are quantum movements affected by 'observation' or 'measurement'?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 48
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
some folks say like the double slit experiment, that the particles are affected by measuring them. 

others say often on the topic of quantum mechanics, that simply observing particles at the quantum state affects them. 

the bigger implication, is that there's those who say our consciousness can affect reality. which is true to the extent that we can measure quanta, with our devices and tools. but if all that is requirement is observation, then that's a bigger fish to fry for consciousness affecting reality 
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
do you have any insight on this? 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,082
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
You cannot meassure without affecting what you meassure.

Either touching, moving it, approaching it, being near it.

Your body produces gravity, which, despite being insignificant on a large scale, slightly affects everything near you.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,814
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

OMG, I'm Quantum Leaping again !
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
some folks say like the double slit experiment, that the particles are affected by measuring them. 

others say often on the topic of quantum mechanics, that simply observing particles at the quantum state affects them. 
Observation isn't the right word. Neither is measurement.

Interaction is better.

Wave collapse is best.

Why? Because it's a new phrase that doesn't bring any false connotations from elsewhere.

It is impossible to observe the state of a quantum wave directly. The only thing that can be observed is the energy that manifests at a single point in space in the instant of wave collapse.

In communicating that fact some have misscommunicated the idea that it is observation itself that collapses the wave. This is not the case. It is certainly not the case that a conscious mind must be the observer. In the double slit experiment the true "observer" to the collapse of the photon was the valance shell of a mindless atom. The changes there caused a chain reaction that eventually led to a human knowing EM energy manifested there "a photon stuck here"


the bigger implication, is that there's those who say our consciousness can affect reality.
It's easy take something we don't understand and say "what if" in fact it's a lot of fun, but if it's called science instead of science fiction that's a problem because it's deceptive.

What I can say for sure is that quantum mechanics does not have a "consciousness factor". It makes the exact same predictions in a universe without people as a universe with people.

If consciousness can affect reality (beyond sending brain signals to a body), it's not by any currently described mechanism and even if our minds could cause wave collapse, they certainly aren't the only thing that can cause wave collapse. In fact in the time it took you to read this there have been innumerable wave collapses in the a single cell of bacteria infesting your gut. You didn't know about them, that didn't matter.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
in the double slit experiment... isn't the act of measuring causing different outcomes? 

i asked if the best word is 'observation affects quanta' or if it's 'measurements affects quanta', and you said 'wave collapse affects quanta'. if wave collapse is affected by the outside reality, which we manipulate, how isn't that a matter of observation or measurement? 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
in the double slit experiment... isn't the act of measuring causing different outcomes? 
No. The outcome of the experiment is decided at the instant of wave collapse and that will occur when the wave encounters a surface with reflection or absorption regardless of whether there is a Geiger apparatus behind that surface or whether a human is observing that Geiger counter.

If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? If you define sound as pressure waves then yes.

If a quantum wave collapses into discreet quanta (like a photon) does it transfer energy to new wave(s)? Yes


and you said 'wave collapse affects quanta'.
More like quanta exist in only association with a wave collapse. I would not say wave collapse causes quanta or vice versa. It's just a name for the transition from one quantum wave to a new one manifested at a single point in time and space.

The first wave disappears, no matter how large it was. Its properties such as energy manifest at a single point. A new wave emanates from that single point, but sometimes that single point was a preexisting standing wave (something massive, stable, and that can move slower than the speed of light) that has been modified by the new energy/momentum/charge.


if wave collapse is affected by the outside reality, which we manipulate, how isn't that a matter of observation or measurement?
All observation is interaction but not all interaction is observation. I'm talking about the definition of the word "observe" and "measure", it implies consciousness and knowledge. There is no such requirement.

Of course if we put a rock in front a beam of light we've caused photons to manifest from EM (quantum) waves sooner than they would if no rock had been there, but rocks can exist without people putting them places and photons still manifest without an observer.

That is what I mean.

n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think you might be reading too much into 'measure'. It implies knowledge and such, but it doesn't have to. Even without knowledge, the act itself of measuring affects quanta. But maybe all I'm establishing is that humans can affect reality, and that's not at all much of a statement?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
the act itself of measuring affects quanta.
Try to put that statement to the test in a specific example. The double split experiment is about the detection of single photons. To do this EM radiation must be heavily attenuated, that is you need a very weak wave and they do this by letting the wave in through a tiny hole and then letting it spread out for a long time.

