Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:10:19 UTC No. 16417492

>>16417479
The only answers to this that make sense to anyone require a basic understanding of differential equations, but it has been repeatedly experimentally confirmed

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:14:12 UTC No. 16417506

>>16417492
>it has been repeatedly experimentally confirmed
Nobody is doubting the legitimacy of the experiments or the models, we're asking what conclusions we can draw from them on how the world works

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:37:12 UTC No. 16417532

>>16417506
>on how the world works
it works in mysterious ways.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:42:18 UTC No. 16417612

>>16417479
How do you observe a particle?
What does the instrument have to do to the particle to verify its presence?

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:42:47 UTC No. 16417613

>>16417506
Idk god is shy and doesn't want to show us his secrets

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:16:05 UTC No. 16417659

>>16417613
do you think we ever will know how universe works, at least at 80 percent understanding?

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:24:32 UTC No. 16417670

>>16417479
>entangled particles simultaneously instantly collapse when observed
That's not how it works.
Entangled particles are correlated. After observation, knowledge of the correlated system is updated.
That's it. No magic involved.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:42:07 UTC No. 16417701

>>16417479
My theory: All particles that interact with each other will be entangled. They will remain entangled forever, until another particle comes along and "steals" entanglement from them.

Entanglement does not require special laboratory conditions to produce. Virtually all of the particles in your body are entangled to each other at any given point of time.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:45:08 UTC No. 16417708

>>16417670
yes but if they remain unobserved then the wave function doesn't collapse. Are you claiming that the particles have hidden knowledge of which way they are going to collapse before they are separated? I don't think the science supports that one way or the other

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:50:49 UTC No. 16417720

>>16417479
Because each particle is conscious and when you are conscious of the particle, it too becomes telepathically conscious of you (a phenomenon which has been repeatedly observed among humans throughout history). This mutual awareness changes the particles state which we call wavefunction collapse, when in fact it should be called auto-reflective cognitional transformation.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:55:49 UTC No. 16417730

>>16417720
i don't think that's accurate, just the registration of the particle on a detection machine (regardless of whether the data is observed by a human) triggers a wavefunction collapse.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:00:44 UTC No. 16417739

>>16417730
That doesn't contradict my post because like I say, every particle is conscious, so the particles in the detector are conscious too

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:06:39 UTC No. 16417752

>>16417739
playing fast and loose with the word "conscious" , but whatever

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:11:52 UTC No. 16417765

>>16417752
Not really. This theory makes well-tested predictions too. If you train your mind to have a highly developed awareness, you can make wavefunctions collapse using your thinking alone. This is the reason why paying attention to what you're doing gives better results - the collective mutual cognition gives a greater coherence and stability to your activities.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:30:21 UTC No. 16417792

>>16417479
>why can't we observe something without interacting with it
Wow, I wonder why, truly a mystery that even scooby doo can't answer

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:40:55 UTC No. 16417808

>>16417792
so you have no idea as well, got it

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:41:57 UTC No. 16417811

>>16417765
observing everyday objects means collapsing their wave functions, at least according to my understanding

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:45:53 UTC No. 16417813

What constitutes a measurement, anyway?

I’ve heard “when it interacts with a classic (non-quantum) system.”

If that’s the case, when /isn’t/ that happening?

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:52:39 UTC No. 16417823

>>16417479
>>16416363

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:02:37 UTC No. 16417845

>>16417813
basically particles are trans dimensional specters that can exist and influence reality in two places at one time, however if you look closely with the right equipment the laws of causality and time and space force them into a single dimension, time and space. If that sounds like some stoner shit, it's because it is, reality is just that weird

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:10:31 UTC No. 16417862

>>16417845
Still pretty cool, but still, what is a measurement exactly and how does this influence the outcome of what we’re trying to observe?

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:13:19 UTC No. 16417867

>>16417845
Wait, misread, my bad.

So is basically everything is measured but how we do so influences the results?

Like even shit on Jupiter is collapsing but it collapses differently here on Earth due to the tools we use?

