[ 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, 126x126, 1313097676909s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5506648 No.5506648 [Reply] [Original]

QED

SO is this correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E

when we have a measuring device there, but we are not STORING the result, its wave

when we STORE the result, its a particle.

WHAT THE DING-DONG LIVING FUCK is this about? And how come no one told me it wasn't the detectors interfering! Its the act of storing or a way to KNOW the data.

I'm looney tunes from watching this video. How? Why? What? come on.

>> No.5506660
File: 238 KB, 1550x1137, double slit error.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5506660

I just started the video, and there are already errors on the first slide.

>> No.5506669

>>5506660
forget the fucking slide man.

get to the point of the video. hopefully you can stand it without getting all aspie again.

>> No.5506686

>>5506669
These details do matter. But yes, he's wrong when he states that measuring which slit the particle goes through and throwing out the data gives you a double-slit pattern.

>> No.5506682

What you are saying is bullshit lol, psuedo physics.

A quantum mechanical wave collapses if it is disturbed by another particle, if you hit a wave with REAL ENERGY then it collapses. People act like it's some magical god in themselves that stretches out and tells the wave to be a particle. Retarded dumbed down public misconceptions.

Giving energy to particles will make them more likely to collapse, it's that simple... nothing more.

>> No.5506699

>>5506686
how can he be wrong?!? He's a professor reading known facts from people like Max Planck, for Feynman's sake...

>> No.5506715

>>5506682
well, thanks.. and that's what I thought, until I watched this video explanation which talked about not the measuring device but the RECORDING device that would enable it to be stored for a conscious person to review. AS IF ?!?

>> No.5506719

>>5506699
You have some biographical information on him that says he's a professor? Because from a first impression he looks like a garden variety crackpot to me.

>> No.5506766

>>5506719
he sounds like a prof.
and he is in a prof. environment
talking about other ph.D.s
from a science perspective
ipso facto.

>> No.5506783

>>5506766
Regardless, the way op worded it was total bullshit. Either the op is misunderstanding what the professor was saying, the professor made a simpleton dumbed down public interpertation or it's the professors own misleading interpertation that everybody misunderstands.

>> No.5506809

>>5506783
no the prof said it quoting people like max planck. you have to watch it.

>> No.5506833

>>5506766
Your "sounds like a prof" meter needs adjustment. Lots of old guys talk about physics without being professors. This guy's website describes his employment as "for the past 20 years, he has been at the heart of developing US missile defense systems." Also the name of his website is "my-big-toe.com".

>and he is in a prof. environment
The podium is labeled "Consciousness: The Endless Frontier." That is very fishy. It fits well with it being a garden-variety crackpot conference, though.

>talking about other ph.D.s
I don't see a "Dr." in front of his name or a "PhD" after it.

Not that you should take this as evidence of him being wrong, just don't assign him credibility he's not due.

>> No.5506849

>>5506833
you are smart. nice to meet you.

now would you kindly look at the words he said? regarding the detectors being on, but data recording being shutoff, and then they get an interference pattern from probabilities-- because nothing is "known" at the detector level even though it is detecting (just not recording for conscious).

jesus christ, this is a clusterfuck of a thread.

>> No.5506864

>>5506849
LOL? sounds like one of those christians saying the god particle.

Well i guess I'll have to watch the video now

>> No.5506894

>>5506849
Yes, I already told you he has his facts wrong.

>regarding the detectors being on, but data recording being shutoff
This is actually pretty vague, but assuming he means that some object changes state based on which slit the photon went through, and then the data was deleted, what he said is just plain wrong.

Now there are some subtle cases where you can take a measurement of which slit it goes through, the photons go through and make a single-slit pattern, and then you can look at the measurement in a way that destroys the which-slit information, and break down the single-slit pattern into a pair of complementary double-slit patterns. But that's not what he appears to be saying.

As far as quotes from famous physicists, it's well known Wigner suggested consciousness might have something to do with collapse of the wavefunction, and there isn't any evidence ruling the possibility out, but there isn't any evidence for it either. If you believe in objective collapse any number of things could be collapsing the wavefunction.

The quote from Planck is too short for me to tell what he was actually saying. I'll give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and assume the quotes weren't made up, because he should have been able to find legit quotes like what he showed.

>> No.5506913

>>5506864
yes same as the guy above said, this "professor" first stated that because nobody looked at the data on a screen the particle didn't collapse(bullshit) while the sensors were measuring.

then he stated by the end that the reason was that the detectors were at the latter sheet, so they were put in the back instead of the front witch was the right answer. He obviously is very confused himself. He is misunderstanding something it seems

>> No.5506930

Here's an old but classic account of the double-slit experiment (and quantum mechanics hasn't changed much, except that some of the thought experiments are now real experiments):

http://200.105.152.242/olimpiada/file.php/1/LIBROS_OLIMPIADAS/FISICA/Richard%20Feynman%20Book%20-%20Audio/Feynman_Lectures_-_VI/Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics_Volume_3_Chapter_01.PDF

This way you can learn about the double-slit experiment from someone who is neither a random anon or a random old guy lecturing at an institute that sells new-age seminars.