Can anyone retard-speak me the observer effect?
I understand "observe" doesn't mean conscious affect and can be a detection device
If you don't observe - the single particle"interferes with itself" and produces a wave pattern
If you observe, it doesn't "interfere with itself" and produces a specific result
Why/how does the detector "cause" this?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
How? We don't know.
Why? Because that how matter and energy work at very small scales.
thanks
Samefag here. You'd have to do a bit of reading on field theory. The idea being there's no particles as we understand macro things. It's all a excitement of a field, or energy on that field, that we experience.
So when we 'see' the particles they seem to be a wave and a particle when they are really both in a field. Think of a particle as the highest part of the wave, and the rest of the waves like, well a wave. We think that's why we see what we see.
Then to measure it or observe it we use another particle of another field to transfer some of that energy to other field.
So let's say wave one we're trying to measure is a full wave and ripples around it, which can interfere with itself. We use another wave to cross the first waves path and steal some of its energy which lets us measure the first wave, but at the cost of some of its energy, like the outer ripples. So now it can't intrfear with itself, and we think this is why we see what we see.
Now stop being atheist and embrace God.
Or this is our current best idea of what could be happening. We may never know for sure since we can't measure something with something else of the same size. We always need to use something smaller than the initial thing we want to measure. And we just can't control particles that small yet (quarks).
what psyjew crap is this on Yea Forums these days?
they're trying to increase divide in every way possible so they're trying to fuel any argument they can. basically they be trollin
Now stop being god and embrace atheist. kek
it's all of Yea Forums anymore. so sad to see. used to more of shit like this thread back in day. miss those raids and actual discussions.
So when any kind of observation is made, that information is transferred by a wave-like field excitation rebounding off the field excitation we want to observe, and cancelling out either its outer "ripples" (leaving only the peak - a particle) or the peak ( leaving the ripples - a wave)?
You must come to understand god, for you are god, I am god, the universe is god and we are the universe made manifest. Broken apart into thinking pieces as to understand itself. Rejoice brother!
Astro fag here.
I know it seems like that guy isn't really answering the question but it's actually true.
There's no logical explanation for it that will make you go "ah right I get it now." It's just a fact about nature that is completely counter intuitive.
Its like how you have to accept that gravity attracts things. Why? Well, because that's just how our universe works on large scales.
On small scales, that's what happens. Why? For the same reason light travels in straight lines, for the same reason pi is 3.14 and for the same reason electrons are negative. That's just the way the universe is.
Why is more of a philosophical question btw. Physics is a self contained description of how things behave. A physicist can't answer why, truly.
Reality cant exist without an observer. The reason(s) why we're here isn't something science will answer for quire some time (and that will cause the singularity)
you sound mostly correct but sloppy about saying things exactly. for a Yea Forums post you get an A-. Good, with a little room for improvement.
Read Hawkins "Brief History of Time" as he puts it in the best context and layman's terms that you're likely to find.
It's an optimization. Processing power wasn't unlimited so it was necessary to take some shortcuts resulting in bugs if you look too closely at anything. When you guys start finding too many bugs we restart the simulation with any fixes we've implemented. We're nearing the end of this cycle.
This. Kinda lonely when you break it down. We're just talking to ourselves cause we're bored and there's nothing else to do. (God is schizophrenic)
shut the fuck up kike
heres your 50 shekels
This is an actual discussion (what is our home in reality) shits deep, bruh
PBS has a youtube channel devoted to physics. The guy does a pretty good breakdown of the double-slit experiment.
Don't use the concept on information. When we observe we collapse the wave function and force it to appear in one place. The sames goes on when it hits a wall. 'observation' is not a physical concept, 'information' neither
this
What i don't understand is HOW can you detect a photon particle passing 'in front of you' and not hitting the detector.
So what's a good way to define the term "observation" in the quantum sense?
How do we distinguish between events that are observations and not observations? What are the criteria?
There is a logical aha explanation.
But in taking a poo ATM and then will go outside.
Open this thread again in about 10-12 hours and if I'm not drunken banging my gf at this time I might explain it to you.
