every photon of light you see is only an by you. if 2 people look at the same thing then the light produced by that thing is shared between them. what if a billion people look at something? would the light start to dim as a result of spreading the distribution of wave collapses? could we all drain the light from the sun by looking at it?
>>16785245Yes hthats correct
now that i think about it, wouldn't it be the colour that changes since it's the frequency of photos collapsing at your eyes? the amplitude of the photos wouldn't change just how many of them hit your eyes per second
Adding more people wouldn't change anything since you see the same photons you would have seen either way.>but muh wave functionYou see exactly as many photons as the relative angular diameter between the object and your pupils permit.
>>16785613but the wave function collapses. that's the point. the photon only exists at your eye, no one else's. so for each observer you are reducing the number of photons the can reach your eye by 1
This is classical physics breaking down in action, I don't think we can properly understand the implications of what's really going on here. This is why I am a philosophy reader now, you can't understand this shit properly with pure materialist science and even philosophy hasn't caught up.
>>16785622We'll ignore particular interpretations of QM for a moment and get into the behavior these interpretations are attempting to describe:Each "photon" can be described as following every possible path at once. Some locations have more paths leading there than others. For every wave that "collapsed" on your retina, there were tons of other waves propagating everywhere but your retina. Your retina being there doesn't make any particle more or less likely to appear in that location. What matters is the ralative angular diameter between the object in question and your pupil.
>>16785643i kind of understand it. the implication is that the underlying building blocks of reality are not causal in the same way their emergent properties are. but you can use loopholes to causally couple the building blocks with their emergence such that you create a paradox. if anything it proves how smart humans can be. the reason it's so paradoxical is because we don't usually experience quantum logic in the macroscopic world. but i actually think if we really grasped what was going on it would make perfect sense and it's more of a mathematical conundrum than a phosphical one.
>>16785647 # i am saying that individual photon that was originally a probability distribution is now an actual phoyon at your retina. so the probability distribution is gone. meaning the probability of it hitting your eye and not someone else's is now 1 and the probability of it hitting someone else's eye is now 0. repeat this process over time and the distribution of protons is shared between observers. since there is a fixed number of photons being emitted by a light source, then the number of observers is affecting the appearance of the light source for each observer. so the more observers there are, the more red the light source appears and the less observers there are the more violet it appears. note this is purely the appearance of the light source and not the actual colour of it absent observers. fixed shitty autocorrect
>>16785655You're not understanding. Let me put it like this:The same EXACT wave collapse is happening when the light interacts with a brick wall as when it interacts with your retina. An "observer" does not mean "conscious being" or even "purpose-built detector." It means "anything that interacts with the wave in any way." It's basically why refraction is a thing. Having more people looking at the object would have the same effect as having some person-shaped walls there. Wrap the whole object in a ball and it's like having infinity people looking at it.
>>16785659i don't think this is true for 2 reasons. firstly, wave collapse is explicitly said to be caused by observation. not particle interactions, observation. and there is no consensus or clear definition of what an observation is. secondly, and somewhat of an expansion on the previous point, particle interactions are just quantum interactions and unless there is some macroscopic property that emerges (ie an observation) then the interaction with the brick wall is just an element of the superposition and no wave collapse has occurred.
>>16785666>firstly, wave collapse is explicitly said to be caused by observation. not particle interactionsDon't be word-brained. In this sense, "observation" and "interaction" are synonyms. That is consensus. You will find woo-woo shit like "biocentrism" which holds that perception is what creates reality but that's pedaled by hippies and Deepak Chopra types, not physicists.>unless there is some macroscopic property that emerges (ie an observation) then the interaction with the brick wall is just an element of the superposition and no wave collapse has occurred.The macroscopic effect is called "heat." (Also negligible forces from the impact of the photons but hardly important here). Electron in the wall absorbes a photon, raising its energy state. Attached molecule "vibrates" faster before emitting a lower energy wave of light and returning to the ground state.
>>16785672i think you are conflating heat in classical thermodynamics with quantum energy exchange. unless that 'heat' has caused an irreversible effect on the environment that has been measured then the wave hasn't collapsed.
>>16785678>i think you are conflating heat in classical thermodynamics with quantum energy exchangeFor our purposes, the distinction does not matter.>unless that 'heat' has caused an irreversible effect on the environment that has been measuredAnd just like that, your argument became circular:You are presuming conscious observation as a prerequisite to the definition of wave function collapse in order to defend your false notion that wave function collapse requires a conscious observer.In QM, no such assumption is made. The universe would behave in exactly the same way whether we were here to look at it or not.
