case then you could do the experiment with the source moving on a track between each firing and each firing happening with different slits and screen of exact dimensions then compositing the results of each single photon screen for the pattern.

[Anonymous No.10663708]

>>10662588
>OP makes a post asking a question
>"This is how it is and because that's how it is I'm right and there's no need to discuss"

Pick one

[Anonymous No.10663713]

>>10659288
>chooses to act in a certain way
just no

[Anonymous No.10663795]

>>10663708
>The observer effect in the double slit experiment (which for anyone who doesn't know is when the particle can tell that it's being observed and chooses to act in a certain way) proves that particles have consciousness
Does that look like a question to you? Read better next time, retard.

[Anonymous No.10664335]

>>10659636
light transmits energy or you could not observe

[Anonymous No.10664760]

>>10663795
>doesn't that guarantee undeniably that the universe is a simulation?
>?

Last I checked that was called a QUESTION mark. Let me know when you get to 1st grade, you learn all about those

[Anonymous No.10664770]

>>10659556
Your eyeballs are literally interacting with it on the electromagnetic spectrum. Please stop posting.

[Anonymous No.10664816]

>>10664770
We aren't x-man we don't emit beams from our eyes. The beams bounce INTO our eyes.

[Anonymous No.10664818]

>>10659556
Same here, for example women.

[Anonymous No.10665845]

>>10664816
This

[Anonymous No.10665958]

>>10661441
R E T A R D

[Anonymous No.10666350]

>>10659288
yeah it does, all these copers lmfao, things only collapse when used by an observer