/sci/ - Science & Math

The Copenhagen interpretation is not a valid ontology by any metric. It's physicists trying to sound deep when explaining what a linear combination is.

>>10419639
an observer is equivalent to a measurement device, and interacting a quantum system with a macroscopic measurement device causes decoherence

>>10419718
how can one post be so wrong, it is literally the only valid ontology

>>10419718
t. wants to colonize higher dimensions

>>10419639
Observation can only occurs by interacting with the particle, therefore perturbing it and collapsing the wave function.

>>10419639
Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. /sci/ refuses to entertain it because they are brainlets who cant into T-symmetry.

>>10419721
Why can’t they just call it what it is? It’s just a measurement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ&feature=youtu.be

Measuring where election goes, creates new electromagnetic wave that screws wave required to generate interference pattern.

When you measure something, you interact with it. If you interact with an electron, it stops behaving like a wave and starts behaving like a particle.

>>10420523
Wtf are you on about. If I watch my dog im not interacting with it and its not changing in any way or form how he react of he doesnt see me watching him

>>10419721
What is quantum eraser :^)

>>10420529
nope, by definition, the ability for you to "observe" it predisposes how reality will behave. The idea that you can be a "objectively disinterested observer" is retarded and has been debunked multiple times. Read werner, bohr, and shrodinger

>>10420536
If im watching someone live on the other side of thw country on a screen without him knowing you are telling me im interfwring with his atoms through the mean of the camera filming him?

>>10419639
the whole thing stinks of unknown variable but instead physicists keep insisting its magic.

>>10420529
Interaction on a quantum level, involving photons. Your dog can't feel you watching it because the photons are so small compared to the dog's size it's quite literally zero.

>>10420539
Yes.

>>10420529
Your dog is not a quantum object. In order to observe a quantum system, it must be perturbed by a measurement device directly, or by say photons and measured indirectly. That perturbation disturbs the system and changes its state.

>>10420549
What exactly is happenimg between the camera or observation apparutus and the subatomic particle in order to observe it. What is the interaction between the two please.

>>10419639
>Why does observation cause wave-function collapse?
It doesn't. Observation creates a decoherent waveform with decohered components for each possible observation the observer can observe. From the point of view of an observer, this feels indistinguishable to a collapse of the wavefunction; but what is really going on is that the decoherence process puts most of the wavefunction out of realistic reach for the observer.

>>10420535
Do elaborate.

>>10420562
Watch this video: https://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs

It has nothing to do with "particles pertubations". In fact, nobody knows what collapes wave function.

>>10420557
A photon bounces off the particle and ends up being captures by the camera

>>10420539
no, you are necessarily effecting how reality will behave by interacting; by literally being. Think of it this way: observing a planets orbit reveals to us gravity and motion, these elements are necessary for human being to happen in the first place. The very act of us observing a planet necessarily means the force of gravity isnt strong enough to interfere with our measurement/observation and development of us in the first place. There is no observing things without our "being having a hand in it and influencing it". Less abstractly, in your example, the spying device could alter the temperature in the room. Also dogs do behave differently when directly observed by humans. But those are less philosophical then the first example and dont provide the all encompassing theory that the quantum physicists were talking about.

>>10420578
So if there was no humans to observe the Universe would it behave differently

Lol

>>10420584
no thats a retarded extrapolation, im simply pointing out that there is no interacting with things without affecting them, this is brought to its logical conclusion in quantum physics. There is a myth generate by scientism that humans can be wholly objective observers, and that is not the case.

>>10419639
My take would be we force them out of superposition(which causes the wave-function) into a single point otherwise we couldn't observe it but that's unsatisfying

>>10420598
But if we alter how it behaves by interacting with it our non interaction also alters its state. Im a school janitor this is way above my paygrade but trying to understand

>>10420541
I think you mean “hidden variables” but I totally agree. Pilot wave theory is an excellent example of everything thats wrong with science. You mention it in one of these threads and people start sperging off about how its wrong, and they dont even know it makes all the same predictions as the Copenhagen Interpretation. Yes, even in reference to Bells inequality theorem, do some fucking research you brainlets.

>>10420603
>But if we alter how it behaves by interacting with it our non interaction also alters its state
well ive gotten really far into the philosophy of the observer effect, but yes, thats basically the point. "not interacting" with something reveals its characters as well. Another way of putting this is "interacting" and "non interacting" are actually just two aspects of interaction in general, because being able to "not interact" with something reveals its nature by default.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

you can read that and niels bohr wrote alot about the nature of our place in effecting reality

>>10419639
Imagine you can only measure seismic activity inside a very still lake by placing a probe in the lake. The act of placing the probe in the lake disturbs the water and gives you seismic readings. The electron is not aware of some observer, it must be interacted with in order to be measured. What's so spooky about that?

>>10419721
>>10420562
Pop sci retards

>>10420535
>>10420571
The results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment are exactly what observation-as-decoherence predicts. There is no mystery here. The eraser is only a problem if you think in terms of collapses, which are not in fact a thing.

>>10419639

It's the simulation procedurally generating the information as and when it's needed.

It takes up too much storage space otherwise.

>>10420635
no u

>>10420622
I disagree with any notion that observer interaction is a fundamental part of ontology. Humans as intelligent observers seek information about quantum behavior, but the ultimate cause of the observer effect is simple and does not require an observer. Perturbing a quantum system is required for observation, and perturbing a quantum system alters the state. Any confusion is a problem of semantics and language, not reality itself.

My take is shut up and calculate and don't go sticking your beak where it doesn't belong. It might get snipped off.

Everyone talking about how this or that "collapses" the wave function is an undergrad brainlet parroting popsci videos. There's nothing in QM that remotely provides a framework for collapse of a wave function or implies that such a thing makes any sense. It's pure ad-hoc bullshit akin to saying "and then a miracle occurs"

>>10419639
the double slit experiment where a single electron is fired & produces an interference pattern on a target behind the 2 slits.