Events are objective entities that causes effects on other entities
observation is a subjective entity that cannot affect other entities. A miss-observation will cause no effect on the world. A bullet in a brain will.
And to not be a fucking cheap ass positivist I have to remind that we are more than atoms and science does not reduct everything to its domain. We cannot explain why we like music with physics, and the one who affirms the contrary is just a retard.
An observation means measuring an "observable" which is any quantity that can be measured like position or velocity. Observations in QM are usually mathematically represented by matrix operations on a state vector, so for the to be an observation there needs to exist a matrix with eigenvales that match the probabilities of the possible outcomes of the observation
>I understand "observe" doesn't mean conscious affect and can be a detection device
It can be anything. It really just means "interact." Interacting forces the particle to have a definite position and begin acting like a particle.
Ok, but even if observation is a subjective entity, measurement isn't. And you can't subjectively observe something without objectively measuring it first, right?
So what are the criteria for this "measurement" event? It seems we're just shifting semantic importance here.
ya ever check tire pressure? by checking a tire's pressure, you let some of the air out of the tire, so it's kind of like that. you cannot observe the psi without changing it at least a bit
I think that's the heisenberg uncertainty principle, not the observer effect.
Thought the uncertainty thing was the cat in a box. Is it dead or alive? Neither its in a superposition until you observe it.
Or maybe, scientists discovered the proof of the existence of G-d when studying those subjects, so they invented those stupid fairy tales to hide it.
there is no objective reality
They created a container and put a laser in it. Then shot a single photon at a time through a "paper" to mark where it landed each test
Boooooo let us out you whore.
No, that's actually the observer effect.
If God can be proven, then it's not God.
naw, heisenberg is the thing where you can't know both the momentum and position of any given thing at the same time. observer effect is basically that by observing something, you inherently change it in some way, by nature of observing things
As far as I'm aware, the observer effect refers to a superposition changing into a definite state as a result of measurement/observation. So if a cat is in a superposition of alive state/dead state then checking it by opening the box and observing it will make it assume only one state (alive/dead).
And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers to the idea that the more precisely you measure the velocity of an object, the less precisely you can know its position, and vice versa. The tire analogy was originally use to explain this because it was assumed that the reason for this principle was that the very act of measurement itself distorts the object's original state in some way, but that was found to be incorrect after the generalised uncertainty principle was discovered.
interesting video on the subject
As per the post you quoted "An observation means measuring...any quantity that can be measured like position or velocity." Observation and measurement are used interchangeably in this context.
If they are used interchangeably, then that definition is tautological.
Also observation is not a subjective concept in QM, again as per the post you quoted, there needs to exist a mathematical quantity which expresses the observation.
How? You might be misunderstanding the concept.
I believe it’s due to the fact that when we try to observe these waves we have to use high powered waves like xrays and shit like that. When we introduce so much energy to the system, the wave function is altered by the presence of that high energy, and acts more like a particle
Perhaps I am.
But if "measurement" is used interchangeably with "observation", then by substitution, the post reads "observation means observing any quantity that can be observed such as position or velocity."
The explanation is self-referential and provides no new information about what "observation", and "measurement", mean.
If you think about the quantum make up of the universe as a ball pit except all the balls in the pit are just the atoms that are making up our realities then it would only make sense that shifting your atoms in a particular direction to make an observance would shift the ball pit in that direction therefore creating a slight variation in things observed in the direction you’re facing. It’s just moving inside a quantum soup naturally there would be an energy transference.
if you have 14 minutes this video indirectly explains it as well. But othwwise, a detector is not a passive device, it interacts with the measured uncertain object and thus enforces the collapse of the wave funtion of said object to a specific value though the physical interaction.
youtube.com
>there needs to exist a mathematical quantity which expresses the observation.
You did say that mathematical quantities are simply representations of observations, implying that observations/measurements and mathematical quantities are not one and the same, but that mathematical quantities correspond to the "possible outcomes", and I'm assuming that these "outcomes" refer to real, existing events.
Looking into the future changes the future!
because if you want a measurable detection, you have to interact with those particles, using other particles or a field which is disrupted, the fact that we need to observe using these methods means our methods of observing impact the result