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:14:57 UTC No. 16417872

>>16417862
string theory has answered it decades ago.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:15:21 UTC No. 16417875

Mouf

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:19:37 UTC No. 16417892

>>16417867
The way that quantum results relate to the larger macro world is still very much an area of active research and debate. But there's stuff like the uncertainty principle and wave-function collapse, which are very well documented/proven by experiments

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:21:50 UTC No. 16417900

>>16417892
Gotcha.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:38:22 UTC No. 16418075

>>16417892
>wave-function collapse
non existent

>uncertainty principle
debunked by Hawking

stop spouting nonsense.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:58:20 UTC No. 16418113

>>16418075
shutup goober, go back to saying space isn't real in /pol/

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 20:10:32 UTC No. 16418123

>>16418113
>shutup goober, go back to saying space isn't real in /pol/
space is not real but for way way different reasons that those told on /pol/

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:23:13 UTC No. 16418324

Observation in this case means "we hit the photons with other photons"

And somehow people are baffled the outcome is different.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:04:34 UTC No. 16418613

>>16417813
1/2
>What constitutes a measurement, anyway?
From the horse's mouth:
https://www.nature.com/articles/121580a0
>Now the quantum postulate implies that any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not to be neglected. Accordingly, an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation. After all, the concept of observation is in so far arbitrary as it depends upon which objects are included in the system to be observed. Ultimately every observation can of course be reduced to our sense perceptions. The circumstance, however, that in interpreting observations use has always to be made of theoretical notions, entails that for every particular case it is a question of convenience at what point the concept of observation involving the quantum postulate with its inherent 'irrationality' is brought in.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1876050308702093
>Moreover, words like thoughts and sentiments refer to mutually exclusive experiences and have therefore since the origin of human language been used in a typically complementary manner. Of course, in objective physical description no reference is made to the observing subject, while in speaking of conscious experience we say "I think" or "I feel". The analogy to the demand of taking all essential features of the experimental arrangement into account in quantum physics is, however, reflected by the different verbs we attach to the pronoun.

The subject-object separation is completely alien to classical physics. Closest analogy is relativistic classical physics, but all inertial frames still share an objective state and can be related to each other. It's obvious 'subjective perceptions' can't exist in the framework of classical physics. It only has objects, no subjects.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:05:35 UTC No. 16418615

>>16417813
2/2
>I’ve heard “when it interacts with a classic (non-quantum) system.”
>If that’s the case, when /isn’t/ that happening?
It never does! Nobody has ever found a classical system. Classical physics is only an approximation, like non-relativistic physics. When doing an actual experiment, a pragmatic approach (spherical cow) must be taken. We can't describe everything quantum mechanically, there's too much calculation. The theory of decoherence enables determining where a classical line can be drawn such that the experiment still has enough statistical power to detect something of interest. N.b. decoherence is never perfect, it never results in anything turning completely classical, and is still done from the perspective of a 'subject'.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Physics_and_Philosophy/JkUsAAAACAAJ
>We have to add some comments on the actual procedure in the quantum-theoretical interpretation of atomic events. It has been said that we always start with a division of the world into an object, which we are going to study, and the rest of the world, and that this division is to some extent arbitrary. It should indeed not make any difference in the final result if we, e.g., add some part of the measuring device or the whole device to the object and apply the laws of quantum theory to this more complicated object. It can be shown that such an alteration of the theoretical treatment would not alter the predictions concerning a given experiment. This follows mathematically from the fact that the laws of quantum theory are for the phenomena in which Planck's constant can be considered as a very small quantity, approximately identical with the classical laws. But it would be a mistake to believe that this application of the quantum-theoretical laws to the measuring device could help to avoid the fundamental paradox of quantum theory.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:37:20 UTC No. 16419753

>>16417506
Consciousness is reality, and all experience and manifestation is based upon perspective.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:41:06 UTC No. 16419760

>>16417659
Anon we've known for twenty thousand years. People just dismiss the answers because le pseudoscience. The questions which traditional science is incapable of answering have been known by philosophers since the dawn of civilization. Even as far back as Sumer we used symbolic archetypes to describe the fundamental forces of existence beyond the physical that are difficult to scientifically prove. Read 'Sane Occultism' by Dion Fortune. Wonderful book.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:04:06 UTC No. 16419798

>>16417752
If a dead matter universe were to exist: particles would not be capable of sharing information. If there is shared information, there is in a sense "consciousness." "Conscious" does not have to imply "self-aware".