I have ALWAYS longed to reproduce this mystery.

now. please don't get shitty for me being.curious.

my question is.. Are we simply seeing a pattern produced by 'edge-diffraction' ?
and NOT behaving like a wave and interfering with itself?

this is why I've longed to see it my myself.

>>10419768
>Observation can only occurs by interacting with the particle
kek
https://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1994-08.pdf

>>10420523
This. Isn't the idea that particles are so small there's now way to have a look at where they are without also giving them the energy to move about some more?

>>10421906
u wot m8 ill snip of ur peter

>>10421927
>the double slit experiment where a single electron is fired & produces an interference pattern on a target behind the 2 slits.

a single electron is affected by heisenbergs uncertainty principle as well isn't it? That would mean it has

>my question is.. Are we simply seeing a pattern produced by 'edge-diffraction' ?
why would you say edge-diffraction is not a phenomena caused by a wave interfering with itself? how are they mutually exclusive???

Search about pilot wave faggots

>single electron is affected by heisenbergs uncertainty principle as well isn't it?

YES.. i got that

why would you say edge-diffraction is not a phenomena caused by a wave interfering with itself? how are they mutually exclusive???

they aren't.. I'm just REAFFIRMING that firing a single electron at ANY edge will cause a deviation in its direction of travel, whether it is part of a slit, double slit or just the edge by itself..

so I'm simply asking...
wouldn't the slits make no difference to this experiment.. can't the results be explained by simply stating that the electrons are deviated by the edge... any edge.. regardless..

so the heisenbergs uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with it?..

sorry about my lame questions, I really appreciate your input.

>>10422067
>single electron is affected by heisenbergs uncertainty principle as well isn't it?

YES.. i got that

>why would you say edge-diffraction is not a phenomena caused by a wave interfering with itself? how are they mutually exclusive???

they aren't.. I'm just REAFFIRMING that firing a single electron at ANY edge will cause a deviation in its direction of travel, whether it is part of a slit, double slit or just the edge by itself..

so I'm simply asking...
wouldn't the slits make no difference to this experiment.. can't the results be explained by simply stating that the electrons are deviated by the edge... any edge.. regardless..

so the heisenbergs uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with it?..

sorry about my lame questions, I really appreciate your input.

>>10422106
Well, without the slits, the particles are able to take on a much wider value of energy and momentums by the uncertainty principle.

Measuring the particle at the slit puts a bound on the energies(and position) of the particle. That's why the uncertainty principle matters.

>>10422106
ok, I think I get what your problem is.

the thing is, while intereference is also happening with only one slit, the resulting pattern is continuous. it is still a refraction pattern tho, but because it originates from the same wave there is no discrete destructive interference. there is destructive interference, but it is continuous, so you dont see exactly where it happens and where it doesnt happen.

now with two slits on the other hand even tho they share the same original wave, the different locations of the slits guarantees that the refraction patterns won't be the exact same for both slits, they will be VERY similar but not perfectly. so now between those two waves, exiting the slits, destructive interference does not happen continuosly but discretely.

I hope this makes sense and maybe pic related help a little so get the mind juices flowing

>>10422040
the "idea" is that particles don't have any definite properties b4 msrmnt, and not that the observer is merely ignorant about them

>>10422112
> wider value of energy and momentums by the uncertainty principle

yes, so the deviations are wider.. I know that.

>Measuring the particle at the slit puts a bound on the energies(and position) of the particle.

yes, it 'narrows' its 'bandwidth'-(shitty word use).

but.. in an imperfect world with imperfect measuring isn't all this just a kind of equivalent type of 'miller-effect' as with capacitors.. like inter-electrode-capacitance? aren't we just shitty at measuring?

thus SHUNTING its energy? decoupling to ground.. kind of thing (again shitty equivalence example)

I just can't understand the need for so much complication. it simply loses energy because we interact with it imperfectly.

I see its direction changed by the EDGE as readily acceptable as refraction is with light.

I need to understand why ALL this isn't just an edge diffraction thats somehow increased if its affected by two edges at the same time (x2 diffractions acting on it simultaneously)...

again. I really do appreciate..

>>10422116
sorry I NOT read this one before my last post..
Im still reading that one newest.. I will be a bit..

>>10420639
what does decoherence predict?

>>10421913
Except observations are of "collapsed" particles not uncolllapsed wavefunctions, so obviously QM is incomplete.

>>10419639
To humans, many things are dependent upon whether they look at it or not.

Just like how most men will marry a woman who said she had sex with other men but would not marry a woman who showed a video of her having sex with other men. In both examples, the thing happened but the result is different based on whether the man visually sees it. Regardless, the man remains a cuckold.

>>10422047
Wotch it, tough guy

>all these tards unknowingly spouting disproven hidden variables local realism, trying to sound smart
Hurr durr the particle gets moved by the probe when you measure it

>>10422213
Based and redpilled.

>>10422213
lololol

first, marriage is not made out of affect most of the time.

second, we do it with other chicks too so its quit pro quo isnt it? otherwise your values are biased and this whole discussion is needless anyway

then, dont you think quantity and quality matters?

If she didnt get fucked up in the head, a disease, a worn down pussy or a baby from the sex she had before and if the number of sexpartners is equal or lower to mine I'd be fine with it.

on the other hand I wouldnt get married in the first place

>>10422116
>>10422067
PART2
OK so now theres 2 responses from me.. sorry if its now annoying..
two slits.. the destructive(AND constructive?) pattern is discrete(dark bands)... accumulated over time with many electrons fired.
so.. its ALL because of the heavier dark band formation. so we call it discrete & IGNORE all those far-far-far-far-fewer electrons that do hit the spots inbetween..

so its not EXACTLY discrete? however, I agree that if we look CLOSER then there does seem to be vertical areas untouched.. so these untouched areas PROVE that its discrete and NOT because we haven't fired enough electrons... OK I will probably give you that one, I've not done this myself to see if even MORE firing covers EVERY vertical location.

