>>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"?

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.

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

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

>>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.

>>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).

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

>>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.

>>16617598
there is no physical collapse

the wave funcyion is just a predictive tool

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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