/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6726564]

Does the observer really collapse the wave function and create reality, or is that just some new age pseudoscience?

If it's true, what does that mean? consciousness exists outside the Universe?

[Anonymous No.6726566]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.6726569]

>>6726566
Explain

[Anonymous No.6726571]

you seem to confuse observer with conscious observer.

Please show me where the quantum mechanical formalism requires consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6726572]

>>6726571
Right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

[Anonymous No.6726573]

>>6726564
>Does the observer really collapse the wave function

Yes.


But the observer doesn't have to be a "conscious" person. It can be anything classical system that interacts with it.

[Anonymous No.6726577]

>>6726573
So... air is an observer?

How do they see the interference pattern then if that is a result of it not being observed?

[Anonymous No.6726580]

>>6726564

Yes, but observation in this context does not refer to a consciousness measuring or perceiving the wave function but rather anything which interacts with the wave function (and so could be used to determine the position or the particle, but it's irrelevant whether any sentient mind does this). The new age metaphysicists use this ambiguity of language to imply (or outright claim) that the experiment shows that the mind has special, magical power. It doesn't, or at least, not in the sense that the new age metaphysistcs want. The special power of the mind is to observe the startling and unexpected results of the double-slit experiment and perceive in it the counter-intuitive nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.6726581]

>>6726577
>So... air is an observer?


Sure. If it interacts.


>How do they see the interference pattern then if that is a result of it not being observed?


Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it?


"Seeing" is irrelevant in the context of no conscious observer. If something interacts with the wavefunction, it will change accordingly.

[Anonymous No.6726582]

>>6726577
>Air does the detecting! LOOK AT ME, I'M A FUCKING RETARD!

[Anonymous No.6726584]

>>6726581
How do you know the results if you can't observe it without it changing?

[Anonymous No.6726585]

>>6726584
>How do you know the results if you can't observe it without it changing?


QM is probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.6726587]

>>6726585
I think it's a fake experiment and none of you know what you're talking about.

I've never seen it turn into two slits. It's always an interference pattern.

[Anonymous No.6726597]

>>6726582
You are the retard here. He's not playing dumb, he's asking questions to better understand what "observe" means in this context.

[Anonymous No.6726606]

>>6726584
the trick is, how do you measure which slit a particle goes through? it's not like you can just set up a camera - you'd need to bounce a photon off of it, or absorb it in a detector on the far side of the slit. "Observation" of a particles implies a physical effect on the observed particle.

[Anonymous No.6726610]

So the collapse happens even when no person is observing.

So our consciousness isn't anything special and has no influence on creating reality?

[Anonymous No.6726614]

>>6726610
yes. The problem is that you thought "observing" implied an "observer", which it doesn't, in a physical sense.

Many physical terms don't mean what they mean in everyday language usage.

[Anonymous No.6726618]

>6726585
>>How do you know the results if you can't observe it without it changing?
>music is probabilistic?

[Anonymous No.6726623]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

[Anonymous No.6726625]

>>6726614
Well this answers my questions.

There is nothing special about this Universe, life, or reality.
There is nothing to look forward to after death.
There is no objective reason to be a good person.
Do whatever you want, it doesn't matter, nothing matters.
You will die, the universe will die, and it will have all been for nothing.

Was trying to find something beyond that, but I guess this is the way it is.

[Anonymous No.6726640]

>>6726625
Physically rational naturalism doesn't imply philosohpical nihilism.

Make the world a better place and kill yourself.
Thank you for your cooperation.

[Anonymous No.6726644]

>>6726640
Nah, I will make the world a worse place, because why not.

[Anonymous No.6726676]

>>6726644
the golden rule
>do unto others as ye would have others do unto ye

works for everyone but masochists

[Anonymous No.6726687]

>>6726644
You are now qualified for induction into the Illuminati and will be contacted.

[Anonymous No.6726690]

>>6726644
>because why not.

Doing an action implies a reason. So the question is why, not why not. (And the answer is because you're trying to be edgy.)

[saged No.6726694]

>>6726564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[Anonymous No.6726707]

>>6726676
>>6726687
>>6726690
>>6726694
You're all just mad because it's true that Atheists have no morals.

Unlike you white knight fedora faggots, I will finally accept this and do as I see fit.

[Anonymous No.6726708]

If only they had sat down and thought of a less confusing word than observer, we could have saved ourselves from a lot of paranormal bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6726725]

>>6726564
I have a feeling that we simply need more knowledge on the subject. I am a determinist that doesn't argue with the facts, therefore I believe " eventually " it will come back in my court. I don't think that observation causes change.

[Anonymous No.6726729]

Does observation change it as we perceive, it or as it is?

[Anonymous No.6726745]

>>6726606
DING DING DING! We have a winner!

Imaging you're videotaping a marble on a pool table. Not bad. You know exactly what that marble is doing, where it is and how it's moving. You have total information about that marble.