HOW do we know this isn't this just edge difraction deviations(just like refraction) and resulting impacts.. no constructive nor destructive superimposing at all. AND its just the STEPPER-MOTOR being used in the experiment to move the electron gun? & the GIF there what's the wavy-wavy changes? is it a change in the air dielectric thus reinforcing my previous miller-effect ramble(indeed silly) affecting it.
SO all THIS excitement is ONLY about the discrete pattern, thats it? nothing more? does edge difraction cause a dispersion? and the electrons energy is quanta like light? (nuts)

>>10422116
PART3
I am puzzled but MUST first have it proven to me that the motor & motor-controls isn't shit. is the +voltage being shared with anything else. are there any ground loops? are there ripples in the +VOLTAGE rail? is it a stepper-motor? is the motors controls digital and sharing the motors supply?
then I would look VERY carefully to see if any, even just the one electron impacts in a position that defies the DISCRETE bands theory...

CAN you HONESTLY tell me YOU can vouch for the results I'm expected to believe? IF you can then Fine. I'll accept your integrity. it'll be good enough for me unless I PROVE otherwise to myself.

THANKS this was informative... I appreciate, unless, is there anymore you'd like to share?

Most "reasonable" people are giving a response like "measurement causes the wave function to collapse". This isn't an explanation. This is simply a condition which causes the wave function to collapse.

You've wrapped the phenomenon up in a black box and your explanation is "its magic".

>>10422389
>>10422390
are you a bot? because thats some pretty incrompehensible stuff you're writing.

the gif is not directly related, its art.

also we are talking about photons... this experiment is a optical phenomenon, not a electrical. so all that voltage, stepper motor, electron blabla has nothing to do with it as far as I understand...

I'm pretty disappointed because you seem like quite the nutjob..

>>10420482
Because physicists secretly love it when paranormal crackpots appropriate their work

>>10419639
Tiny particles are assholes because they feel they are neglected.

>>10422411
sorry, you can use any small enough particle for this experiment.EG: buckyballs. so my brain switched off & didn't notice I wrote electron then kept going without switching-on. if you were here then you'd not be able to think either, its LOUD & hard not to KILL these fuckas & I have 3 more hours of it.. THIS here is ALL I have to get thru.. don't expect 100! thats not possible.

thanks for jolt, basically daze auto-writing.. WhereTheFuck is my brain..reboot, replace electron with photon & nearly EVERYTHING else is same.

REAFFIRMING that firing a single photon at ANY edge will cause deviation in direction of travel, whether thru slit, double slit or just edge by itself. slits make no difference to this experiment. results explained by simply stating that the photons are deviated by the edge, any edge regardless. so heisenberg uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with it?

OK now i'm thinkig PHOTON.. u said
>Well, without the slits, the particles are able to take on a much wider value of energy and momentums by the uncertainty principle.

>Measuring the particle at the slit puts a bound on the energies(and position) of the particle. That's why the uncertainty principle matters.

ok.. this is where were upto.. shit.. photons, not buckyballs & seriously not electrons ok,
>exiting the slits, destructive interference does not happen continuosly but discretely.

yes its quanta.
sure I will get thru this step by step, have a detailed PDF here I swear will read, be patient,have rowdy fuckwit here to contnd with.. I will GET to bottom of this wave-function collapse thing, my brain refuses to accept it currently.

>>10422690
lol dude get help seriously..

>>10422704
I need help? if you could see what I'm looking at right now... you'd BASH both their fucking heads together, fuck prison; thats a holiday.

>>10422690
Just gonna butt in here to remark that the edge diffraction constitutes an Interaction/ measurement. This then puts constraints on the particle. The wavefunctions interact, I guess?

When you observe this phenomena you need to turn on a light to see it.

/thread

>>10422732
yeh, but why 'wave-function-collapse' when measured. its this "magic-voodoo" bit I'm pissed about.

>>10422752
Either your eyes project energy or they do not.
It still stands that the prerequisite for observation is light, whatever light is.

>>10422704
>>10422732

so how does an optical transducer constrain the photon? is it like say, an Arial or transformer secondary that lessens the signal or transformer primary when a voltage is induced upon it? is it that simple?

>>10422785
I have to correct myself, electrons exhibit the same behaviouras photons but they use photons to "update" their position so imo it's easier to think about light in the first place.

actually its the easiest if you imagine it behave like any liquid.

as for how the optical transducer works you are better off consulting wikipedia, I just know it works with a laser or with any light as a matter of fact.

If you place detectors on each slit you will theoretically prevent the wave-function from forming, right? Does that mean we won't receive an interference pattern?

>>10422830
>Does that mean we won't receive an interference pattern?
Yes but i also means technically there newer was a slit or two.

>>10419718
Based metaphysical realism bro

Classical Laws explain every phenomenon in the cosmos. The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics is fucking stellar. Yall are fucking retarded to dismiss it without even attempting to read it.

>>10422141
It is not a case of shitty measurement. The uncertainty principle is a hard limit on observation assuming absolutely perfect conditions, it is still impossible to make a measurement with 100% accuracy in correlated values.

Why energy/time and momentum/position correlated by hbar? It is not clear why this uncertainty principle has to be the way it is. It just is.

In that sense you can consider it imperfect measuring but it's literally the best we can get. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to say that there is some mechanism that takes place on a scale that is literally impossible to measure. Might as well say God did it.

>>10422234
>disproven
But they haven't you retard.
>inb4 b-but muh bell inequalities!!

>>10422704
>>10422732

went off google to find the relevent wiki, I realised the double slit experiment can be done will bucky balls (previously mentioned). so its not the optical or any other specific detector, its ALL of them.. All attempts we make to detect ANY particle used in the double-slit experiment is FLAWED because it STEALS energy from that particle. This is a simply BAD engineering? So the way to prove this is... work out how to detect the particle without stealing energy from it. Then the interference pattern should be the SAME, whether we observe/detect it or not. Does this sound right?