When we say "quanta" what do we mean. We mean the properties of a discreet wave collapse (AKA particle) such as mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge.

In the case of a photon there is no mass or charge but there is energy and polarization. There is a formula for calculating the energy of a 'single photon' and it depends only on wavelength which is indeed a property of the quantum wave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy

With careful calculation you could calculate all the energy that could possibly be transferred by the portion of the quantum wave that made it into the box.

Now what do you mean "measuring affects quanta"? Do you mean the energy of the wave changes because part of it collapsed into a photon? That is absolutely true. Do you mean that the energy detected at one point of wave collapse would be different than the energy at another point from the same original wave? That's not true if the wavelength hasn't changed.

Every photon will have the same energy when it is recorded.

Perhaps the most important question is what do you call non-measuring? If you are using "measuring" to mean "any wave collapse" then the obvious outcome of "non-collapse" is the wave keeps propagating. The only way it can do that is if it just keeps traveling through space forever. Do you call that affecting the photon? I say there is no photon outside of the context of a collapse. There is nothing to affect. The properties of the wave cannot be changed.


But maybe all I'm establishing is that humans can affect reality, and that's not at all much of a statement?
If you mean affect reality by applying energy against the gradient of entropy (creating dense localized order), you know like building a double slit experiment or closing a door, then yea that's not really news. I don't think that's what people talk about when they say "the particles are affected by measuring them.", I think they believe schrodinger's cat is in a superposition of dead and alive because nobody's mystical spirit perceived information from within the box, and that is baseless absurdity.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
@ADreamOfLiberty
Wave collapse is best.

I agree with  Dreamofliberty. A wave --sine-wave--- is Meta { beyond }-space pattern { geometry } an can be expressed as follows /\/\/\/\/\/\/

The collapse of sine-wave is also a collapse of ' uncertainty ' and probability. 

From a friend years ago, when I first heard the phrase, Big Bang occurred from  fluctuation in the quantum wave, I thought about it and created a simple drawing for him of what caused this fluctuation in the quantum wave.

/\/\/\/\/**\/\/\/\/\**/\/\/\/\/\/ i.e. there was some kind of bi-lateral-like consciousness  that was operative as a ' monkey wrench ' in the systemic wave pattern.

Whatever that ' monkey wrench ' could be,  eternally exists.  Some may argue that, it ultra-briefly goes out of existence. I cant say that doesn't occur. I dunno

Some believe that entropy will lead to ' heat  death ' ---very cold--  of our finite, occupied space Universe.  Ive come to believe that cold heat death is a single, ultra-long wave { frequency } --ergo very flat--- photon.

And that photon has volume, and at minimum, that volumetric, single photon can never be less than, the 6 lines-of-relationship of a tetrahedron.

I have various scenarios Ive developed over the years, and posted them many times around here


ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
[ebuc] I agree with  Dreamofliberty.


ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Huh?  You lost me there

I'm correcting a possible three errors of consideration in my prior expressions of the  quantum pulse, graviton-darkEon, from 14 nodal events   the 91 lines-of-relationship, to 13 nodal events, with 78 lines-of-relationship,  as the quantum pulse of Universe. See pattern at bottom of page

Correction 1} I may have sometimes included numerical 0 into my count, that is indeed part of the  greater Quantum Space-time Torus { 0 - 18 } into that total, however, it is outside of the truncated, triangular based, di-pyramid set of 13 nodal event pulse. See pattern at bottom of page.

Correction 2 } numerical 9, appears to be logical conclusion as  the free agent reality node, --inside the quantum pulse--   as it is not a nucleation in any of the three triangular sets.

Correction? 3 } numerical 10 { DE  } also appears as a free agent of Dark Energy, as it does not neatly fit into the pattern, unless we only have total of 13 nodal events instead of 14 nodal events { 1 - 14 }. So we revert back to 13 nodal event scenario for quantum pulse of Quantum Space-time Tori.

To do that is certainly a big change backwards in my thinking.  13 nodal events has 78 lines-of-relationship instead of 91. I seem to recall doing this before, and just forgot.  Also my documents now all need to be changed. Boondoggle on my part.

However, with the 78 lines-of-relationship, we have a resultant that divides rationally by the 6 lines-of-relationship of the tetrahedrons 4 vertexes. 78 / 6 = 13 So that is a very nice thought, that is more in alignment with Synergetics and Fullers focus on rational numbers.