Now suppose you could only detect information on the pool table WITH that marble. So, like, if there were a sturdy wooden square in the middle of the pool table, the only way to see it would be to bounce a marble from one end of the pool table and see where it hits the pool table walls. A bit tricky, but you can figure out where the wooden square is and even figure out it's a square by using geometry.

Now, imagine you could only find marbles on the pool table using other "detector" marbles. For ease of understanding, pool table marbles are "Pmarbles" and detector marbles are "Dmarbles." You could bounce the Dmarble against the Pmarble, but then the Dmarble's speed is affecting both where the Pmarble is and also its speed on the pool table. So when you try to detect it, you get nowhere.

The analogy is thus: think of a Pmarble as any low-mass particle (like an electron) and the Dmarble as a photon. When you need to observe something, you throw a photon at it then read the photon in a detector.

That movie "What the Bleep do We Know" really messed up my understanding of Quantum Mechanics. I didn't understand it at all until I took a Modern Physics course in college. Now I understand it just a little bit.

[Anonymous No.6726754]

>>6726564
The word "observer" in this context has nothing to do with consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6726763]

>>6726564
Consciousness is a Transcendental Paradox. The quantum mechanics gets to Consciousness, the spookier and more paradoxical becomes. In fact, QM proves - but not scientist would dare admit for fear of losing their job - that fundamentally there is only One Consciousness, one great Unity from which we all spring like branches from an Infinitely bifurcating tree - the Tree of Life.

QM is the Yin and Yang -- it proves that Consciousness creates Reality, and yet also proves that Reality creates Consciousness. In fact, there can be no such distinction; Consciousness *is* Reality, and Reality *is* Consciousness. When we study subatomic particles, we study the fabric of Consciousness; when we look inside our minds with meditation, we study the fabric of Reality. Fundamentally there can be no distinction between Science and Mysticism to the enlightened, just as Yin is Yang and Yang is Yin. Each are mutually Recursive to Infinite depths, like Eval and Apply.

[Anonymous No.6726799]

>>6726625
>cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous No.6726802]

>>6726754
This. We simply haven't figured out a way to observe an electron in superposition without collapsing it's wave function.

[Anonymous No.6726823]

>>6726625
>There is nothing special about this Universe, life, or reality.
What the fuck does "special" mean?
>There is nothing to look forward to after death.
Everything you know of death had been observed by the living and is therefore subjectively invalid.
>There is no objective reason to be a good person.
Being a good person will, over time, cause other good people to associate with you, and therefore bring positivity into your life.
>Do whatever you want, it doesn't matter, nothing matters.
See previous response.
>You will die, the universe will die, and it will have all been for nothing.
Meaning is what you make it. It will all be for nothing for you, because you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.6726828]

>>6726763
>that fundamentally there is only One Consciousness, one
lol no it doesnt

[Anonymous No.6726830]

>>6726823

[Anonymous No.6726833]

>>6726564
The observer is a misnomer, think of the observer as a projector screen. You can hook up a projector and have it play an unknown movie, but until you point the projector at a surface you can't see what the movie is.

Also light has dimensions and pseudo-properties that are mass-like and electromagnetic. Its a tiny bit of field and energy that is self-propelled.

[Anonymous No.6726844]

>>6726823
That's a nice story.

[Anonymous No.6726845]

>>6726763
You're not a scientist. You look Stupid when you Capitalize random Words. You're not even good at making things up.
You should probably consider suicide.

[Anonymous No.6726848]

>>6726763
You're not a scientist. You look Stupid when you Capitalize random Words. You're not even good at making things up. English majors would scoff at your shutty attempt to make yourself seem bright by using fancy synonyms you found in a thesaurus.
You should probably consider suicide.

[Anonymous No.6726850]

>>6726844
>>6726830

>Waiting for counter-arguments.

[Anonymous No.6726853]

>>6726850
It was a nice story you tell yourself before bedtime.

It doesn't bring anything to the table.

[Anonymous No.6726859]

>>6726707
This makes no sense. Isn't a "white knight fedora faggot" who is an atheist (that word isn't a proper noun, by the way) that doesn't accept that "atheists have no morals" and acts morally, by definition, an atheist with morals?

You're even refuting yourself.

>>6726745
This is probably the best explanation I've heard.

I'd liken it to more mundane observations that alter the experiment, as well.

Using a thermometer to take the temperature of a hotter substance would require some heat to flow into the thermometer and be used to rise the mercury, lowering the temperature of the hotter substance a little bit.

So, when we try to take the temperature of something, we're changing it. And it has little to do with consciousness altering the fabric of reality.

>>6726845
>You look Stupid when you Capitalize random Words

Yeah, why the fuck do all New-Age internet-mystic woo nuts do this?

[Anonymous No.6726869]

>>6726564
>consciousness exists outside the Universe?

Or consciousness _is_ the universe and 'ours' is just a tiny part of it.