>>10422906
So you're assuming a wave-function has more energy than a classic particle? They're identical. Just because a particle can be in a superposition or be both positive and negative charged simultaneously doesn't mean it doubled its mass.

>>10422906
now you just sound like a someone who thinks he knows it better, which trust me you dont.

>work out how to detect the particle without stealing energy from it
this is not possible, every detector needs to do this.

the point of the experiment is to show that before observing, a photon displays wave-like behavior but while observing displays particle like behaviour.

>>10422012
I'm not sure why this isn't considered an interaction, just because the photon wasn't absorbed

>>10422921
because in our world something exist or doesnt exist, there is no inbetween.

turns out there are things that "half-exist-half-dont" and there things that absolutely exist.

determinism and probability meet and were you have classic physics and quantum physics.

I think its very intuitive and couldnt think of a better way to categorize those phenomena myself

>>10422012
zeilinger is beste in welt

>>10422929
Wrong.

Probability waves are a phase space. They are a field, a description of all possible values at all possible locations for a given system.

Are the waves real? Are the fields real? No. They are abstractions that are mathematically convenient. The particles don't literally exist as waves described by the wave function. A single particle will never give a diffraction pattern.

Similarly, EM field and gravitational fields don't exist. Them, along with the wave function can not be directly measured by definition. This isnt some new revelation either. nobody that actually does physics regards any sort of field as physically real outside of its platonic existence, I guess.

Imagine someone actually coming to this shitty site to get a physics lesson. All you'll get is a bunch of schizophrenics and people pretending to know what they're talking about while spouting fringe nonsense.

>>104229929
wrong what? I was clearly talking in metaphors to make probability space seem more like a physical thing than a type of behaviour... I did mean platonic existence, not physical reality. Thats why i said "wave-like behaviour" and not "is like a wave"...

>A single particle will never give a diffraction pattern.
this made me think and the wiki cleary states this: " a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time as per the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."

so why should a single particle not give us a refraction pattern?

Quantum Mechanics is just another clever Jewish Scam

>>10423035
But that's the thing. The subject is so sensitive that even a high school janitor can provide an out of the box solution.

>>10423037
The reason why is because the interference pattern created in the double slit experiment is not created from wave interference. It is created from a large number of individual particles.

In reality, only the particle exists. The field does not.

>>10419639
nobody actually knows why this happens

>>10420507
point being that observation causes interaction. If you silently watch something, you are not seeing what happens when that thing is alone. You are seeing what happens when that thing is being watched.

>>10422918
>So you're assuming a wave-function has more ... on & on & on...
arrrr. no i wasnt.
>They're identical. Just because.... on & on & on...
yeh, we know.

thats it.. so no 'actual' help, arrrrr yeh thanks.

>>10422921
>now you just sound like a someone who.. on & on & on...
I asked a then valid question, don't be a dickhead, no-one cares about your ego. you weren't mentioned.

>a photon displays wave-like behavior but while observing displays particle..on & on & on...
yes, i'm sure even chimps like you no that.

>how to detect the particle without stealing energy from it....this is not ..on & on & on...

yeh, no shit.. why I mentioned the bucky ball; detecting that seems the best option so far.. if only we could visually see it with a camera, then it it'd work. OBVIOUSLY we cant, its too small.

thats it.. so no 'actual' help, arrrrr yeh thanks.

>>10422782
>Either your eyes project energy or they do not. It stands..on & on & on....
sorry, i'm not following you.. eyes project energy? my understanding is light enters our eyes, travels thru our lenses & impacts the retina; thus we detect it..
I'm rejoiced you're not a dickhead troll.. thats excellent!

>>10422864
now this is also how to answer... its not cocky.. fu#ckin awesome!
>It is not clear why this uncertainty principle has to be the way it is. It just is.
I have no problem with this.. nor a problem with why is.. ohms law nor reactance,etc, etc.
simply, they are what they are, no problem..

>>10422906
>>10422918
>>10422921
>>10422782
>>10422864

>NOW ME again...
If I was measuring a voltage, then the multimeter would shunt the load & NOT give me the SAME voltage as exists IF I was NOT measuring it... me measuring it, changes the voltage at that location BECAUSE i'm measuring it imperfectly.. the load is shunted & the voltage is lowered..

the MATH now used to account for this voltage drop is 'ohms-law' or 'power-triangle' or 'inductive reactance' or 'capacitive reactance'.... you get the idea..

BUT.. this is a photon, so we use other means of measuring it imperfectly & the result is not shunting the load BUT... is AS YOU'VE ALL STATED...

>Measuring the particle at the slit puts a bound on the energies(and position) of the particle.
>is affected by heisenbergs uncertainty principle... etc, etc..
>energy/time and momentum/position is correlated by hbar.

THEREFORE different physics & math(not ohms law, etc) is used to work out how much this.. how much that, etc.....

BOTH the electrical example(shunting) & wave-function collapse example(________) is CAUSED by me measuring it imperfectly & affecting the measurement at the location I measure it...

I'm not after a lecture on 'stating' the obvious about... WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
SO please do NOT do that.
============================
I"M after a way to prove that we humans are not somehow 'magical' beings that affect the photon & collapse the wave-function.

I'm after a way to prove that 'shitty' measuring is or is not the cause for what happens next.. I do NOT believe in JUST ACCEPTING that if measured then it will behave differently.. just like that, it is what it is...

NO it isn't... something is CAUSING a change in behaviour -THIS IS SCIENCE.
to say its just how it is -THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
============================
SO, if you can help with this then please I'M ALL EARS.

>>10423777
OP IS A
=======================================
FA*zzzz**zzZ****ZZ*Z*Z*
****** NANOBOTS NO ******
****BZZZzzzZzzzzzZZZZZzzz

anon, i find your arguments unsatisfying and would request your next course of action be to return to the site where supposed 'redditors' live -- however unlikely that could be!