And it does still leave nucleated { inside-the-tube } number 9 nodal event  as as realities free agent to oscillate back-n-forth with/between 6 and 12 and  6 in-turn bounces off 3p.  

3p > bing < 6 > bing  < 9 > bing < 12 set of nucleated reality  See pattern further below

Gravity, Dark Energy and inside-the-tube physiccal Reality
............................................................................................
 End > 1 { G }....2p{ DE }...4 { DE } triangular set with nuclear structural reality 3P { R }

Mid-girth > 5p { G }....7p { G }.....8 { DE } triangular set with nuclear structural reality 6 { R }

End > 10 { DE }........11p { G }....13p { G }   triangular set with a nuclear structural reality 12 { R }
...............................................................................................
..1...........5p...7p.........11p....13p.............17p.......G
-
0..................6....................12.........................18...PR
..........3p................9.........................15.................PR
-
......2p....4............8..10.................14....16.............DE.

Now with this scenario we see free agent number 9 --of four nodal events in sine-wave of reality, as the ' monkey wrench ' called ' fluctuation ' of the quantum wave { sine-wave }, binging, banging, oscillating of the other nodal events inside-the-tube of quantum pulse.

/\/\/3p>\/\/\/\/<6>\/\/\/\/<9>\/\/\/\/<12\/\/\/\/\/ and fluctuations occur because there is free agent 9 and or 6 that can exist bilaterally on each side of the mid-girth triangular set portal.

So the 6 and 9 may come to a slow amount of fluctuation, but never ever a complete lack of oscillation.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ebuc
Huh?  You lost me there
The feeling is so mutual, scratch that; you can't fathom how quickly you lost me.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The feeling is so mutual, scratch that; you can't fathom how quickly you lost me.

EB... ' I agree with  Dreamofliberty. ' is to difficult for you to grasp.  H,mm thats weird
 

EB..' A wave --sine-wave--- is Meta { beyond }-space pattern { geometry } an can be expressed as follows /\/\/\/\/\/\/ '. That also to difficult for you to grasp. H,mm thats weird.

EB...' The collapse of sine-wave is also a collapse of ' uncertainty ' and probability. '. Again these words also to difficult for  you to grasp.

Weird issues you seem to have with rather simple concepts.



ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Big bang caused by fluctuation in quantum wave { sine-wave } and my free agent nodal event identified as number 9, may be the ' monkey wrench ' in the sine-wave because is not have a specific nucleated position to the three triangles, that, already nucleated by 3p, 6 and 12.

/\/\/3p>\/\/\/\/<6>\/\/\/\/<9>\/\/\/\/<12\/\/\/\/\/ and fluctuations occur because there is free agent 9 that sits off set to one side of the mid-girth triangle already nucleated by number 6.

/\/\/\/\/\/3p/\/\/\/ < 6 > < 9 > /\/\\/\/\12/\/\/\/\/\/

This is an old belief that ive heard most of my life, and my quantum pulse free agent nodal event appears to fill the causal niche perfectly.
..." Could quantum fluctuations create the universe?

...Tryon extrapolated the idea of quantum fluctuations to the Universe as a whole. He reasoned that if all that existed was a quantum vacuum, a bubble-like energy fluctuation out of this vacuum could have given rise to the Universe. "...
https://bigthink.com/13-8/universe-quantum-fluctuation/

.Here is the greater, Quantum Space-time Torus, that embeddes the 13 nodal event, quantum pulse { graviton-darkEon }

.........1..................5p.....7p..............11p.......13p................17p.......outer Gravity
-
0/18............................6...........................12..............................18/0...PRreality inside-the-tube
...................3p......................< 9 >...............................15...................PRreality inside-the-tube
-
.............2p.........4................8.......10...................14..........16.............inner Dark Energy

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,851
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
some folks say like the double slit experiment, that the particles are affected by measuring them. 

others say often on the topic of quantum mechanics, that simply observing particles at the quantum state affects them. 

the bigger implication, is that there's those who say our consciousness can affect reality. which is true to the extent that we can measure quanta, with our devices and tools. but if all that is requirement is observation, then that's a bigger fish to fry for consciousness affecting reality 
Quantum Theory goes much farther as it relates to your questions here, it’s not just that the particles are “affected by observation”, according to the most prevalent interpretation of Quantum Physics, the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle actually comes into being physically when it is observed. 