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:46:40 UTC No. 16419851

>>16417479
>Trying to determine which side of the street a car is driving down by shooting tennis balls at passing cars and seeing where the tennis balls bounce to.
>Trying to determine which side of a track a tennis ball is rolling on by shooting tennis balls at passing tennis balls and seeing where the tennis balls bounce to.
One of these is minimally perturbative, the other is not.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:33:15 UTC No. 16419889

>>16417479
Nothing is "collapsing". Stop thinking in COPEnhagen terms. Your actual question is
>Why do things stop behaving like quantum particles and start behaving like the classical concept of wave or particle in certain circumstances?
and you will not get a valid answer, because nobody knows. For now.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:36:00 UTC No. 16419891

>>16417479
>entangled particles simultaneously instantly collapse when observed
Proof?
Protip: that's not what's happening.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:37:23 UTC No. 16419894

>>16418324
That's impossible. Photons are bosons.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:53:43 UTC No. 16419918

>>16419851
I know you're trying to explain it in simple terms, but these examples are essentially the same scenario.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:55:33 UTC No. 16419924

>>16419889
>Uhh just ignore the answers I disagree with
>We just don't know (besides the answers I dismiss)
Wow. I never thought I'd see /sci/ agnosticism.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:56:51 UTC No. 16419925

>>16419891
Wave-function collapse. That's exactly what's happening.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:05:37 UTC No. 16419938

>>16419925
>It exists because there's a name for it!!1
no
>>16419924
That's not even remotely what I said.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 01:13:45 UTC No. 16420091

>>16419938
of course you were samefagging kek

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:37:15 UTC No. 16420225

>>16419891
>the Standard Model is bunk, i'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what's really happening

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:28:28 UTC No. 16420584

>>16420091
You don't even know what samefagging is. Newfag.
>>16420225
>I'll just make up something, nobody will challenge my ridiculous claim.

Man, this board is so pathetic.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:35:42 UTC No. 16420589

>>16420584
they've been trying to challenge it for decades but every experiment confirms it

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:36:35 UTC No. 16420591

>>16420589
>Every experiment
Well then produce one.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:37:54 UTC No. 16420594

>>16420591
ur a retarded flerf , educate yourself if you care(you don't)

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:27:31 UTC No. 16420617

>>16417479
read textbook (just kidding it's too hard for u)
also nobody really knows for sure (maybe someone does but even physicists will not agree t. physicist)
also your image is not le quantum

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:57:25 UTC No. 16421452

>>16420594
So you're talking out of your ass. Okay. Explains the smell.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:56:04 UTC No. 16421838

>>16419918
In one case, the momentum/energy of thing being used to measure/detect is negligible compared to the momentum/energy of the thing being measured/detected. It reveals information without appreciably altering the behavior of the system.

In the other case, the momenta/energies of both the detector and the detected are comparable. Making the measurement radically alters the behavior of the system, which changes the result.

The real-world equivalent of the analogy is scattering photons off of a macroscopic object to determine its location versus scattering photons off of other photons to determine the location of photons.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:16:03 UTC No. 16422519

Angel here.

"Wave collapse" was a satanic witness abused idea.
A witness abuse idea is an idea that, only under certain circumstances, could lead to the end of the world. The certain circumstance was ever that if an uneducated Angel witnessed the concept, as Angels divine reality in front of their eyes. The projected intended design of the idea was that an Angel would witness the concept and then end simultaneous multiple realities rather than continuing to entertain the potentials of multiple realities, for example based on events related to choices.