I think that when you fire a beam you launch particles, but since the electromagnetic propagation is the charge its attracted too the beam must compress into a slit to fit with the rest of the light. When the light comes out it comes in beams of light that didn't get influenced, beams that got compressed into a slit and the amout of energy it took to compress is how far the slit is offset to the left or right.

>>10423797
if you can't help then just say you don't know..
actually, better you shut the f#ck up.. or just fuck off.. no one cares you boring, useless fuckhead..

>OP IS A
=======================================
FA*zzzz**zzZ****ZZ*Z*Z*
****** NANOBOTS NO ******
****BZZZzzzZzzzzzZZZZZzzz

no idea who the OP is, nor care... you pointless fuckwit...

>>10423803
shape is particle placement is wave. placement dictated by charge, and the fact that the beam is bigger than the slit is what entangled some of the charge.

>>10423812
i mean if anyone wants to review my submission id love revision.

>>10422423
this

>>10422992
sorry, I'm new to this.. I thought ALL fields were composed of BOSONs, no exceptions... isn't it the boson particle that does the actual thingy that the field is said to be doing? I don't get it?

>>10419639
Observation interferes with and alters the wave function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bzE1E5PMY

>>10419639
It's like a synchronization event in a distributed multiprocessor system man.

>>10423879
yooo, run that shit by me, but like a little clearer

>>10423279
plain, simple, accurate, no big mouth trolling..

shit.. this IS the best answer sofar.

>>10423836
all particles have them, at least people talk about electron fields etc.
so I think it isn't limited to bosons
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

>>10424032
arrrrrr, yesss its a pretty chart.. i have some just like it in books on the highest shell in the west cornerrrrrrr. anddd.....
you agreee/not-agreee...is there more to elaborate about ______? something? anything? .......

>>10424088
fuck spell-checker.. i meant shelf. not shell.. why the fuck do i always do that... f#ckn annoying. sorry just ignore me, i'll go away eventually.. fucks sake

>>10424032
>>10424093
>>10423836

I think he's getting at.. virtual particles aren't real, they don't exist so he was right about...

vacuum foam pair-production elec/posi are virtual so not real, don't exist...
bullshit again.. so make a gadget to harness & separate.. then they're real (dickhead-scientists) in a fantasy again.. virtual does exist half wit... they like to make theories based on keeping their eyes shut.

>>10424109
he's a trollll.. know-all fuck-head.. ignore him, he's the dickhead we all get a taste of.. tell him to fuck offf.

>>10419639
i like the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory

Literally had a discussion on this topic today in QM1
>ask professor that if measurement is defined an interaction and that interaction collapses the wave function, than why wouldn't the wave functions of all particles have collapsed already due to their interactions with eachother
> tf he just hand waves something about collapsing states being reverted upon further interaction to a new superposition

>>10424125
https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ

>>10424128
arrrrr i think he means..

https://phys.org/news/2014-10-superposition-revisited-resolution-double-slit-paradox.html

go read.

>>10421913
OMG your dumb

>>10419721
this, decoherence is the answer

>>10419721
>>10424280
No. I've seen this propagated last week in one of the /sci/ threads but I decided to stay away since other anons correctly pointed out that it's not true. Since nobody here has said this itt, I'll have to do the honors.
Decoherence cannot explain the measurement postulate alone, it is a well-known fact that is being taught (with a very simple mathematical proof) to undergrads (at least in my uni). Popsci is a powerful drug, as soon as you see the calculations yourself it becomes obvious, there is no ambiguity.
Decoherence can explain the measurement postulate if it is complemented by an interpretation such as MWI.

>>10423777

I know its like.....

WARNING: ALL POTENTIAL STUDENTS.. STAY AWAY.

LOTS LOTS LOTS LOTS LOTS of math...

its a pointless field to be in..

awwwwsssooooommmmeee.. more math that draws out yest another pretty band pattern... just this newest one's more finely defined/accurate..

still doesn't explain why, its just pretty pattern drawing, again. yayyyy!

I'm starting think all this is pointless, we continue to emulate systems and.... welll, thats as far as we ..

scientists confuse mimicry with understanding.

woodsy f*ckn doo....

>>10423777
I know its like.....

WARNING: ALL POTENTIAL STUDENTS.. STAY AWAY.

LOTS LOTS LOTS LOTS LOTS of math...

its a pointless field to be in..

awwwwsssooooommmmeee.. more math that draws out yet another pretty band pattern... just this newest one's more finely defined/accurate..

still doesn't explain why, its just pretty pattern drawing, again. yayyyy!

I'm starting think all this is pointless, we continue to emulate systems and.... welll, thats as far as we ..

scientists confuse mimicry with understanding.

woopsy f*ckn doo....

>>10424288
>Decoherence cannot explain the measurement postulate alone, it is a well-known fact that is being taught (with a very simple mathematical proof) to undergrads (at least in my uni). Popsci is a powerful drug, as soon as you see the calculations yourself it becomes obvious, there is no ambiguity.
Correct, decoherence is an approximation ot measurement.
>Decoherence can explain the measurement postulate if it is complemented by an interpretation such as MWI.
MWI is completely unnecessary: Copenhagen just assumes measurement is a fundamental part of physics, and decoherence approximates this, without having to postulate an infinite number of other universes, all for nothing, because it cannot explain the Born rule.
>>10424128
Interaction isn't the same as measurement for exactly the reason you say, particles are always interacting with each other, continuously and if interaction cause collapse we'd never have any sort of superposition. We think of electrons exchanging some particular, finite number of photons when they pass each other by, but that's just a vague pop-sci sketch of what is really just a perturbative approximation: in reality, particles are continually interacting with each other without collapsing everything.
But forget quantum field theory and just think about the double slit experiment -- the particle interacts with the walls of the slits, but the measurement is only made when it reaches the screen. If interaction was the same as measurement we'd always know what slit it went through.
The fact is, measurement can't be explained in terms of more fundamental properties; measurement, in quantum mechanics, is absolutely fundamental. You can explain other things in terms of measurement, not the other way around.