Because of the dual nature of reality at the quantum level, particles can be “completely” represented mathematically by a “wave function”, this is a central tenet of quantum physics.  In quantum theory, a particle exists in a juxtaposition of possible states; only when it is measured does it take on definite qualities, like position and momentum.  These are not waves of some underlying stuff, they are mathematical waves of probability, a field of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, theoretically then, the act of observing seems to conjure the particle into existence out of a mathematical haze of probability.

The “bigger implication” is not that “our consciousness can affect reality”, it is consciousness actually brings about reality, the particle can be “actualized,” or made “real” by the observation that collapses the wave function, which gives it spatial and temporal existence. The mind-boggling implication is that the objective world cannot even be said to exist outside of the subjective act of observation.

This enforces the age-old hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental aspect of physical reality after all, perhaps the only ultimate reality. As Neils Bohr, John Wheeler, Henry Stapp, and many other quantum physicists believed, perhaps consciousness cannot be considered just a by-product of the physical activity of the brain.  Perhaps consciousness has to be present for there to be an actual physical world containing brains at all.  In the end, we have some scientists trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop.

I always enjoy seeing our spiritual detractors throw a conniption, so I will add that, if you do think consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness was necessary to make the universe actual in the first place, a preexistent consciousness that transcends the material universe of science.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot



n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Sidewalker

what do you think of sidewalker's take? 

doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient. 

also, even if we can affect quantum measurement... it seems like adreamofliberty was saying, it's only incidental. like we can use materials to affect the quantum world, but even if it wasn't a consicious human doing the manipulation, the quantm world would still be affected. it's like if we assume a tree falls in the forest even if no one is there to observe it or cause it.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
what do you think of sidewalker's take? 

[Sidewalker] Quantum Physics, the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle actually comes into being physically when it is observed. 
That's not everything in the Copenhagen interpretation but it is correct if you substitute "it is observed" with "wave collapse/interaction occurs"


[Sidewalker] Because of the dual nature of reality at the quantum level
Mysticism


[Sidewalker] particles can be “completely” represented mathematically by a “wave function”, this is a central tenet of quantum physics.
Yes, keeping in mind you're talking about the properties (essence) that manifest on wave collapse in discreet quanta, remember he just said there are no particles in the wave only on collapse.


[Sidewalker] In quantum theory, a particle exists in a juxtaposition of possible states; only when it is measured does it take on definite qualities, like position and momentum.
The part of the Copenhagen interpretation that confuses people and contradicts itself. "We" just said there is no particle except at the instant of collapse. That is correct. This is not.


[Sidewalker] These are not waves of some underlying stuff
Whatever this is supposed to mean precisely it's probably wrong. The waves involved all satisfy Schrodinger's equation but many were identified long before as waves of force-fields, the most commonly studied (and relevant for most science) are electromagnetic waves.


[Sidewalker] they are mathematical waves of probability
They are both.


[Sidewalker] a field of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, theoretically then, the act of observing seems to conjure the particle into existence out of a mathematical haze of probability.
That's what the first statement said, but the unwarranted flowery and misleading language is continuing to snowball.

"observation" can be done by a single atom. That's not what people think intuitively when you say "observation". Again (I'm really a broken record) "interaction" is a better word.

I say "manifest", he says "conjure". Whatever makes you happy.

"out of a mathematical haze of probability"
Math describes nature, nature isn't math. This stretches poetic license.


[Sidewalker] The “bigger implication” is not that “our consciousness can affect reality”, it is consciousness actually brings about reality, the particle can be “actualized,” or made “real” by the observation that collapses the wave function, which gives it spatial and temporal existence.
We've now crossed over fully into mysticism with no admixture of scientific theory supported by evidence.


[Sidewalker] The mind-boggling implication is that the objective world cannot even be said to exist outside of the subjective act of observation.
<monty python peasant voice>Now you see what I've been on about, did you see him try to deny objective reality?</monty python peasant voice>


[Sidewalker] This enforces the age-old hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental aspect of physical reality after all, perhaps the only ultimate reality.
It does not. If consciousness creates reality there is no way we can support that conclusion by the fact that physical quanta manifest during quantum wave collapse whether we know about the collapse or not.

It's a thing that happens. End of story. This the makes exactly as much sense as saying "Since color only exists when I see it we know consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality after all"


[Sidewalker]As Neils Bohr, John Wheeler, Henry Stapp, and many other quantum physicists believed, perhaps consciousness cannot be considered just a by-product of the physical activity of the brain.
Many people believe that. No one who understands quantum mechanics thinks quantum mechanics supports this thesis.


