[ 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: 4 KB, 406x342, 12.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819788 No.3819788 [Reply] [Original]

Is it true that nothing in nature happens definitively unless there's a human there to observe the event or its aftermath?

>> No.3819792

>>3819788
Please.

>> No.3819791

How could we ever know?

Is it true that nothing in nature happens definitively?

>> No.3819812
File: 152 KB, 512x384, 2000framsim.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819812

Not really. If you're referring to quantum mechanics, "observation" in QM means interaction with another particle. A particle is 'observed' when it interacts.

I guess you could call it the scaling of observer effects: A microscope doesn't affect the sample except heating it ever so slightly because of the light source, an electron microscope can punch holes through the sample and an atomic force microscope can literally move atoms. At the quantum scale every interaction is an observation.

Animooted.

>> No.3819824

>>3819788
Yep, but dude, we're not supposed to talk about it, it's all hush hush. Basically tho, so you don't ask again and draw attention to it, basically, the whole universe goes on pause until one of us is observing it.

It's got something to do with improving the efficiency of quantum calculations or some shit. The guy that designed the whole thing didn't make it portable to a new system, so we're stuck with this old, slow-ass universal computer instead of the new you-beaut one the invented a few millenia back.

>> No.3819825

You gave me a good idea. We should do quantum experiements (like the one with light) and have animals be the observers. We'll rank animals who'll change the results as Alpha and the ones who can't as beta.

>> No.3819838

>>3819812
>implying there aren't entangled states
I seriously hope you guys learn quantum mechanics before trying to come up with "better" layman-explanations of it.

>> No.3819869

Thanks. I still don't understand, but at least I've learned enough to give up trying to.

>> No.3819877

>>3819838

Oh so-rry dick feynman. Didn't realize you're the only person who claims to truly understand QM.

>> No.3819880

Its not true.

>> No.3819888

>>3819812
This.

The observer in QM is anything that goes into a classically deterministic state as the result of a quantum interaction. A molecule of photo-sensitive film, a photo-transistor, or a cone in the human eye are the observers. There is nothing special about the human mind or consciousness. People who tell you that human consciousness has some important role in QM are con artists using QM to sell the same bullshit as ghosts and demons were a century ago.

>> No.3819897
File: 39 KB, 450x268, 1148_1253230725640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819897

>>3819888
So the molecules are left in an undetermined state until picked up by some kind of light detecting sensor or organ?

>> No.3819918

>>3819897
Yes. Its hard to digest, but as far as we know today, this is the best model to explain the experiments on plank's scale.

On larger scales, this effect is averaged over to produce our usual newtonian determinism.

>> No.3819931

>>3819897

The molecules, atoms etc are undetermined until they interact with something and enter a well-defined state.

>> No.3819933

>>3819918
So the presence of a blind man wouldn't effect them?

>> No.3819935

It doesn't even have to be a light detecting sensor or organ. Anything which might (indirectly) interact with the outcome is an observer.

An imperfect analogy:
A water drop in the ocean would be an observer to the moon's existence because it's being pulled around by the tides.

>> No.3819955

sure is Schrodinger's cat in here

>> No.3819968

>>3819877
Sorry if I come across as harsh, but to anyone who's actually studied QM, these threads sound like a bunch of highschoolers arguing about basic physics, and saying things like:

"No, you don't need to keep the rockets on to keep a spaceship moving because it is pushed by the force of inertia."

It's close to a good answer, but
>At the quantum scale every interaction is an observation.
is simply wrong.

>>3819888
is better. It could be even better with "according to the Copenhagen interpretation" added. And I'm not sure why he feels the need to put "deterministic" in. It's not really wrong, but it's redundant.

>> No.3819977

but if gravity affects everything everywhere in the universe regardless of how vast the difference, doesn't that mean that everything is always observed?

>> No.3820017

What is the state of matter that isn't observed?

>> No.3820025

>>3820017
Wave

>> No.3820034

>>3820025
....

Let's be accurate. The probability AMPLITUDE is a wave.

>> No.3820048

>>3820025
What would this look like if we could observe it? Actually how do we even know matter is like this if we can't observe it in this state?

>> No.3820063

>>3820048
The object is NOT a wave. Its probability amplitude has a wave like form. These are different things (apparently)

>> No.3820068

>>3820063
So it would look exactly the same to us?

>> No.3820097

>>3820068
:(

Look. I will be honest with you. There are questions you can't ask right now which are INTERPRETATIVE in nature. Because we don't have the theories for them. These discussions come under the category of speculative (and thus shitty) philosophy.

I am not trying to discourage you. The message is that only those questions can be validly answered for which SOME empirical framework (a theory) exists.

An example is talking about the lunch of aliens in a infinite dimensional space where cthulhu lives. There is NO way any of us know anything meaningful about it. Would it be a good idea to talk about it then?

>> No.3820163

Considering the scale of the universe, the earth must not be too large. So making it all apparent at once wouldn't be too costly on processor speed. The fact that most matter doesn't exist unless we're observing it was allowed to be so easily discovered means there must be other life in the universe. So it's proven that we're not alone.

>> No.3820254

I know you think it don't be like that, but it do.

>> No.3820863

>If a tree falls down in the forest, does it make a sound?

It does not make a sound, but it still generates intensity.

>> No.3820891

>>3820034
I don't think you know what you're talking about. You've just implied that the wavefunction (BIG clue in the name, there) isn't a wave.

>> No.3820893

>>3820863

But it does make a sound.

>> No.3820936
File: 129 KB, 300x225, dddsss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3820936

Everything is basically these guys?

>> No.3820969

>>3820863

Of course it makes a sound. It makes an expanding longtitudinal wave in the air and through the ground, regardless of whether anyone is there to notice it.

>> No.3821002

That statement is not true because of several reasons.

Firstly, just the presence of any human doesn't confirm the observation because of the creditability of the person. People have a tendancy to lie and exaggerate.

Secondly, we can be sure that some things happen even if there is no person around to see it just because of what we have already obsorved about our known universe, and with that information we are able to accuratly determine the only possiblity for an event to happen in.

>> No.3821059

>>3821002
Doesn't mean those things happen just because something reacts to the supposed event.

Three steps in a chain of causality, 1 and 3 are observed, 2 did not happen, because the observer blinked.

Observed events only for the sake of the viewer, just an interpretation of the immaterial, all thats real is the force behind what may be observed as a happening if someone looks.