>>10419718
This. JFL @ people who make up woo woo shit because they don't understand math.

It's safe to say at this point that anyone who still clings to a deterministic interpretation is to be laughed at.
The universe evolves stochastically and is continuous. This scares people for some reason.

>>10424327
>>10423777
>>10424331
Maybe you'd understand it better if you looked up a derivation of the uncertainty principle i.e as a consequence of the Fourier transform or the fact that the position and momentum operators don't commute. You'd then see that this uncertainty isn't just a result of imperfect measurement, but a mathematical fact that can't be avoided -- the Fourier transform of a narrow function will always be wide, and vice versa. Better measurement procedures cannot change this.

>>10419639

What's going in this thr.. Oh boy, here we go again.

Such threads are usually plagued with two very common misunderstandings (maybe popularized by some shitty youtube channels? who knows)
1. Uncertainty principle is somehow explaining or connected to the Born's rule (it is not).
2. Decoherence is somehow explaining Born's rule in standard QM (it does not).

Here are some excellent review papers, books, and even a forum discussion on this subject:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157312004085
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471
https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4544
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-decoherence-not-fully-solve-the-measurement-problem.385341/

Remember, kids, don't do popsci!

>>10424433
yes..yes.. this is always inversely proportional to that... indeed

>>10424288
Decoherence explains the experiment perfectly if you realize that decoherence simply means a value of the wave function is observed.

That's literally it.

>>10424453
Kek

>>10424459
>Decoherence explains the experiment perfectly if you realize that decoherence simply means a value of the wave function is observed.
This doesn't make any sense semantically, is English your first language?
Decoherence indeed explains experiments very well (when it can be applied), this has nothing to do with the measurement problem (in SQM/CI).
>that decoherence simply means a value of the wave function is observed.
This shows that you have no idea about the mathematical details; decoherence does not "mean" that and a value of the wave function can never be observed (it's complex-valued and there is a great deal of global gauge freedom).

>>10424453
1. Is not related to this discussion at all. It's like saying 1 = apple.

2. Is absolutely true. Decoherence literally means that a value of the phase space is observed. It means that repetitious measurements about the decoherence event will yield a different probability density. This makes sense because the physics of the system is different than how it was before being measured.

i just love this time of evening.. cause its the same group of people whom went missing at the same time, have just all reappeared at the same time.... every day... its piss-funny!

>>10424453
Props for the Bassi et al. paper, we were required to read it over one of the semesters of our RQM/QFT course. I liked it more that the textbook honestly, why can't books be as transparent and well-structured.

"Measurement causes wave function collapse" is not an explanation.

"Measurement causes wave function collapse" is not an explanation.

"Measurement causes wave function collapse" is not an explanation.

>>10424487
dude give it up.. i've already tried this shit, they don't know anything here.. try TV instead

>>10424487
Who cares and “why does observation cause wavefunction collapse” is a fallacy of many questions the way it is generally used and interpreted

see, i told ya so..

>>10424470
ohhh, now I get it.

>>10424487
The wave function is a probability space for all possible values the system can take. When a measurement is made, only one of these values can be observed. Therefore it is perfectly valid to say the observation causes the collapse.

>>10424525
exactly, GOD gave man dominion over the EARTH.

>>10424488
Wait up dude, this might be better than TV.

>>10423287
I think we all understand that distniction.

However, why is it an important distinction?
What's the difference between an unobserved particle and an observed one?
Is there a difference between being observed by one thing, as opposed to many things?
Is there a difference caused by how you observe?

It always sounds a bit anthropomorphic to me, like yea if you're watching a human or a dog, it acts differently, given that they're aware they're being observed.
But quantum particles? How does my "interaction" effect it? I just can't imagine it without imagining some humanoid affect onto it.

>>10424525
Ah... so its just magic. thanks for the science bro!

>>10424530
>>10424549
The same exact scenario plays out for macro systems too.

A field is also a phase space for a system that gives the values (usually a gradient) that define the properties of a particle if it were measured there.

So the question holds for any other system: Why do I measure the particle here at this specific value rather than anywhere else?

It is a retarded and baseless question. Nobody asks it classically and nobody should be mystified by it in QM either.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25350

>>10424575
>>10424580

>A wave-function is a description of a probability, and a probability is a statement of ignorance. Ignorance is not a physical object, and neither is a wave-function. When new knowledge displaces ignorance, the wave-function does not collapse; it merely becomes irrelevant.

fuck, it is magic.. my neighbor did that same shit with my wife..

some fuck-wit said that.. so now thats supposed to mean something.. rewrite the textbooks, and give that cunt a NOBEL..

Step aside brainlets, brain bull passing through!

>Learning of information, not an interaction, induces the collapse

https://motls.blogspot.com/2016/05/learning-of-information-not-interaction.html

>>10424588
>rewrite the textbooks
no need to rewrite anything, as the pseudoproblem of a collapsing wavefunction is not something that actually occupies the time and efforts of competent physicists

>>10424591
maybe, thats why you's haven't figured it out yet..

It is so fucking simple and yet peole just deny it because you're all stuck in your bullshit and retarded.
Everything exists as a "mist" of probablilties and then pops into existence on "observation" (interaction). That's it. I could shoot a fucking whale from a canon into an isolated tube with two doors and the whale will "turn into" a mist and phase through both slits and slap into the wall in a diffraction pattern.
It's not "magic". It's not "nonsense". It's just how the universe works.
The universe is NOT deterministic.
The universe is NOT discrete.
Get the fuck over it you morons. The only reason this is a debate is because religious moronic fanatics just refuse to drop their God that is Determinism. There IS NO DETERMINISM. Just drop the bullshit already and the whole thing makes perfect sense and there is no confusion.