[Sidewalker]In the end, we have some scientists trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop.
I would suggest trying to actually understand it by looking at the math and experiments as opposed to watching pseudoscience docuseries.


[Sidewalker]I always enjoy seeing our spiritual detractors throw a conniption
I hope Sidewalker is entertained by my conniption. I am less amused by this subversion of the scientific method (and the respect it has earned) to serve anti-rationalism.


[Sidewalker] if you do think consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness was necessary to make the universe actual in the first place, a preexistent consciousness that transcends the material universe of science.
Well Sidewalker has hit the nail on the head here. Reason is so much easier to leave behind when you have a belief that you've already decided to have faith in.
=================================================



[n8nrgim] doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient.
Interaction. Measurement also implies someone is watching. A photon can interact with a single atom. Atoms have no mind. They don't observe. They don't measure.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
@Sidewalker
SideW....some sort of consciousness was necessary to make the universe actual in the first place,...
And since finite, occupied space Universe eternally exists, in various states/phases of existence, an origin/source etc type thinking about Universe is moot.

A more religious cosmic question might be the two primary conjectures regarding prime numbers as follows.

There exist two primary conjectures based on two differrent set of geometrical patterns one of which { #2 } transposes to algebra equation all primes are of n*6 plus or minus 1.

1} all primes fall on same line/level ---Euclidean sine-wave pattern shown here just below--- except for 2p and 3p, as well as other non-primes, in

2} all prime numbers { except 2p and3p }, as well as other non-prime numbers, fall on these two radii, are always on each side of a single radii  with no prime numbers on it.  Also hexagonal graphic  with radii not shown here.

0...................................6...............................12...................................18..etc
......1........................5p......7p..................11p........13p....................17p........etc
..........2p...........4.....................8.......10.......................14.........16...............etc
.................3p................................9...................................15.....................etc

There exist 18 quarks and 18 anti-quark combinations of Universe.  This became of more significance to me,  once I developed the minimal,  Quantum Space-time Torus composed of 18 nodal events

To be clear, we can just have one line/level and all prime numbers, including 2p and 3p, will fall on that one line/level. So what, if any significance of using the symmetrical, 4 line/level pattering?

1} it makes a distinction between 2p and 3p and that becomes more significant once I inside-outed the above symmetrical pattern, to become an asymmetrical pattern,

2} it makes distinction between 3p { triangulated structural integrity } and 2p { the only even prime number } in regards to all other prime numbers, none of which are rationally triangulated and none are even.

Hope that helps. I'm always open to logical, common sense critical thinking responses and questions.




n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
n8nrgim] doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient.
Interaction. Measurement also implies someone is watching. A photon can interact with a single atom. Atoms have no mind
when measurement occurs, observation is only incidental to what's happening. the act of observing itself doesn't change the outcome of the quantum world, does it?

it looks like you are disagreeing or distinguishing with me, if i'm not mistaken, but i think we agree. if a tree lands in a forest and no one is around, it still we assume did what it did in reality. if we measure it falling with a video, our observation of it falling didn't change anything. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
n8nrgim] doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient.
Interaction. Measurement also implies someone is watching. A photon can interact with a single atom. Atoms have no mind
when measurement occurs, observation is only incidental to what's happening. the act of observing itself doesn't change the outcome of the quantum world, does it?
When interaction occurs observation is incidental and measurement is a form of observation.

Observation is the perception of a fact by a mind (or sometimes automated information store like a computer).

The wave collapse is the fact.

The mechanics of wave collapse and the things the transferred properties (like energy and momentum) do not change one bit depending on whether they are perceived. The existence of a conscious mind (or a computer) is totally irrelevant to the predictions of quantum mechanics. There is no term in any equation for conscious awareness. There is no machine you can build that behaves differently when it's being watched (excluding computers designed to recognize human observation but that's not a quantum effect is it).


it looks like you are disagreeing or distinguishing with me, if i'm not mistaken, but i think we agree.
I think you understand but I'm being extremely nit-picky about semantics because I can see, especially in this context, that using the wrong words snowballs into bizarre and substantially false understanding. I wish they had been as careful at the Copenhagen conference and we would have less people a confused as Sidewinder.


if a tree lands in a forest and no one is around, it still we assume did what it did in reality. if we measure it falling with a video, our observation of it falling didn't change anything.
Exactly.