[Anonymous No.6726877]

>>6726853

It's how I got over my high school moral/existential nihilism phase. It seems like there are some folks in this thread who are still in that there. What I'm bringing to the table is an opportunity for them to move beyond that without any need to believe in divinity..

[Anonymous No.6727078]

>>6726877
So, just pretend and it will be all better?

[Anonymous No.6727129]

>>6727078
Different anon, but you are guaranteed to not live a happy life if you accept that there's no purpose to anything and it's all just nothingness and you might as well just die and it won't matter. My personal goal is to explore, to experience as many things as possible, with the exception of things that can be classified as suffering since I do not really want to do that. Sure, in the end it doesn't matter what I did with my life to anyone else, but that doesn't mean it won't have mattered to me.

[Anonymous No.6727317]

>>6726869
who the fuck keeps making these cosmic Q&A's with ET?

[Anonymous No.6727367]

>>6726745
Somebody gets it

[Anonymous No.6727436]

>>6726877
>he hasn't moved on from the post 'high school nihilism phase' phase and thinks the current phase that he's in is the top most completely correct phase.

When you grow older buddy you will realize that your current stance is wrong and so you will go back into nihilism.

[Anonymous No.6727609]

>>6726869

You know, I thought misinterpreting Hindu philosophy went out of style in the 1970s.

I'd like to trade that for bellbottoms. Bellbottoms are fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.6727661]

>>6726564
>experiment isn't flawed
>electron model isn't flawed

[Anonymous No.6727663]

>>6726564
that's why quantum mechanics is statistically interpreted. we have a probability of position or momentum, but we can't know exactly what it is until it is measured (observation). you're talking pseudoscience, don't be like the rest of the forum.

[Anonymous No.6727681]

>>6726802
Why not take a picture with a camera without our eyes closed?

[Anonymous No.6727682]

>>6727681
*Why not take a picture of the electron with a camera with our eyes closed*?

[Anonymous No.6727698]

>>6726564
physics is porn.

[Anonymous No.6727708]

>>6726869
ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.6727719]

>>6726564
The correct answer is NO. It is newage pseudoscience based on mediocre minds who don't understand the nuance of language used in actual science.

[Anonymous No.6728088]

>>6726564
What is this consciousness bullshit?

This is how I think of this (I could be wrong). When there are no interactions between the electron passing through the double slit, it is free to propagate through both slits and create an interference pattern. If you try to figure out which slit the electron goes through, you have to bombard the electron with something (photon or other particle) to detect it. By bombarding and detecting it, you collapse the wave function of the electron down to a degree where it can either propagate through one slot or the other but not both which destroys the interference pattern.

I probably gave a half assed explanation but it has nothing to do with consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6728141]

There is still something i am not sure of. Is the uncertainty how it really is, or just how it can be measured?
Like, is it really not determined until observed, or is it just not possible (for an observer) to determine?
>>6726745 this and most theories to explain it make it seem like the latter. But some people say the former.

[Anonymous No.6728176]

So basically QM has come to the age old question; if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Anonymous No.6728181]

>>6728176
>if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
of course

[Anonymous No.6728193]

>>6728181
unfalsifiable assertion :(

[Anonymous No.6728194]

>>6728141
What if the shot out particles act like waves because they're unstable, and two unstable waving particles attract each other. So when they finally meet they become a single intenser, but stable particle?

[Anonymous No.6728195]

>>6728176
The trees are there to hear it.

[Anonymous No.6728203]

>>6728176
Sound is just differences in pressure and they are propagated through impulse of the air molecules. So yeah, it does make a sound.

>>6728194
How does that answer the question?

[Anonymous No.6728222]

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

[Anonymous No.6728227]

>>6728203
Okay I'll try answering the question.
Everything you haven't measured is uncertain, subjectively.
Particles which behave randomly determine themselves because they aren't guided through physical interactions with other particles, but particles are dumb, so they just flay around randomly until they hit something.
Once they get interacted with, they become more focused and guided, thus reducing the randomness factor.
I reckon that if our "observation devices", which are just particle shooters that collide with other particles, were consistently accurate enough, we could actually direct the particles going through slits into a single point.

So all in all, the only things that determine reality are interactions, randomness is just unguidedness, observer uncertainty comes from not having interacted yourself.
We can't be certain about everything because there's just too many things to be certain about. You could build a super computer which would calculate and predict every movement on Earth, but then once a random interstellar interaction happens, like radiation waves, everything on Earth would get subtly affected, thus forcing the computer to start gathering data from the scratch in order to start making accurate predictions again.

I hope this answered some questions, I may or have not may have gotten a little sidetracked.

[Anonymous No.6728265]

pls respond

[Anonymous No.6728269]

>>6728227
>Particles which behave randomly

Particles don't behave randomly.

[Anonymous No.6728273]

>>6728269
I meant wave-particles, they're still particles, they just move around so fast that they seem to be in a lot of places, giving the illusion of a wave.