>>10424580
he decided to lay out all his money on a table before himself arranged lowest denomination to his left & highest denomination to his right..

he completed his work and admired the beautiful distribution curve before him...

he randomly selected one of the piles before him, lent forward & picked it up..

suddenly, all the remaining money on the table disappeared...

he thought about this for a second, then suddenly stripped naked & ran down the street yelling "Eureka"..

..thats when he knew he waz gonna get a NOBEL.

>>10424607
Someone's feeling mean today.
Is anon feeling swad becauwse mommy didn't let him suck on her mommycock??

>>10424626

switcheroo, so its back to the pretty band patterns.. what happened to the wave function collapse discussion?

>>10424607
yes, if a bear shit in the woods, and nobody observed it... did it really happen?

>>10424631
Not an argument.
>>10424639
Yes because the particles are all in interaction with trillions of other particles.
If a bear were to shit in a vacuum without interaction, then it wouldn't exist except as a "mist" of probabilities. That would be it's literal "physical" existence.

Decoherence.

>>10420541

This. Everything is explained when you simply allow some superluminal interaction (not necessarily one that can be used to send real information in practice).

This is your reminder that Einstein only showed that matter and light cannot travel FTL. This says nothing about quantum entanglement/correlations, they can still be FTL.

>>10424669
>if a bear were to shit in a vacuum without interaction, then it wouldn't exist except as a "mist" of probabilities. That would be it's literal "physical" existence.

BEHOLD.... rally the christians.. this fuckas found GOD

wow.. maybe give u a NOBEL.. u can share it with the bear.
..personally I'm fuckn amazed that bear is still alive!!!!

>>10424721
This is the currently accepted position in physics I do not deserve a Nobel for just stating the current theory.

>>10424739
dude.. you just explained the existence of GOD.
you scientists deny his existence & yet you've done a far better job of it than any creationist ever could...

You have also explained magic.
you scientists deny this exists & yet you've done a far better job of it than any crackpot ever could...

I accept ALL the physics we currently have,
BUT what you fail to understand is that you guys' have massive gaps, everywhere.
competing theories only valid for those applications their alternates fail at.
AND FINALLY not a fucking clue.

lets face it. this is going nowhere. lets just call it quits.

>>10424894
You contributed nothing to this conversation.

As did I.

>>10419639
Observation doesn't cause wave-function collapse, observation is possible because wave-function collapse happens.

>>10424453
based

>>10424916
>>10424916
You have know fucking clue what I have. I have already contributed to this FORUM. But you stupid fucks couldn't recognize it even when, it did hit yous' in the face. Ohh I swear by GOD.

>>10424916
You have know fucking clue what I have. I have already contributed to this FORUM. But you stupid fucks couldn't recognize it even when, it did hit yous' in the face. Ohh I swear by GOD.

>>10424453
This is correct. One can follow any of the linked souces (except for the pp) and see the actual calculations and not 4chin-level philosophical blabbering. To understand any of the two points it is sufficient to have gone through a single semester of QM - I wonder why anons have such difficulty in grasping how those concepts work, could it be because they have learned about QM from wiki and YouTube?

>>10424969
yes, yes, chicken XOR the egg, indeed.

>>10425074
> You have know fucking clue what I have.

>>10426278
yeh, fuckn annoying when that happens, hey...

>>10424453
>https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-decoherence-not-fully-solve-the-measurement-problem.385341/
What is the problem with Born rule? People there are unsure what is the problem and try to guess it. For some reason it's formulated as "no u". It sounds like a meme.
Even this:
>I essentially agree, provided that one specifies more clearly what exactly the Born rule states. Namely, if you simply accept the usual meaning of the Born rule in Copenhagen interpretation of QM, then it is questionable whether decoherence is needed to solve the measurement problem in the first place. On the other hand, if you do think that there is a measurement problem, then obviously you are not satisfied with the Copenhagen interpretation, which means that you need to rethink what the Born rule really means.

>>10422823
Liquid doesn't go at C for no explainable reason.

>>10426371
shit, I actually appreciated that guys input, hope he doesn't your comment was mine..

>>10426371
>>10426371
shit, I actually appreciated that guys input, hope he doesn't think your comment was mine..

>>10424032
>Higgs
can you move this shit to >>>/x/ ??
thank you

>>10426437
>doesn't agree with my pet theory so let me just ignore all evidence and pretend like it's paranormal
utter moron

>>10419639
>Why does observation cause wave-function collapse?
It doesn't.
The problem is in your failure to properly define your terms, notably "observation".

>>10423287
>>10424541
exactly.. all particles are paranoid.
or .. maybe its just stage-fight.

never cared much for that big-brother shit, either.

>>10426442
dude.. I hope you didn't think that me..

I thought your picture was very pretty..

just keep your chin up, and keep going.

>>10426442
dude.. I hope you didn't think that was me..

I thought your picture was very pretty..

just keep your chin up, and keep going.

>>10426492
I'm not the one with the image, I'm just annoyed seeing shitstained morons throwing their feces around

>>10426496
shhhh... he might realize I waz just taking the piss..

>>10424422
>MWI is completely unnecessary: Copenhagen just assumes measurement is a fundamental part of physics
Saying "measurement is fundamental" seems like more of a cop-out desu. The many worlds of the MWI are literally just the orthogonal states in the decoherence argument, you already have an infinite dimensional Hilbert space and you're just saying that one state is unreachable from another, thus two "worlds".

Whatever an observer is, they experience a distinct situation, so after measurement (i.e. time evolution) they have to be modeled as a distinct micro state. By construction such an observer is entangled with (a superposition of) macro states, so in the decoherence argument the observer can be said to be in the specific linear subspace of the Hilbert space in which the one measurement happened. Because the time evolution operator separates this subspace from its orthogonal complement, there is no interaction between the two spaces and thus they can be said to be different worlds.
The observer that has measured either of these states has to be "in the corresponding world."