We know it fell, but that's information. If we didn't record it, it would still fall and then it would still decompose and be a habitat for beetles etc... etc...

If we're finally talking in the same terms we can move on to Schrodinger's cat which is the classic argument against the misconception Sidewinder was just spreading.

Many people think Schrodinger's cat is a description of the bizarre reality of quantum mechanics but in fact it was a thought experiment (make by Schrodinger) to show the absurdity of believing wave collapse is being caused by observation as opposed to interaction.

The question is not different from a tree in the forest. It simply describes a scenario where a macroscopic outcome is determined by a quantum collapse with equal probability of having one outcome or the other.

The question is: If a EM wave collapses to a photon on one side or the other of a double slit experiment, and no one looks in the box, is the cat both dead and alive at the same time?

The answer is: The cat is either dead or alive. There was a 50/50 chance the photon would manifest in a way that would cause the cat to die and that dice was rolled the instant the quantum wave hit the detector, not when you opened the box.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The answer is: The cat is either dead or alive. There was a 50/50 chance the photon would manifest in a way that would cause the cat to die and that dice was rolled the instant the quantum wave hit the detector, not when you opened the box.

Not so with quantum entanglement i.e the cat is both alive { 1 } and dead { 0 }.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ebuc
Not so with quantum entanglement i.e the cat is both alive { 1 } and dead { 0 }.
What experiment could prove what you just claimed?


FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,814
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Yes, quantum mechanics can be counterintuitive and sometimes difficult to reconcile with everyday experience. But not this difficult. The "cat is alive and dead" thing is just nonsense that stands in the way of understanding; it does not improve understanding. (Of course Schrödinger was no fool either; he offered this thought experiment as a means to ridicule certain ideas, now somewhat outdated in the light of quantum field theory, about the interpretation of quantum mechanics.)
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What experiment could prove what you just claimed?

I rarely, if ever, claim a proof of anything. Only recalling --many times--  what others smarter than me appear to be saying.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
@FLRW



If we observe something and it behaves differently to when we don't observe it, how do we know how it behaves when we don't observe it, unless we observe it?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Inference, which is indirect observation. Of course within the right scope all quantum observations are also indirect.

So if trees didn't fall when we didn't see them, then there wouldn't be pete bogs, logs wouldn't block paths, the only logs we would ever see would be ones we'd seen fall.

So you got to postulate some kind of magic where the mechanics of the tree know when someone will observe the effects in the future.

Nobody would take someone seriously if they claimed this about trees, but because very few people understand quantum mechanics it's easier to claim that kind of thing.

So with the cat, you could keep slapping on secondary causalities till the cows come on. If they're willing to claim an entire cat with trillions of cells and pentillions of atoms is in a superposition there is nothing they won't claim is in superposition.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
If we observe something and it behaves differently to when we don't observe it, how do we know how it behaves when we don't observe it, unless we observe it?

Zed, an action/event/phenomena occurs, and we didnt observe it, then we are are like a dectective who attempts to  understand as much as possible about what occurred from the evidence.

I come home and see a tree fallen in my yard,  I deduce the sound of air molecules vibrating occurred because, myself and many others have made such observations, over the years, from hearing a tree fall in the woods, etc.

Same goes for two vehicles we find on road, all dented and smoking and glass broke, we deduce there was accident and a sound { air molecules { vibrating occurred }

The list of such deductions go on and on and on, because humans have observed soo many action/events over humanities existence on Earth and passed on the information of what they had observed, and that is when a tree falls, or vehicles collide, a sound { air molecules vibrating } occurs.

You just need to think about it. There is mysticism going on here. logical, common sense critical thinking has be used to deduce what has occurred  here there elsewhere, before you arrived on the scene of action/event.





zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Who is Pete Bogs?

Is he a Theoretical  Physicist.

Or a Palaeontologist.

One makes theoretical assumptions and comes up with theoretical conclusions.

And the other researches tangible evidence and comes up with relative conclusions.

And you and I see a log on a path and conclude that someone must have been sawing firewood. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
I would suggest that to make a secondary definitive conclusion, one must first start with definitive evidence. Hence trees in general and then the fallen one.

Which isn't to suggest that theoretical assumptions and conclusions do not play an important role as building blocks, when attempting to acquire and utilise new material knowledge.

But I would also suggest, that to utilise acquired knowledge, then the relevant data still needs to be acquired and proven.