[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 136 KB, 736x736, 1570631517536.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11045958 No.11045958 [Reply] [Original]

So what does it mean for a wave function to collapse? Does observing something change its wave function? Why?

>> No.11046064

>>11045958
>what kind of building renovation do you want senpai?
>just fuck my shit up

>> No.11046125

>>11045958
I like this building desu. It looks like a cool haircut

>> No.11046130

>>11045958
it meanse that I COLLAPSE your moms pussy with my FUNCTIONAL penis you fucking faggot hahahahaha retarded fucking nigger hahahaha stupid fuck

>> No.11046143

>>11046130
>his penis is so soft and bendy you can call it a wave
Congratulations u've played urself

>> No.11046145

>>11045958
>So what does it mean for a wave function to collapse?
It means the information comes out
>Does observing something change its wave function?
yes
>Why?
Waves interact with waves

>> No.11046172

>>11046143
YOU MOTGER IS A WHIRW I FUCJ HER DAULU ABF ALSO YOUR FAS IN THE ASW I DO IY TO SHOW FOMINATILN I DININATE UOU WHOKE GAMILU I AN YOUT DASSY NOW DONT EBET DISRESPECY ME ONLIBE EBET AGAUB IR I WILL FICKINF RUP YOUT DTIPIF HESE IF QND CUM FOWN YOYR THROUGHT

>> No.11046176

>>11045958
the standard (although not necessarily correct) interpretation is:

when you measure some observable (like position or velocity) of a wavefunction, you get back a value that probabilistically depends on the mixture of "eigenfunctions" that describe the wavefunction at the time of measurement. these eigenfunctions are particular to an observable, and each eigenfunction has a measurement value that is associated with it. the probabilities for the different values depends on the "amount" of each eigenfunction in the wavefunction. after measurement, the wavefunction "collapses" to the eigenfunction associated with the value you just measured. after measurement, if you measure the same observable again, you get the previously measured value again. why? because the wavefunction is equal a particular eigenfunction, and that means zero contribution by the other eigenfunctions, meaning 0% chance their values get rolled.

Probably something else is happening, because collapse is instantaneous as far as we can tell, and not too many things in physics happen instantaneously, with the speed of light and all. However, this interpretation works on the lab bench and in theory just fine. I personally suspect there is some sort of entanglement interpretation that is closer to the truth, though.

>> No.11047809

>>11046176
read "Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy"

>> No.11047832

>>11046064
>>11046125
It's so horrible that is beautiful.

>> No.11047850

>>11045958
Observing it with machines that emit their own waves? Yes. Observing it in a philosophical sense? No.

>> No.11047852
File: 38 KB, 640x640, f57.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11047852

>>11046130
Based

>> No.11048206

>>11045958
You've been reading up on and trying to understand quantum computing, haven't you??

>> No.11048210

>>11045958
a particle exists as a cloud of probablity. to measure or detect it you must bounce another particle off of it. the interaction with another particle causes the probability function to collapse into either a wave state or a particle state.

>> No.11048214

>>11048210
this mostly
if the wf denotes probability of property p like location, then you know it's location better, your darn tootin' that the wave is gonna alter and spike more there. it's by definition

>> No.11048224

>>11048214
>>11048210
wavefunction != position operator acting on a wavefunction.

>> No.11048238

>>11048224
position operator != reality

wow I can be pedantic too

>> No.11048242

>>11048238
you are probably right

>> No.11048251

>>11048238
the wavefunction represents the quantum state. it's not probability density unless you project it onto a position basis. saying the wavefunction is a probability density is misleading and wrong. it's like saying the wavefunction is a momentum-space density distribution.

>> No.11048256

>>11048251
yes and we must take the square of the modulus too right eimsteib?

>> No.11048258

why is reality so weird?

