Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 07:50:11 UTC No. 16617620

>>16617598
you see things by detecting photons bouncing of it
wavefunction does not know anything, it's just interference between photons and electrons

imagine you were blind and you could only detect objects in front of you by poking at them with cane
if the objects were small and light enough (say, tennis balls), you would sent them flying off by "looking" where they are
Do the tennis balls come alive by "observing them"?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:12:30 UTC No. 16617635

When you're measuring, you can think of it as entanglement. Wave function entangles with say a nearby atom, which in turn entangles with something else. There will be series of entanglement at which point the entangled system starts being macroscopic and the entanglement is no longer sustainable. That's when it collapses and we get a value of measurement.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:50:24 UTC No. 16617679

>>16617620
good analogy. i hope you didn't steal it

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:31:29 UTC No. 16617751

>>16617598
it's all kind of retarded and goody, there's something missing before questions like this can have a sinsible answer

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:40:57 UTC No. 16618239

>>16617598
When you, as the observer, measure a particle, it does not mean that the particle suddenly becomes well-defined for every other possible observer across the universe. It only means you and the particle are now entangled. Only you get to "know" the particle's state, but for every other observer you - together with the particle - are still a quantum mechanical system. When they measure you (or the particle), they learn information about you (as well as the particle), and thus all three of you will join the same branch of classical "reality".

So to your question, the electron does interact with air molecules, and they do "observe" each other and entangle themselves with each other. However, from your perspective, this process is completely unknowable. To you, they are together all just a quantum mechanical system that evolves acording to the Schrodinger's equation. It's only when you, or any of the particles you're entangled with (e.g. your measuring apparatus) interacts with the electron, or any particles the electron is entangled with (e.g. the air particles) that quantum coherence is lost and all of you join the same classicaly "reality".

The reason why quantum computers are hard to build is that the particles that we want to be quantum readily interact with the environment that we're already entangled with, and thus they lose their quantum behavior.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:28:13 UTC No. 16618291

>>16617598
>If the info is technically still there but unreadable, does collapse still happen?
Yes, it does. In fact, noise makes it worse (accelerates decoherence).

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 23:28:14 UTC No. 16619263

>>16617598
The wavefunction only describes the information you have about the system.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 23:45:58 UTC No. 16619326

>>16617598
it's a misinterpretation of an oversimplification of a limited ability to measure

the snapshot in time catches something, barely qualifying as specific enough to be evidential.
that is all.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 04:39:09 UTC No. 16619488

>>16617598
there is no physical collapse

the wave funcyion is just a predictive tool

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 05:23:54 UTC No. 16619505

>>16617598
Wavefunction "knowing" measurement? Not conscious, bro. More like interactions cause change. Even tiny interactions storing "which-path" info can trigger collapse. Noise (decoherence) scrambles this info, blurring quantum weirdness. No sharp line between decoherence and interference; it's a fading gradient. More interaction = more decoherence = less interference. Wavefunction reacts to interactions, environment entanglement kills interference, even if info is noisy/unreadable to us normies. Quantum is fukken wild.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 05:36:22 UTC No. 16619511

A better question is do YOU know what counts as measurement? When you speak in loose ways, that are not rigorous, you can essentially be saying anything. Soo... I'm not really sure what you are saying.

Like this guy >>16619505, he is speaking pure gibberish but he is trying to use the same taxonomy as you (noise, decoherence) even though you are basically talking about completely separate things... It's like philosophy, or pseudoscience.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 05:54:28 UTC No. 16619519

>>16617598
>How does the wavefunction "know" what counts as a measurement?
It doesn't "know" anything. It's a mathematical description of probability amplitudes. The "measurement" is just an interaction that entangles the particle with a macroscopic system, effectively forcing it into one of the possible states.
>But what if the info gets washed out by noise?
That's the crux of decoherence. The info isn't truly lost, just spread out across so many degrees of freedom that it becomes practically impossible to retrieve. Think of it like dropping a single drop of dye into the ocean. The dye is still there, but you'll never find it.
>Does the wavefunction "know" exactly how much noise is present and whether the which-path info is truly lost?
Again, no "knowing." Decoherence is a gradual process, not a binary switch. There's no sharp line. It's about the degree of entanglement. If the entanglement is strong enough to make interference patterns unobservable, you've effectively got collapse.
>If the info is technically still there but unreadable, does collapse still happen?
From a practical standpoint, yes. If the interference is gone, the wavefunction has effectively collapsed for all intents and purposes. The information being "technically still there" is irrelevant if you can't access it.
>Where’s the line between decoherence and "nah bro, still interference"?
It's a blurry line, but it's about the visibility of the interference pattern. If the pattern is discernible, you've got interference. If it's washed out, you've got decoherence. The point where the pattern disappears depends on the specific experiment and the level of noise.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 06:15:11 UTC No. 16619532