There's no magic here, just an interpretation of the mathemathics.

>>10424588
>my neighbor did that same shit with my wife..

why? did she take all your other shit, too?

>>10426534
its the dog I miss most.

The wave form (simply explained) is just the possible places a particle can be at. When not observed the particle is in all the possible places at the same time. But when we look at the particle we are measuring its position. At that point it cannot be in all possible places. It can only be in one place

>>10424288
Can I get a link or something for that proof?

Also even if it doesn't really explain much yet decoherence is still the only way we have a chance to either explain the measurement postulate or build a complete theory without it. Even if right now it's just a big clusterfuck of linear algebra with no universal conclusions I think they'll get there eventually.

>>10424589
Imagine thinking that "learning of information", an idea that only makes sense when a human brain is involved, is relevant for explaining the fundamental laws of nature.

>The dishonest Bohmist crackpot filth
Okay, that was pretty funny, I'll give it to him

must of stopped all that running around cause it thought some peeping tom wanted to chat.

>>10426678
sure, but why do all his mates decide to then crowd around him?

>>10427075
To protect him from that peeping tom

>>10426744
Not him, but another anon had already provided several links >>10424453
I can also recommend the following paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059
It pretty much uses only linear algebra and discusses how decoherence can be used in all major interpretations. In particular, it illustrates how the well-known Zurik's paper (deriving Born's rule from decoherence/ENvariance) fits into standard QM as it requires imposing an additional assumption.

>>10419639
Any single interaction causes the collapse.
"Observation" is a misleading term.

>>10424453
kek, read the Schlosshauer article. His problem:
>While the local destruction of interference allows one to infer the emergence of an (improper) ensemble of individually localized components of the wave function, one still needs to impose an interpretive framework that explains why only one of the localized states is realized and/or perceived.
I'm afraid, he's a brainlet.

>>10427717
Well, he's right as he basically quotes Zurik who has been developing the whole field for several decades. Those two are the most cited physicists in the area of decoherence, but of course an anon from 4chin knows better.

>>10427737
You don't need interpretation to see properties of the resulting state. Like "what result it saw".

>>10427767
You should submit your groundbreaking views in written form to a journal, then, because I, just like Zeh, Barnum, Zurek, Joos, Unruh, Wick, and countless others who have worked on this subject, trust mathematical proofs that I can reproduce rather than hand-wavy shitposting from 4chin philosophers.

>>10427737
>Those two are the most cited physicists in the area of decoherence, but of course an anon from 4chin knows better.
When it comes to calculations, I suppose they are ok. Though ironically Schlosshauer doesn't see Born's rule as much of a problem and illustrated how it can be derived and instead focuses on other problems.

>>10427776
Groundbreaking views that wave function can be projected on a basis of eigenstates? This is taught.

ALRIGHT, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OK DONT WORRY ABOUT IT, IT DOESNT MATTER
now shut the fuck up and calculate sperglords

>>10427921
It's normie mathematicians, who shut up and calculate without understanding. Edgelords are actual physicists and understand science on fundamental level beyond pure mathematics.

>>10427776
I suppose, those badass mathematicians are too preoccupied by complex calculations and are unable to see the big picture because they think they don't need to understand what they calculate, because of hate towards philosophy. But without understanding physics they don't know what math to apply to solve problem. Mathematics is just a tool, physics decides how to apply it according to ontology, without ontology mathematics can't apply itself, because it looses meaning. This is real practical consequence of philosophic ignorance.

>>10419639
our eyes polorise like into a interference pattern. this would work great for any thief who wants to know if someone is watching. heh.

Sorry all of you, I'm just an undergrad student and I don't understand much of this discussion, there are so many different and opposing opinions...

Could you provide some pubblication with maybe a review of these different models and views so that I could start understanding a little bit?
You know, I'd also like to jump in here and insult someone!

>>10428207
No need, just borrow Griffiths intro to qm. All you need is some vector calculus and linear algebra. He makes the case in the chapters and has an appendix explaining why Copenhagen is all that's needed.

>>10419639
>>10422992
>>10424525
>>10424575
>>10424580
>>10424607
>>10426678
How can a single photon when not observed have so many possible locations to be at?
Was the photon emittor aiming all over the place at the same time?

The double-slit experiment reveals a change in behaviour when observed (and thats it).
enough with all the physics magic clouds of possibilitiies mystical bullshit.
there is only ONE possible path for each photon, not many.

that ONE single-direction photon travels as a wave when not observed and as a particle when observed. SIMPLE.

The ONLY valid question here is why does that ONE photon switch from behaving as a wave when left alone, then switch to behaving as a particle when observed?

when it travels as a wave, the band-pattern is a wave band-pattern, not a magic cloud of possibilities bullshit.

The probability math is ONLY to do with predicting what direction the photon emittor is aimed at, and producing a suitably accurate shaped pattern (and thats all). wake the fuck up.

WHY a change in behaviour when observed? Thats the question.

>>10428839
perhaps, when not being observed the photon travels with its pilot-wave. When observed, it loses its pilot-wave.

but this would mean the pilot-wave of a particle only exists when its not observed.

even though pilot-wave theory is making a semi-comeback, I'm not sure mainstream physicists are interested in theorizing this kind of approach.

>>10428839
The missing detail here is that interaction affects the observer more than the photon. The wave is a sum of trajectories, like Tailor series, but simpler. The observer interacts with these trajectories, and each trajectory affects the observer's state differently and in the end there's different observer's state for each trajectory, but that state interacted with only one its respective trajectory and not with others, so it saw only this trajectory and sees it as the only one existing, and each observer's state is the same - sees only one trajectory it interacted with.

>>10430008
sweet a new angle to study
like to be occupied
thanks

>>10430008
sweet, a new angle to study
like to be occupied
Thankyou

>>10419639
What do you mean by
>observation
and
>wave-function
and
>wave-function collapse
?

>>10419639
Wavefunction doesn't collapse.