/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15902776
>What the fuck does it mean to "observe" a particle?
if someone who cares interacts with it

>>15902776
Does your picture not show all you need to know? You observe the second plate, which is now full of bullet holes. That's what it means to observe the particle. The peculiar thing about is it that those bullet holes form a weird pattern. And the most peculiar thing is how that pattern emerges even if you just shoot particles one at a time.

>>15902805
that's been deboonked buddy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

Reminder that the double slit experiment's results have been misreported by the media. There is no such thing as probability.

>>15902776
Meanwhile what actually happens

>>15902776
The experiment is not properly understood. In real life, you always see the interference pattern. There is no situation where the shadows match the holes. ‘Looking away’ from the experiment does not result in a different pattern.

This experiment isn’t designed to show off quantum shenanigans. It’s only intended to show that light is a wave and that it interferes with itself. It doesn’t matter if you’re observing the light or not, it always acts this way.

Even in quantum situations, the ‘observer’ isn’t a special conscious being. Observation relies on measurement. If you want to know how something moves, you need to measure it’s movement. When you measure something, you have to interact with it in some way, even just looking at something interacts with it on a tiny scale. For super tiny objects, just that tiny interaction is enough to really mess it up. So once you’ve measured it, the original state of whatever you looked at is gone. It’s like trying to do sonar with a gun. This is why we have things like quantum uncertainty, because you only have one chance to measure the object. Not because it’s actual position is uncertain.

>>15902776
>How the fuck can you observe a photon without changing it?
you cannot. Although that's what they say, i have my doubts. There is a way. I know there is. The only problem is that I don't know what it is

I tried the double shit experiment at home and my shit ended up being in the toilet and on the floor at the same time because one of them interfered with the toilet seat. It was crazy

>>15902894
>There is no situation where the shadows match the holes
I'm pretty sure it needs a correct setup and correct kind of laser to see the interference pattern. I just tried it myself with a piece of paper that I cut two small slits into with some scissors and I used a cigarette lighter for the light and it just shows two beams on the wall that match where the holes were

>>15902894
>This experiment isn’t designed to show off quantum shenanigans. It’s only intended to show that light is a wave and that it interferes with itself
The problem with this is that you get the exact same diffraction pattern with just one slit and it matches electromagnetic deflection, you can get the same diffraction patterns by shining light off of, or through, literally everything, this doesn't explain how light is a wave or how it "interferes" with itself at all

>>15902894
>even just looking at something interacts with it on a tiny scale
Please explain how does my eyeball interact with the monitor I'm looking at on a tiny scale.

>>15902793
But that interaction changes the particle.
Double slit experiment is literally just
>hurr durr if we interact with particle, they do different stuff!
Why is this such a big deal for quantum physics?

>>15902948
Yeah I’m talking about in the experiments. Otherwise it just produces shadows. The experiment is designed to amplify the effect so it is viable. Normally it just looks like soft edges around shadows.
>>15902974
That’s because the slit is vastly bigger than the light. Light particles are constantly interfering with each other. The experiment just organizes the interference in a way that is easy to see. It’s happening constantly everywhere.
>>15902985
Light is being emitted from your screen and into your eyes. Those particles are the interaction. When you see things in the real world, you need to bounce light off of them to see them. That bouncing of light is the interaction.

>>15902999
>Has never heard of "it from bit"

Not sure if jeet or just low tier midwit, but i'll bite

It literally implies that there's a conscious, intelligent agency behind the very fabric underlying all of physical reality. Doesn't get much more profound than this, unless you want to deep-dive into actual mysticist, spiritual notions which we can't test for scientifically just yet (and which aren't far off at that point).

Like the reddit space man said, "we are the universe observing itself", and all that

>>15903003
There are no "light particles" lol, photons are an abstraction. What we refer to as "light" does not propagate in a straight line at all

>>15903459
>It literally implies that there's a conscious, intelligent agency behind the very fabric underlying all of physical reality
Sorry, I asked for serious physicist explanations, not crackpot DUDE WEED LMAO interpretations.

>>15902776
>And if the changed photon's path is different from the unchanged photon's path, why is it such a big fucking deal?
That's exactly what happens and it's not a big deal

>>15902776
>What the fuck does it mean to "observe" a particle?
It just means that an "event" has rippled through the universe and it reached you mind, which is itself an emergent illusion that forms as a result of the event in question passing through the matter and energy in your head. In reality, there is no mind, no observer, and no observation, just an event rippling though matter and messing uo its non-physical properties.
The illusion is so good that some people actually believe that they're conscious and alive, lol.
There is, obviously, no free will.

>>15902894
You waste your time with this.
People will always believe in
>quantum shenanigans
because muh buzzword

Light is a particle free non material purely energetic phenomenon, that behaves like a wave.
It's the exact fear of that, a non materialistic "phenomenon".
Because no "wavepattern" could exist without a medium.
But what is the medium?
>Dark matter?
>Aether?
>quantum memes?

And the simple answer is we do not know.
There might be a background medium and light or any type of electric, electromagnetic or magnetic field is an excitment of that medium.
And sadly and for whatever retarded reason, it is a impossibility of "tha science" to just admit:
>we do not know
But cling to the view:
>everything is matter

Even though they struggle to find proof, but always
>oh trust me it is that way, you just cannot observe it because you require like 30 billion $ in funding
>and 200 soientists to interprete the results
>to tell you that there is an event [so far away/so far back in the past/ so short in duration/so small] nobody and no instrument could directly and actually witness it
>but we can see a indirect surrogate unverifyable parameter that we can interprete and numbercrunch to tell you this insignificant event existed
>and from this we can "extrapolate" that xyz is "le quantum meme"

>>15902999
>But that interaction changes the particle
So? Try

>>15903979
see
>>15903933

>>15904128
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5FMj5D9zU

>>15904137
>youtube video reply with no additional context
why are you such a woman

>>15904192
I'm not a woman, faggot. And everything you need to hear about free will and the illusion of perception is there. You can dig for more if you want, you got fingers and eyes.

>>15904194
>I'm not a woman, faggot.
Post hands.
>everything you need to hear about free will and the illusion of perception is there. You can dig for more if you want, you got fingers and eyes.
I don't give a fuck about free will, you pseud, I'm asking a question about physics. I'd like to get an answer from a physicist, not a self-proclaimed mysticist.

>>15904195
Not him/her, but I already answered your question here >>15903942

>>15902776
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%E2%80%93Zehnder_interferometer

>>15902841
You are confusing Thomas Young's 1801 experiment with modern experiments.

>>15904200

Then why is physics community making a big deal out of it?

>>15904264
You're mistaking undergrad memester retards for actual physicists

>>15904270
>You're mistaking undergrad memester retards for actual physicists
Yeah, I am, by asking you questions about physics.

>>15904195
I gave younthe fucking answer: there is no fucking "observation", there is no "observer", it's a hallucination that emerges from the complexity that is being a brain in a universe. The brain observes the particle and the particle observes the brain, the entire universe observes itself.

>>15904284
Hopeless

>>15902776

It's only a limitation of our observing capabilities
Basically because we need particles to observe they change our object of observation

Pilot wave theory is true (ie quantom theory only exists because of the limitations of measuring tools)

Observe means alter, or more accurately absorbing and reemitting, but admitting that is taboo.

>>15902776
Sensor in the slit is "observation" from the experiment. Possibly it interacted with wave, to somehow change it or whatever.

>>15904308
>Hopeless