>>16619519
>The "measurement" is just an interaction that entangles the particle with a macroscopic system, effectively forcing it into one of the possible states.
Nobody knows how that happens or what exactly constitutes a measurement btw

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:42:30 UTC No. 16619782

not one of you retards no that collapse is not even real

it was never even part of the original quantum formulation

it was put in ad hoc because the founders couldnt comprehend another way to view it

unbelievably not one of them thought that the wavefunction might be purely a statistical description

thats exactly what it is

the wave function is NOT an object or a particle or any other thing

it doesnt exist

get that into your thick skulls

collapse is a made up invention and there is absolutely no evidence for it

i feel sorry for physicists who have wasted thwir lives studying that bullshit trying to turn it into a coherent interpretation

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:44:46 UTC No. 16619785

>>16619532
heres the thing. collapse doesnt add anything to the predictive content of the theory. all empirical predictions in quantum theory can be achieved without collapse and collapse doesnt add anything. its a lie and its not real. measurement is nothing more than regular decoherence and even then it doesnt actually get rid of interference

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:58:17 UTC No. 16619789

>>16619532
Yeah, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? We've got a mathematical framework that describes what happens, but the "why" and the "how" are still up for grabs. Some folks think it's consciousness, others think it's just a matter of complexity. At the end of the day, it's just another mystery box in the quantum mechanics warehouse.

>>16619785
That's some based schizo posting right there. Look, at the end of the day, it's all interpretations. If you're a many-worlds chad, you'll say collapse is cope. If you're a based Bohmian, you'll say collapse is just us finally seeing the hidden variables.

>measurement is nothing more than regular decoherence and even then it doesnt actually get rid of interference

Decoherence does effectively kill interference *for all practical purposes*. Sure, the info might be spread out like butter on too much toast, but good luck getting it back. For all intents and purposes, it's gone. So, yeah, collapse is a convenient fiction, but it's a damn useful one.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:18:24 UTC No. 16619795

>>16617598
From what I know, you seem to be delusional on how QM works.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:42:16 UTC No. 16619812

>>16619789
no its not all just interpretations

dont you think there are a mulyitude of possible interpretations of classical mechanics? some people even think principle of least action suggests retrocausality and all possible paths do happen in classicla mechanics. anything can be interpreted in any way you want. lets not debase ourselves and pretend like retards that all interpretations are equal. they are not and most are retarded. its an embarassment to science.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:43:34 UTC No. 16619816

>>16619789
>So, yeah, collapse is a convenient fiction, but it's a damn useful one.

useful in what way. it literally contributes nothing to the theory. like literally nothing. you dont need collapse to do quantum mechanics. its bullshit

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:55:31 UTC No. 16619903

>>16617635
I think it's more accurate to say that the quantum information spreads faster with each new entanglement, it never truly collapses, only our perception of it collapses as we interact with the system.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:14:26 UTC No. 16619930

>>16619903
As a normal person, I can say, you're completely clueless about simple principles of universe.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:21:58 UTC No. 16619941

>>16619816
I think some form of "collapse" is necessary to explain anomalous results in Bell Experiments. that's not to mention the two-slit experiment or bomb tester

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 19:01:08 UTC No. 16619971

>>16619785
>measurement is nothing more than regular decoherence
No. Decoherence can be described by the regular unitary interactions that are already in the formalism. Collapse is not unitary.
Maybe this guy actually figured something out though
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10778

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:51:39 UTC No. 16620209

>>16619971
>Decoherence can be described by the regular unitary interactions

exactly

measurement is nothing more than this

coz theres no collapse

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:52:41 UTC No. 16620210

>>16619971
yes there is no collapse in that paper

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:18:33 UTC No. 16620627

>>16620209
Well the problem is that unitary interactions never give you a single measurement result

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:32:10 UTC No. 16620635

ITT: schizo babble

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 13:25:33 UTC No. 16620708

>>16617635
>When you're measuring, you can think of it as entanglement.
how does reality knows you're measuring?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:01:56 UTC No. 16620857

>>16620708
if the model is statistical there is no reason it should give you a single outcome - it is just describing statistics

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:17:17 UTC No. 16620889

>>16617598
quantum basedentists are spiritual zoomers

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:21:05 UTC No. 16621997

>>16617620
>interference between photons and electrons
jesus fucking christ can you at least ask chatgpt before spouting bs