[ 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: 45 KB, 803x1024, 1213402715521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549409 No.1549409 [Reply] [Original]

Convince me that Quantum Physic's "Electrons change between waves and particles depending on whether or not observers are present!" is not bullshit.

Because it seems like a whole lot of bullshit and a pisspoor placeholder excuse for a phenomenon we can't readily explain.

>> No.1549413

i cannot

>> No.1549423

I find that woman to be sexually attractive. Her hip-to-waist ratio is excellent. Her face is symmetrical and has excellent bone structure and proportion.

>> No.1549436
File: 1.04 MB, 1377x1782, The Bible I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1549436

We can't readily explain it in any better terms. We will never be able to. But just because it goes against your intuition doesn't make it any less right. If you think you know so much about physics go and write a thesis.

>> No.1549444

And Evangeline Lilly is related to this question... how?

>> No.1549446

>>1549436
>>Your Intuiton

The idea that matter such as electrons are conscious enough to decide whether they are being observed or not and be able to change between a wave and particle form is no less ludicrous than just saying "God did it".

Please, your over-whelming bias towards sucking today's philosopher-physicists and believing what they believe is correct does you no credit.

>> No.1549454

>>1549446
No one is saying electrons are conscious

>> No.1549459

>>1549454
No, they're just saying that electrons have the ability to "Decide" what form they should take.

A completely different thing!

>> No.1549461

They don't actually change between being waves and particles, they ARE both at all times. Another way of looking at it is that they exhibit 'wave-like' or 'particle-like' behaviors. 'Waves' and 'particles' are just pre-conceived notions that we have, they're just a description of properties that we already understand, which we attribute to electrons, photons etc. which are in actual fact neither.

>> No.1549464

It works pretty well.

Also, wave and particles are bullshit ideas made up by the human mind to describe every-day phenomena, your sentence is only some over-simplification for laymen.

>> No.1549465

OP has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

>> No.1549468

>>1549465
>>say that someone doesn't have a clue about what they're talking about
>>You don't have any idea either

lol, i do that all the time, you're not fooling anyone.

>> No.1549469

>>1549454

He's kind of implying that by saying electron state is determined by another person watching. Most people would associate this with people not having sex if people are watching. Yes, he is definitely implying that electrons are self conscious.

>> No.1549476

>>1549461
Thank you.

>> No.1549481

another thing, keep your Erwin Schrodinger and your James Clark Maxwell separate. The 'whether or not observers are present' phenomenon is to do with nuclear decay, and not wave-particle duality. BOOM.

>> No.1549503

Observing the electrons changes how they appear because the process of observing them changes them.
It's like when you take a picture of somebody and you get red eye. The red eye is only present after you've taken the picture because of the flash. It isn't there when you don't take the picture.

>> No.1549504

One of the most common misinterpretations of terminology amongst the uninformed.

In Quantum Physics literature, the term "observed" also means "to interact with", because of the very fact that, to observe something, you must interact with it.

On a macroscopic scale, this interaction is negligible, you could bombard a brick with light constantly and not notice any significant changes. However, on the subatomic scale, a single wavelength of light causes a significant change in the energy state of the (observed) electron.

In cases like the double slit experiment, the electrons are shot towards a plate with two slits in it. While being unobserved (no particle interaction) they show up as a diffraction pattern (of a wave) on the photographic plate.

While they are observed (light waves striking and bouncing off of them), they behave as a stream of point particles, each electron going through either one slit or the other, striking the photographic plate in a single point for each electron.

There motherfucker, don't jump to conclusions and disregard whole fields of science when you don't know shit about them, you ignorant asshat.

>> No.1549517

They don't change. Electrons exhibit behaviour which is at once wave-like and particle-like. That they are more particle-like when interacting with macroscopic objects, and more wave-like when interacting with microscopic, is a natural consequence of the math that describes them.

tldr: do the math

>> No.1549533

>>1549504
That is incredibly arbitrary to call it "Observation" then. The word "Observation" essentially implies non-interaction.

Why do you say "Observation" instead of "Interaction"? That makes no sense at all.

>> No.1549552

>>1549533
>The word "Observation" essentially implies non-interaction.

You are not a scientist, are you?

>> No.1549575

>>1549552
dumb

>> No.1549603

>>1549533
> The word "Observation" essentially implies non-interaction
This is what happens when we let philosophers use scientific language. And then we wonder why everyone has so much trouble learning QM.

>> No.1549619

>>1549603
You know, in QM, if a theory predicts a value right to 13 decimal places but not 14 it is considered bullshit. Things like that make QM hard to learn.

>> No.1550803

>>1549504


>Elitism

>> No.1550861

Future scientists will probably be able to explain it better. But everything in the universe travels in a wave-like manner, and interacts in a particle-like manner. So both our wave model and our particle model is inadequate for explaining anything, so we have to switch back and forth between them to explain things.

"Whether or not observers are present" IS bullshit that misunderstands the issue. An observation is just an interaction, so it happens in a particle-like way.

>> No.1550869

>>1549409
The assertion "Electrons change between waves and particles depending on whether or not observers are present" IS BULLSHIT.

>> No.1550886
File: 453 KB, 229x173, 589.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1550886

EVERYONE POSTING IN THIS THREAD

Has been trolled. Shame on all of you.

>> No.1550903

>>1549504

But it's not just about observation and interaction, strictly sepaking. It's about transfer of information. c.f. quantum eraser

>> No.1550929

>>1549436
GTFO out of /sci/ you don't deserve to be here. NOTHING is ever truly set in stone in proper science, EVER.

>> No.1550941

>>1550803
No, saying "you're too stupid to understand" would be elitism. Trying to explain is precisely the opposite of elitism.

>> No.1551442

It's not about there being a conscious observer, it's about the fact that the particle is interacting with something outside of its system- indeed, you have to disturb a system in order to observe it, no? So, there is a minimum amount of influence you have to put into the electron in order to "observe" it- this is what collapses its wave function, not just the particle magically saying "OMMMGGGG Someone is looking at me!" For more information, I direct you to "Quantum Theory" by David Bohm, Chapter 5 for an in depth derivation of the uncertainty principle and an explanation for the process of measurement.