>> No.11048266

>>11045958
It just means the pilot wave told it to go there sincr QM is deterministic

>> No.11048435

>>11045958
Where even is this? I'd say Balkans but wasting EU money for stupid building projects is more of a Poland thing

>> No.11048502

>>11045958
because when quantum physicists say "observe" they mean something completely fucking different than when a normal person says it, and they never feel the need to mention this when talking to normal people for some reason

the same problem exists for a lot of other terminology as well

>> No.11048708

>>11048266
Slow down there, Bohm

>> No.11048730

>>11046064
It looks fucking retarded
Peak architecture ended 200 years ago

>> No.11048835

>>11046130
Based, thread destroyed

>> No.11049442

>>11048435

Bucharest

https://travel.prwave.ro/paucescu-house-bucharest-architecture/

>> No.11049449

>>11045958
No one has any fucking idea. Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise - they're either regurgitating youtube or they just want to get rid of you.

>> No.11049538

>>11046064
I think it looks pretty jokes

>> No.11050274

>>11046176
Upon interaction the state of observer decoheres and entangles with measured pure states, which evolve independently, so each of them sees pure states as if others didn't exist.

>> No.11050277

>>11049449
>deliberate ignorance
That's burger education, dude.

>> No.11051639

>>11050277
just picking something arbitrary because you can't stand not knowing is what actual deliberate ignorance is

>> No.11051690

>>11045958
When you stick your finger in a probability bubble it pops around your finger. When in your anus there is no uncertainty of your principles.

>> No.11052124

>>11045958
It is the draw limit of the simulation.
The universe is a presisdent simulation where the player character never logs in anymore.
The

>> No.11052139

>>11051639
It's not arbitrary, it's determined by reality.

>> No.11052198

>>11052139
Oh perfect, explain it then

>> No.11052258

>>11045958
Because observation is an euphemism for interaction.

>> No.11052369

>>11052139
no, it's determined by your arbitrary opinion on realty

>> No.11052453

>>11045958
It doesn't collapse. There is simply correlations in measurement between entangled parts of the wave-function. When you measure something you will be entangled to that branch of the wave-function which gives us results that follow.

>> No.11052737

>>11048251
It's all of those things. Its modulus squared will be a probability density over whatever coordinate basis it is projected onto

>> No.11052741

>>11045958
>So what does it mean for a wave function to collapse?

Learning of information by the observer.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2016/05/learning-of-information-not-interaction.html

>> No.11052751

>>11052741
>The interference disappears because you (an observer who also observes the dots at the photographic plate at the end) have learned the which-way information, and that's what forced you to use the collapsed wave function behind one of the slits. And the absence of the interaction with the detector (and the sound that accompanies it) is enough to learn.

>> No.11052753

It is an open question on the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.

>> No.11053135

>>11052369
The opinion is not arbitrary, it's determined by reality.

>> No.11053487

>>11048730

I don't know man. It is so retarded that it went around and became cool.

>> No.11053679

>>11045958
It means to erase/destroy all other possibilities. In other words, without "collapse" there are multiple possibilities/answers, aka many worlds.

>> No.11054079

>>11053135
okay mister omniscient, thank you for enlightening us mere mortals with your infinite and perfect knowledge of reality

>> No.11054111

Have any of you noticed that there isn't a single question about quantum mechanics that can be answered or agreed upon?
Do you wanna know why ;)

In history there have been many times when scientific papers were published that were later retracted.
Sometimes when scientists first discover something, say like 150 years ago when scientists were first discovering all the strange new properties of electricity and vacuums and electrons etc,
Theories were presented in an attempt to explain the new observed phenomenon, just the same way as ancient Greece or ancient Egypt or whenever.
Lack of instrumentation meant some of these established theories were false, and later disproven. Like when everyone accepted the earth was flat.
Now there existed scientists thousands of years ago that presented round earth theory, but there wasn't enough evidence to disprove flat earth theory. So these round earth theories were ignored.
But scientists always congregated and groups and endlessly debated these theories.
Which is what we are doing now.

