/sci/ - Science & Math

how the FUCK are you supposed to know what substitution to use in questions like this? where does sinh come from? i spent ages on this question until i gave up

I leave it as an exercise for the student to merely re-discover the concepts that I don't feel like discussing. You should be able to do this.

I leave it as am exercise to the student to discover the concepts that I didn't feel like developing. You should be able to do this.

Very brainlet Q here but why cant we just define a number such that x = x + 1 ? If we can define sqrt of negative there's no reason we shouldn't be able to define this

>>12211090
It's a simplified popsci way of expressing that the detectors themselves don't seem to have an influence on collapsing the wave function unless the information is available. The common thread I see among knowledgeable people trying to explain this is that if the which path information is "available in principle" then it will collapse the wave function. But my question is what are the limits to what that means. "in principle?" that seems rather vague. What if you incinerate the paper containing the which path information inside locked box. Does that constitute erasing the information?

>>12209481
I also wonder if you can harness this because it almost feels like the universe does some sort of computation to figure out if the information has leaked out of the system or not.

>>12209294
>>12209091
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

This guy explains starting 8:00 that if you just turn the detectors off then the photons decohere. The physical presence of the detectors do nothing to collapse the wave function.

>>12209091
So you're saying that if you just destroy the path information by burning the paper before viewing the results it won't be enough to cause decoherence? Remember we'd be firing photons in a sequence for a while before opening the box. I think that theoretically, destroying the which path information by incinerating it should be enough to create interference patters in one go.

>>12209294
I'm having trouble deciphering what you're trying to say. But I don't know what the exact method is to detect photons in the double-slit is either.

>>12208766
It's usually explained away with "the interference pattern is only recovered after the fact by doing all this processing and bip bop flippity dop and you have an illusion" ok. then let's do it ham fistedly with photographic plates and burning fucking papers. You can't make an illusion out of that.

>>12208751
I think the dcqe could be reformulated with no coincidence counting and filtering involved and no tricks involved.

>>12208021
Yeah it was pretty much a long winded way of explaining away the dcqe as a parlor trick.

>>12208669
If that's the case then why don't the detectors permanently collapse the wave function in the dcqe, how can you undo their "observations". imo the detectors can measure but they can't observe. observation collapses the wave function.

>>12206705
How does GKG feel about GAN taking his idea?

>>12208170
If this experiment were done, you burn the papers, open the box and see a collapsed wave function 2 slot pattern. It would settle the argument forever about consciousness. The detector and the paper did it. We'll never have to utter the word consciousness around quantum physics ever again.

>>12207277
>>12208170
Alright so in your opinion in Shrodinger's cat thought experiment the cat is not in a superposition of dead or alive, because the cat is a classical object and therefore would have interacted with the wave function and collapsed it.

>>12207277
>I don’t think merely burning papers would do it. You need to have an object that is not classical, but Quantum.

Link to an experiment that shows this?

>>12207539
Also I never said anything about consciousness. I just said let's play a game of "Will it collapse?" Let's test out a whole range of things from a simple detector to a crow, shrodinger's cat, monkey, baby, human. Where's the threshhold.

>>12207947
That's where the what the whole thought experiment with Schrodinger's cat come from right. There's a whole bunch of things in that box taking measurments technically but it's still in a superposition.

>>12207926
But I am 99% sure that the detectors writing out the information but destroying it before a human can read it will not collapse the wave function. That's just my hypothesis. But that would make him butthurt because it ruins his assertion that "no... any measurement taken by anything human or not human will collapse the wave function"

>>12207407
I never said which option would happen, two slot or interference and there's already a guy calling me deepak chopra lol.

>>12207252
>You are already going wrong here. If the photon is detected, then it can't also make a pattern on the film, because detecting the photon destroys it.

That's a technicality you can solve by using prisims and entangled photons then going more towards the original dcqe, but that wasn't the important part. The question was will this still work if you do it in such a rough manner like having detectors write out the data on paper and burning the information as a quantume eraser. I never made a claim one way or the other about consciousness I just posed a question which pattern would appear if certain conditions were set up.

>>12206744
Hmm... Can you test out your computer's security by putting in a box. If there's a possibility it can be hacked into and violate the uncertainty principle then it will collapse the wave function. If there's no chance it can be hacked into then it won't.

>>12206733
I think I just opened pandora's box to the weird shit you can do to bring quantum effects to the macro scale.