Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

[zinfamous]

But it isn't actually collapsed. It's just that our limited instrumentation/mind keeps us from seeing that it exists in both forms simultaneously.

So the can't isn't dead or alive, it is both but we can only see it as one or the other at any given time; This seems more like a problem with our empiricism than the observer actually changing the state of reality.

well, if you paid attention to the end of dr pizza's video, you'll see that the attempt to actually observe the phenomenon with a device actually changed the behavior of the particles--not what was observed--but the pattern created by the particle flight path changed.

so, yes, the presence of and attempt to observe does have an effect on the behavior of particles. the simple act of observing--or maybe it is simply being present--changes the fundamental behavior.

That's the crazy thing. I don't quite get it either, I suppose it's something fundamental that I'm missing, but I wonder if it's simply an external object being in the area changes the path of particles? that sounds odd, as I'd think you would do this in a vacuum, and people able to observe without physical interference.

does the act of observation--"capturing" photons (does that even make sense?) to form images--somehow distort the field of the electron path such that it alters behavior?


I have no clue

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I wonder if it's simply an external object being in the area changes the path of particles? that sounds odd, as I'd think you would do this in a vacuum, and people able to observe without physical interference.

OK so maybe our method of observation is interacting on a dimension we can't see, settling a hyper-cube die, as it where:

I'm thinking about a 4 dimensional hyper-cube. I can only see 3 out of 4 dimensions at any one time, so as it spins it appears to be both the "wave" face and the "particle" face. The act of using something to observe it is causing the cube to stay-still so I can see the damned thing, thus 'collapsing' the probability of unseen face's probability.

So imagine that one face is wave and the other particle. Then when ever we make it sit-still it stays landed on one face or the other, and the un-seen face disappears in to a dimension we can't observe.

This is not truly collapsing the wave/particle, but instead simply pushing its probability out of our 3 dimensions of empirical existence.

After the fact the likelihood of any event is either 0 or 1; whereas there was some weighted probability before we offered our hyper-cube a surface to land on (this surface being our methodology for observation)

 

[zinfamous]

OK so maybe our method of observation is interacting on a dimension we can't see, settling a hyper-cube die, as it where:

I'm thinking about a 4 dimensional hyper-cube. I can only see 3 out of 4 dimensions and the act of using something to observe it is causing the cube to stay-still so I can see the damned thing, thus 'collapsing' the probability of unseen face's probability.

So imagine that one face is wave and the other particle. Then when ever we make it sit-still it stays landed on one face or the other, and the un-seen face disappears in to a dimension we can't observe.

This is not truly collapsing the wave/particle, but instead simply pushing its probability out of our 3 dimensions of empirical existence.

After the fact the likelihood of any event is either 0 or 1; where as there was some weighted probability before we offered our hyper-cube a surface to land on (this being our methodology for observation)

You know what, I just figured it out:

 

[Locut0s]

well, if you paid attention to the end of dr pizza's video, you'll see that the attempt to actually observe the phenomenon with a device actually changed the behavior of the particles--not what was observed--but the pattern created by the particle flight path changed.

so, yes, the presence of and attempt to observe does have an effect on the behavior of particles. the simple act of observing--or maybe it is simply being present--changes the fundamental behavior.

That's the crazy thing. I don't quite get it either, I suppose it's something fundamental that I'm missing, but I wonder if it's simply an external object being in the area changes the path of particles? that sounds odd, as I'd think you would do this in a vacuum, and people able to observe without physical interference.

does the act of observation--"capturing" photons (does that even make sense?) to form images--somehow distort the field of the electron path such that it alters behavior?


I have no clue

It's more like this.

In order for the single particle to produce an interference pattern it has to act like a WAVE and travel through BOTH slits to interfere with itself. By detecting which slit the particle "actually" went through you have collapsed the probability wave to a point source, we now know it went through exactly one slit and not the other. But if it definitely went through one slit and not the other then there is no probability wave travelling though both slits and nothing to interfere with. Thus you get the single slit pattern. But it's not just ANY object in the vicinity of the slits. The object, whatever it is, has to interrupt the particle in some way so that it doesn't travel through both slits at once but definitely through one OR the other. So placing a lamp shade there will not work 😛

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You know what, I just figured it out:

or a little less complex:

In order for the single particle to produce an interference pattern it has to act like a WAVE and travel through BOTH slits to interfere with itself. By detecting which slit the particle "actually" went through you have collapsed the probability wave to a point source, we now know it went through exactly one slit and not the other. But if it definitely went through one slit and not the other then there is no probability wave travelling though both slits and nothing to interfere with. Thus you get the single slit pattern. But it's not just ANY object in the vicinity of the slits. The object, whatever it is, has to interrupt the particle in some way so that it doesn't travel through both slits at once but definitely through one OR the other.