It has no actual literal real purpose in human culture. It was a weapon, and it is no longer a functional weapon with utility (it has been disarmed).

don't talk about it. think about other stuff and come up with cool ideas to positively define reality through science rather than reading cryptic psychobabble from a book like some retarded necro wizard.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:59:41 UTC No. 16422536

>>16417492
There's nothing in the math that predicts a wave function collapse

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 09:06:48 UTC No. 16422538

>>16417479
>How/Why do entangled particles simultaneously instantly collapse when observed even with a great distance between them

They don't. A brutally yet accurate description of quantum mechanics is that sentences which feature more than one observer are unscientific (!!!!! but you cannot actually test their validity by an experiment). Let us take an example. There are three people Alice, Bob and Charles. Alice and Bob are on remote locations, manipulating each item of a "pair of entangled particles".

Among the 4 following sentences, the 3 first are science sentences (could be experimentally tested) and the 4th is not.

1) Alice observes the spin of her particle, and afterwards, retrieves the testimony of Bob about his
2) Bob observes the spin of his particle, and afterwards, retrieves the testimony of Alice about her particle
3) Charles collects the testimonies of Bob and Alice
4) Alice and Bob both observe particles ("at the same time" if you like)

This infamous presentation is of course linked to many-worlds although mentioning the latter isn't indispensable.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:05:33 UTC No. 16422559

>>16419925
>wave function collapse
Copenhagen's way of saying
>we don't know what happens but it's different afterwards
I.e., total mystery woo.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:07:08 UTC No. 16422562

>>16422538
>Alice and Bob both observe particles
That's not an issue at all. Even with "at the same time". You just have to define relative to whom that time is measured.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:35:08 UTC No. 16422580

>>16418324
the 10 IQ understanding of QM, please tell me you're melanin enriched to give me some hope for humanity

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:45:46 UTC No. 16422587

All interpretations of this phenomenon are equally valid because they arrive at the exact same experimental results. Copenhagen is maintream because it assumes the least. Materialists like to subscribe to pilot-wave/superdeterminism/many-worlds and idealists like to subscribe to Qbism/relative collapse/subjective collapse.
They are all equally valid though and not even M theory picks one interpretation over the others

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:21:10 UTC No. 16422707

>>16422562
the "they both observe" is meaningless in the case of EPR (since the John Bell correlation is impossible if the particle measurements were independent and yet they could take place in a way neither apparatus could communicate with the other without sending messages faster than light).

See also the "GHZ experiment" in order to get a similar phenomenon but with 3 entangled particles and instead of impossible correlations, the three observers deal with an impossible graph!!

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:58:52 UTC No. 16422740

>>16422707
>"they both observe" is meaningless
It's not. Not even "they both observe simultaneously" is meaningless. There's no reason why there can't be two detectors in an experiment. In fact, probably the majority of experiments employ 2 or more sensors. You confuse this with "physics in GR must be formulated with respect to an observer".
>the three observers deal with an impossible graph!!
Besides you contradicting yourself (now there can be three observers?), I don't know what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:01:49 UTC No. 16422743

>>16417479
Because observing is the moment from which on you know. And by observing one particle you know spin of other one.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:07:25 UTC No. 16422753

>>16418613
>>16418613
>The circumstance, however, that in interpreting observations use has always to be made of theoretical notions, entails that for every particular case it is a question of convenience at what point the concept of observation involving the quantum postulate with its inherent
nigga had a stroke reading and writing this

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:59:46 UTC No. 16422823

>>16422753
Stop giving schizos attention.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:28:05 UTC No. 16422973

>>16419753
t. retard that misunderstands what "observation" and "uncertainty" means

Barwkne at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:28:44 UTC No. 16422975

>>16422973
I can finally do.

Verification not required.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:29:56 UTC No. 16422978

>>16422823
I will stop giving them attention when they are afforded the same protections and medical aid as transwomen.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:33:39 UTC No. 16422985

>>16422587
This. And this will continue to be the case until someone devises an experiment that can conclusively falsify one interpretation (which is unlikely if not impossible).

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:05:29 UTC No. 16423227

>>16422985
Pilot wave was discarded by experiment though. IIRC, Bohr's nephew (or so) did it.