What has happened is simply this.
Einstein was wrong about some of his work.
One example is the photoelectric effect being used as evidence for wave-particle duality.
That was a misinterpretation of crude, early data.
And all abstract theoretical maths surrounding that theory is also wrong.
So all quantum mechanical interpretation of the universe that rely on the particulate nature of light, and the existence of photons is wrong.
There is no evidence to suggest that light is ever a particle.
Light is always a wave.
The medium is used to propagate in a vacuum is the background EMF left over from the big bang.

>> No.11054122

>>11053679
it would be easier to understand as a cloud of possibilities. and use a cell for an example.

like an electron cloud in orbit of the nucleus of a cell just like we orbit the sun. only you cant see any plants just a nebula of thick cloud and possibilities. its called atomic orbital. now imagine going through that cloud at any point in the solar system, the cloud disappears and at that exact point all other possibilities disappear and your left looking at that electron. and it looking at you :)

>> No.11054123

>>11054111
then why does it behave as a particle when going through a single slit

>> No.11054133

Very apt way of showing the new being build atop the old

>> No.11054178

>>11054123
That's an excellent question man,
If I can have a minute of your time I can explain that :)
There are several twin slit experiments.
This is how a twin slit experiment works,

Particles.
Imagine a rectangular room separated in the middle by a strong metal wall, two twin slits are cut in the partitioning wall from roof to floor. So standing at one end you can see through both slits to the other end of the room, now you fire a stream of particles at these two slits.
Let's imagine an AK-47 machine gun or similar. Now you empty a few spray and pray clips at the seperating wall.
On the wall will at the end of the room will be two distinct lines of bullet holes. As the metal wall with the twin slits blocks any bullets except the bullets fired at the slits.
This is what happens when you perform a twin slit experiment with particles, two distinct "shadows" of the twin slits used to manipulate the particle beam.

Waves.
Imagine the same room but half filled to the roof with water.
You are drop a stone into the water at one end, sending ripples all through the first half of the room, these ripples hit the twin slits, the travel as two twin waves that interfere with each other and create a pattern of peaks and troughs. Points of high intensity and low intensity of waves, this is called an "interference pattern"
If you fire a laser pointer through a piece of metal with 2 slits you will see an interference pattern. Proof that light is a wave.

Electrons. (A particle)
When electrons are sent through a twin slit they hit the reciever (or "observer" if you are trying to confuse readers to get a nobel prize) and just spray everywhere. Creating a confusing pattern of both a particle and a wave, discrete slit patterns and interference patterns.

So perhaps electrons are both a wave and a particle? So light must be as well?

But this pattern that electrons show is because of capacitance in the metal used during the experiment, electrostatic forces building up.

>> No.11054179

Is the cat really dead and alive at the same time before you open the box?

>> No.11054183

>>11054178
the twin slit experiment works the same for electrons and photons, and even for much larger things like entire molecules, they all exhibit duality

>> No.11054184

>>11054178
So this theory was very wrong. It was experimental error.
And they never showed that light exhibited particle nature with this experiment ;)

The hypothesis was stated that light could also do you exhibit wave particle nature. This was never demonstrated.
Then quantum mechanics was developed as a way to explain this hypothetical phenomenon.

We had the birth of quantum mechanics.
But every single theory based on the wave particle nature of light is a lie.
It can only make sense with abstract theoretical maths.

Quantum mechanics is a hoax.
Wave particle duality, electron spin state, quantum computing, relativity, time space, etc.
All of it.
QM is indistinguishable from flat earth theory in terms of its evidence.

You feel the same way learning this as all the people who tried to burn Gallileo when he told them about what he saw with his telescope.

>> No.11054192

>>11054183
Who did the experiment that showed light exhibited particle nature with a twin slit?

>> No.11054193
File: 363 KB, 640x360, 1565437160221.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11054193

>>11054179

>> No.11054194

>>11054179
This is a though experiment that disproves quantum mechanics.
You can't have a cat both alive and dead.
The theory is a paradox.
You are misinterpreting it.
Now we need multiverse/string theory to state that paradoxes can exist to make it fit.
No wonder you are all so confused.

>> No.11054196

>>11054192
i don't know, but a quick google search immediately gives you results such as i dunno i found this in 10 seconds

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/single-photon-interference

>> No.11054197

>>11054122
Yeah but we now have experiments can can make the cloud appear/disappear at any point in time. Even "backwards in time." So we can safely discard any notion of destruction of a cloud. Rather a more accurate model is, the cloud was never destroyed and its always there and it will always. Only our perception changes how we view the cloud of electrons not the cloud of electron itself.

>> No.11054200

>>11054197
Also electron fields don't disappear out of thin air. In QM, we have decoherence where the supposedly "disappearance" trick still exists in another part of reality.

>> No.11054204

>>11054193
is this what schrodinger really meant?

>> No.11054209

>>11054204
yes, just assume the parrot can't be observed and you have a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics

>> No.11054215

>>11054194
if a paradox exists then it isn't a paradox

>> No.11054371

>>11054196
This isn't an experiment.
It has no result.
It's pictures of a machine and a description about how it should work.
This is a hoax lol.

>> No.11054376

>>11054197
Can you post a link to these experiments :)
I can't use anecdotal evidence in a science debate.

>> No.11054383

>>11054215
Paradoxs (paradoxii?) cannot exist.
A paradox is proof that something is invalid.
That's what paradox means.

>> No.11054385 [DELETED] 
File: 61 KB, 800x303, milky way.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11054385

Would the Milky Way look all that different from a different planet in the galaxy?

>> No.11054405

>>11054079
I didn't claim that it's perfect. For all we know the earth can be flat, it doesn't mean that we should pretend that we don't know.

>> No.11054413

>>11054383
yes, thank you for repeating what i said

>> No.11054417

>>11054413
My mistake

>> No.11054422

>>11054194
lol, yeah, and the earth can't be round because australians would fall from it

>> No.11054425

>>11045958

The instinctive reaction of many posters is to be disgusted by the OP's picture. But what's really going on is that the architecture of the lower segment is producing so much cultural-thermal energy, that it required a modern heat sink to dissipate same.

>> No.11054429

>>11054405
saying that your beliefs are based directly on reality and not your opinion on reality is the same as saying you have perfect knowledge

>> No.11054484

I call shenanigans on quantum mechanics.

>> No.11054503

>>11054429
Perfect and arbitrary are not the only options, the world is not black and white, QM is not much different from round earth theory or 2+2=4. You're deliberately ignorant, fix your education.

>> No.11054512

>>11045958
>So what does it mean for a wave function to collapse? Does observing something change its wave function? Why?
Flip a coin.
See the outcome.
Notice that, if you look away and look back, the coin is still in the same outcome.
"Oh, the wavefunction of the coin have collapsed into head/tails, what a mysterious thing..."
Accept that you don't understand quantum physics

>> No.11054543

>>11054192
Does these work for you?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0979.pdf

>> No.11054552

>>11054503
until you up with a coherent theory first instead of one that's in bits and pieces that don't work together, you have no room to declare you're right

hell, even the people leading the research don't act as conceited as you do, you can always tell a vocal fan from an actual scientist

>> No.11054583

>>11054552
>until you up with a coherent theory first instead of one that's in bits and pieces that don't work together, you have no room to declare you're right
You want to say that theories with contradictions can be definitively rejected and people who believe in them are brainlets?
>hell, even the people leading the research don't act as conceited as you do, you can always tell a vocal fan from an actual scientist
If they chose to shut up and calculate, that's nothing to be proud of.

>> No.11054591

>>11054583
it kind of is, science doesn't need your dogma

>> No.11054600

>>11046130
Why did I fucking laughed?

>> No.11054615

>>11051690
oh ok, th-thanks

>> No.11054622

>>11054194
you could determine that through sound though lul

>> No.11054956

>>11046064
Pretty sure they just wanted a bigger building but the original one was declared art or some shit like that.

>> No.11055195

>>11054178
when light is a wave through which medium is it carried?