Which sets the wave-form to the unobserved dimension leaving the particle-form in the observed one.

 

[Locut0s]

OK so maybe our method of observation is interacting on a dimension we can't see, settling a hyper-cube die, as it where:

I'm thinking about a 4 dimensional hyper-cube. I can only see 3 out of 4 dimensions at any one time, so as it spins it appears to be both the "wave" face and the "particle" face. The act of using something to observe it is causing the cube to stay-still so I can see the damned thing, thus 'collapsing' the probability of unseen face's probability.

So imagine that one face is wave and the other particle. Then when ever we make it sit-still it stays landed on one face or the other, and the un-seen face disappears in to a dimension we can't observe.

This is not truly collapsing the wave/particle, but instead simply pushing its probability out of our 3 dimensions of empirical existence.

After the fact the likelihood of any event is either 0 or 1; whereas there was some weighted probability before we offered our hyper-cube a surface to land on (this surface being our methodology for observation)

Did you read up on the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics I linked too?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Did you read up on the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics I linked too?

Yes, and it is a shitty shitty name for a very good idea:

Everett noticed that the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone decreed that after an observation is made each element of the quantum superposition of the combined subject-object wavefunction contains two "relative states": a "collapsed" object state and an associated observer who has observed the same collapsed outcome; what the observer sees and the state of the object have become correlated by the act of measurement or observation. The subsequent evolution of each pair of relative subject-object states proceeds with complete indifference as to the presence or absence of the other elements, as if wavefunction collapse has occurred, which has the consequence that later observations are always consistent with the earlier observations. Thus the appearance of the object's wavefunction's collapse has emerged from the unitary, deterministic theory itself.

I also don't like the anthropomorphic implication of the bold. I want a short theory explaining why this occurs.

 

[Baked]

I give you, the head bangin' bear

 

[Newbian]

Poor bear just wanted to eat a few of them. 🙁

 

[Locut0s]

Hope you guys can relate to this:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

NSFAnyone
NSFWish

 

[Howard]

NSFAnyone
NSFWish

I don't see it!

 

[Printer Bandit]

NSFWish[/url]

that's hot.

 

[Printer Bandit]

NSFAnyone
NSFWish

that's hot

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Must be Canada.

 

[Locut0s]

Must be Canada.

Don't think so. Uniform says no.

 

[Locut0s]

I actually just skim read it and wasted no time. What do I win?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I actually just skim read it and wasted no time. What do I win?

What you want to make something of it?!

 

[Newbian]

Hope you guys can relate to this:

Total lie... tootsie rolls and candy corn are awesome.

Not sure what's in the bottom left.

 

[Locut0s]

Total lie... tootsie rolls and candy corn are awesome.

Not sure what's in the bottom left.

Always hated those small tootsie rolls they game out. Hard as fucking rocks usually. The thing in the lower left corner is the candy of the devil. Horrible hard taffy like stuff that is/was popular Halloween candy. It's wrapped in a candy wrapper with a pic of a jack-o'-lantern or witch or something. You only see these at Halloween. And the top left is boxes of raisins, another popular one I hated. All of these are on lists of the worst Halloween candy on the net.

 

[PrayForDeath]

NSFAnyone
NSFWish

Tranny?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

DERRRRP

Does that come with a free iPod?

 

[DirkGently1]

 

[Jeff7]

Yes, and it is a shitty shitty name for a very good idea:

I also don't like the anthropomorphic implication of the bold. I want a short theory explaining why this occurs.

I think what they're referring to is that observation of something requires that we either hit it with photons or electrons or something else, and wait for them to bounce off of it - or else it's necessary to impede its path with some other object and wait until the two interact.

So if the electron or photon itself is there on its own, doing its thing, and you try to observe it, you're going to have to either affect it somehow, either by bouncing something off of it, or by putting something in its path. So now you've started messing with it, and thus changed its behavior or properties.

Imagine if you had two ways of interacting with people:
1) Throw a billiard ball at someone's head.
2) Drop an anvil on someone.
Then you watch the reaction.

The observation itself isn't so much the issue, as it is what you need to do in order to do observe. The billiard ball approach is going to alter the behavior of a person as they change direction, and forcefully return the ball back at your face. (Like bouncing a photon off of an electron.) The anvil is going to dramatically alter the person's properties from alive and upright, to dead and squished. (Like forcing a moving particle or photon to impact a surface, thus interacting with it.)

So either way, if you want to learn something about a free-moving particle, you're going to have to hit it with something, or else put something in its path for it to smack into, and both of these options are going to change what you're trying to look at.

 

[mrblotto]

Awesome :thumbsup: