• Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    154
    ·
    23 days ago

    Ugh, the stupid “observe means observed by a conscious being” thing again. Any* quantum interaction will cause a collapse of the wave function. No conscious observer is required. When you do the experiment in a closed box and just increase the temperature to make it more likely for air molecules to interact with the laser you will also get a slit pattern.

    *not really any interaction, scientists actually still aren’t sure what exactly constitutes a measurement, but we’re pretty sure a human is not needed

    • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      23 days ago

      “Observe means observed by a conscious being”

      Can something without consciousness make an observation?

      • roboslap@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        23 days ago

        Yes, for example a photodiode can make an observation. Or a computer, or a photographic film.

        • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          That makes sense.

          Would that also mean if a tree falls in the forest it always makes a sound because there’s always “someone” around to hear it? It sounds like we could say that the air or ground is “observing” the sound waves or impact made by the collision?

          • calabast@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            23 days ago

            I think a tree falling is a little different from the double slit experiment, because the outcome of a tree falling will always be the same. That question is a little more philosophical about whether the pressurized air waves a falling tree makes are actually “sound” or whether it’s the interpretation of those waves done by our ears and brains that actually counts as “a sound”

            The double slit experiment actually has two different outcomes, and that’s just some of that freaky quantum voodoo shit.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              23 days ago

              The tree could land in a different way though. Presumably until it’s observed it’s in all possible positions and rotations it could potentially be in.

              Although presumably not because there’s always something observing it even if that thing isn’t self-aware and is in fact just a rock.

              • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                23 days ago

                Yeah, the ambient temperature of the air should prevent the formation of a superposition afaik. And a tree would be too large to be in superporition in any likely scenario anyways.

          • roboslap@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            23 days ago

            Kind of, but I think that’s an altogether different question. The tree question is a philosophical one, basically asking whether sound is an objective element of reality or a subjective perception. The observer question is a scientific one, asking what conditions cause the interference pattern to collapse into two lines.

          • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            23 days ago

            Not because there’s someone, but because it fell and caused the air to vibrate aka sound. Has nothing to do with “observing”.

            I’m honestly sick of this rhetoric. “observing” for us humans requires a sense to be triggered, which most commonly would by our eyes and for that we need light. In quantum physics, that’s a problem, largely because even that tiny bit of light is a fucking nuke in this context. By the time it comes back to be picked up by the sensor, it has done its deed and changed everything. Similar issues with non light related ways of measuring.

            This video has a lot more info, but she briefly mentions the experiment to further build on another popular myth. It’s such a refreshing channel to watch after all the quick pop science videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        23 days ago

        “Observe” in the double-slit experiment means placing detectors in each slit. Once you do that, the particles start acting as particles only. Without detectors you get the interference pattern. Doesn’t matter in either of the two setups if an actual human is looking at it or not.

      • ⚛️ Color 🎨@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        23 days ago

        Observer in this context doesn’t mean consciousness, but things such as detectors. If humans were replaced by robots and the robots did the same experiment, they would still see the interference pattern. It’s a common misconception that “observer” in the context of the double slit experiment means being observed by a conscious being.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 days ago

        Can something without consciousness make an observation?

        Does a camera have consciousness, or would the footage change after viewed by a human?

    • Nawor3565
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 days ago

      Exactly. Or, you could just buy into “many worlds” and the idea that your brain and all the quantum particles that comprise it just join in on the laser beam’s wave function. (That’s an oversimplification but close enough)

      Just like there’s no reason to believe the earth is at the center of the solar system, there’s no reason to believe that human consciousness is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics.

      • classic@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 days ago

        It’s good to properly place our consciousness in the context of the rest of the universe and its physics. Still, it’s a great use of this meme format

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      23 days ago

      Agreed, but I’m still getting a vibe of that statement being correct at some level, from some point of view.

      The nature of reality at the smallest scales is slippery, and it is still a fact that simply observing/interacting/measuring it has an effect, that layers of reality at their “pixel level” are blurry.

      And it is absolutely astonishing that we as a species have developed the tools and know-how to reach this understanding.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        23 days ago

        Correct. Whoever thinks that science kills the magic and wonders of life is an idiot. And that’s true for all the departments.

        Relevant xkcd:

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    22 days ago

    First I was confused, because this meme suggests that the poster doesn’t understand the double-slit experiment.

    Then I noticed that it was a Nostr user. Silly me, of course they’re stupid…

  • 58008@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    23 days ago

    “I simply collapse wave functions” is the only defence a peeping tom requires.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 days ago

    Alan “Bitcoin” Watts!
    Alan “Bitcoin Cash”!
    Alan “Buttcoin” What’s!

    Hey what’s up, little electron! Where are you and where you going?
    “Yes.”