Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 21 KB, 500x480, 1-thefirstever.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297400 No.11297400 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2020/01/11/new-theory-quantum-mechanics-shows-matter-not-eye-observer/
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/europe/europe-tech-science/new-theory-of-quantum-mechanics-shows-matter-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-observer/ar-BBYS49Q?li=BBKxOg5
>Kerr told The Telegraph: “For 70 years it was assumed that just observing the world brings it into a more concrete state of existence.
>“But when we make a measurement, we have to cause an interaction - bumping bits of matter together - and people started to suspect that the interaction necessary for the measurement is what causes it.
>“This idea would remove what some might see as the 'woo-woo' from quantum physics - mind, consciousness, the observer.”
>Rovelli said: “We don’t understand quantum mechanics yet. If there is something clear it’s that it is not clear.
>“The idea that one should replace the notion of measurement to one of interactions is a key one. Measurement cannot be anything foundational because it doesn’t mean anything.
>“Does it require a physicist in a lab to create the universe? It doesn’t make any sense. The universe didn’t appear when humans started looking at it.”

>> No.11297415
File: 761 KB, 300x572, f2bf432e3a5c7b14a2c97451e7c6c50f.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297415

jesus fucking christ why is this even a fucking hurdle to get over, are people srsly so fucking needy for their woo that this is being mad a big fucking deal out of? holy dear fucking god the answers are out there and im 100% certain they are so much more fucked up than anything we can imagine but too fucking many retards are hung up on this stupid fucking consciousness faggotry holy fuck

>> No.11297416
File: 422 KB, 1868x1504, q+j-3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297416

>>11297400
ah, now the media idiots about-face on woo and create a stupid anti-woo quantum article, as if this weren't settled in real science like 40-60 years ago.

it just amazes me how this is still a cash cow for feeding on brainlets. totally sad.

>> No.11297418
File: 16 KB, 270x270, d24085f7fa23f20cff795dc68e041e2e.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297418

>>11297416
>it just amazes me how this is still a cash cow for feeding on brainlets. totally sad.
srsly, this is why i will never stop being miserable. this fucking world needs miserable people to make everyone feel bad so shit can move the fuck forward

>> No.11297419

>>11297400
We knew this like half a century ago. The idea that “Observation” matters is new age woo.

>> No.11297420
File: 43 KB, 640x694, 1521155876636.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297420

>>11297400
>2020
>people still mull over the results of a faulty science experiment

>> No.11297422

>>11297400
>telegraph
Go back to /b/ /pol/ /v/ whatever cesspool you came from

>> No.11297430

>>11297420
nice bait

>> No.11297615

This isn't news. This is almost as bad as an article I saw saying Newton's theory of gravity might be wrong

>> No.11297621

>>11297615
>I KNEW IT ALL ALONG
where's your paper?

>> No.11297623
File: 136 KB, 640x853, 1578839640787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11297623

The fact that this is news is so fucking depressing.

>> No.11297625

>>11297419
I believe it's because of a misconception on the word "observation" used, people thought observation meant "oh a scientist looked at it" when observation meant from the start an interaction.

>> No.11297652

>Turok, an emeritus Professor of Mathematics Physics at Cambridge University
>Turok

>> No.11297695

>>11297625
this

>> No.11297717

>>11297625
Quantum is a cult. Of course they'd use nonsensical esoteric language to indoctrinate you.

>> No.11297756

>>11297625
then fucking reword it

>> No.11297769

>>11297756
Terminology is physics is well-defined and doesn't need to be changed to suit the general public. We do just fine as thing are. After all, no one is confused whether they're talking about E&M or (You) when they talk about retardation.

>> No.11297926

>>11297419
>we

You didn't know jack shit about any of this until you read it about here faggot stfu

>> No.11297944

>>11297756
Or maybe tell shitty popsci news sources to actually read and understand what the studies they report on mean.

>> No.11297946

>>11297926
>
Not him but anyone with half a brain knew this from the get go.
That's not braggadocio, as it's not like this is a complicated concept.
It's literally just reading comprehension.

>> No.11297964

Measurement is a procedure outside the Schrodinger equation, you morons. It is not something that has been settled and is a major inconsistency in QM. Penrose talks about this extensively.

Is this reddit or what? I feel like this thread is full of fat midwits in the 110-130 IQ abyss where scientism and orthodoxy dominates one's thinking

>> No.11297980

>>11297964
Who are you talking to, what exactly are you objecting to?

>> No.11297986

>>11297980
I am objecting to the notion perpetrated in this thread that the "woo" QM associated with measurements has been settled decades ago. There is probably an implicit reference to decoherence theories here, which is a notion that doesn't solve anything conceptually and only throws the dirt under a thermodynamical rug ("if you can't distinguish between two scenarios, then it's meaningless to not regard them as one").

>> No.11297992

>>11297986
No one but popsci ever thought that the results of these early tests meant that consciousness had any play in to these results.
And that was mostly because of miscommunication
That's not to say anything was ever "settled" but it seems like you're implying the idea of consciousness having an effect has been up for debate this whole time. To which i have to ask, like, did you actually read those articles posted? Everything in there has been self evident for an extremely long time.

>> No.11298000

>>11297400
Anyone who's familiar with von Neumann's notion of measurements ought to be completely unsurprised.

>> No.11298005

>>11297992
I don't like the idea of attributing the wave function collapse of a dual slit experiment to the presence of somebody looking at it, but consciousness is an ill-defined concept potentially connected to uncomputable quantum mechanic effects, which themselves could be related to gravity in a way out of reach to current physics.

It bothers me to see this smug materialistic 19th century stance on reality being expressed everywhere in which the universe is supposed to be billiard balls and determinism, and consciousness is supposed to be an "emerging property" of simple processes, while computers cannot simulate a mind even though they are already more powerful than a mice's brain which is qualitatively similar to a human's.

>> No.11298024

>>11298005
>could be
Key phrase right here.
>It bothers me to see this smug materialistic 19th century stance on reality being expressed everywhere
Yes sure, I can understand that, but you gotta pick your battles on that man.
In this specific instance it was always ridiculous to assume consciousness had a play on the effect, and that's what people are complaining about.
Of course consciousness is an understudied and fascinating topic, but that has no play on THIS particular topic. A topic in which millions of people assumed something never implied in a study because of shitty reporting, which people are rightfully upset about especially now that publications much like the first are now trying to act like this is all revelatory knowledge.
You can understand why people are peeved about it, self-aggrandizing aside.

>> No.11298036

>>11297400
TL;DR A modified many worlds theory.

>> No.11298058

>>11297400
>trying to refute the Participatory Anthropic Principle

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action