>>16785666Observer can be just any random atom or particle that interact with the photon
>>16785681Assuming the universe can be described as the full quantum superposition of all possible realizations of a particle’s paths, encompassing every outcome allowed by quantum probability, then what exactly does "the universe would behave exactly the same way" mean?
>>16785683>then what exactly does "the universe would behave exactly the same way" mean?For our purposes: wave function collapse happens in exactly the same way for exactly the same set of reasons, none of them requiring conscious observation.
>>16785643this is also why we can't say for sure wtf is happening in cosmologyonce distances get gigantic enough we don't really know how the normal geometric inferences break down. for now everyone pretends it's not a problem
>>16785682this simply isn't true. when particles interact they're still a quantum superposition of all the possible energy scattering. that's why the double slot experiment shows many wave interactions prior to detection.
>>16785685what you are describing is just classical mechanics at tiny scales and the wave function and superposition doesn't mean anything.
if any particle interaction causes wave collapse then the chance of a particle ever actually passing through a slit to be detected would be infidesimally small since the waves would just collapse on the walls around the slits.
>>16785689No.What I am describing is the same exact, apparently non-deteeministic, behavior that we observe with our machines is happening everywhere all the time regardless of whether we have a detector pointed at it. This is not classical mechanics. You just have a horrendously pop-sci understanding of QM.>>16785692Nigger, what? The waves on that drawing are not "the wave function." That's not how this shit works.
>>16785693it's a spherical cow retard. you are literally saying that at all these red dots wave collapse occurs. so where do the interference patterns come from? the waves have collapse before being detected according to you.
>>16785693this is your understanding of wave collapse
>>16785695>you are literally saying that at all these red dots wave collapse occurs.No I am not.>so where do the interference patterns come from?Overlapping probabilities that a particle will appear in any particular location on the detector.>>16785696No it is not.
>>16785245>>16785608I strongly believe what you are saying is nonsense.If you care about this you should study the physics of it.If you dont care, shut up.There are open unanswered questions in the field.You arent asking them, you are spouting nonsense.
>>16785622if you spray a hose at a crowd of people, does the same droplet hit any two people? no? then why do they all get wet?
>>16785245
>>16785701>water as an analogy for quantum physics
peripatetic your butts
>>16785707chatgpt (and established theories) agrees with my position. now what?
>>16785708i hope some of you retards didn't actually study this shit because your tutors failed you
>>16785245Great ideaJust keep looking directly into the sun for some hours and report your results.
>>16785708>chatgpt agrees with my positionFirst off, lol.Secondly, what was the prompt you gave it?
>>16785718>chatgpt, act like a idiot for the rest of the conversation
>>16785718
>>16785718>i am smarter than a billion dollar LLM trained on terabytes of data?
>>16785722nigga i read a text book once
>>16785720Well to further substantiate my "lol" at you thinking ChatGPT is the right source to come to for this information, let me direct you here:>>16785713In trying to explain why "side A" is wrong, ChatGPT mentions this:>this leads to paradoxical consequences (like "if many people observe something, does that drain energy from the light source?" ect.) And those paradoxes suggest Side A's interpretation is flawed under standard QMDid you even read that part? ChatGPT lost track of who's who and described the primary thesis of the OP as evidence of a flawed understanding.
>>16785727that's just the my poor wording of the problem and subsequent revision of the hypothesis later on. of course it doesn't actually "drain light" from the sun, it will alter the perception of the light, thats all
>>16785643>magic/god/metaphysics of the gapsyoure reading philosophy but still a fucking idiot
>>16785731Nigga, I just showed you where ChatGPT was describing literally the opposite of what I was describing as if it was my position.It cited your original position as a flawed understanding. ChatGPT is notoriously shit at dealing with these sorts of discussions. Hence the "lol"
>>16785741ok well this one's for you
>>16785742Lol.
>>16785742>>16785741your rebuttal sir?
>>16785746My rebuttal is Chat GPT is shit and you running to it as if doing so helps your case is laughable.
>>16785747how many pigs have you fucked today?
Yes – an interaction with another particle can change or destroy the quantum state (the “wave function”) of the photon.-chatgpt
>>16785754Look, dude. It's been a nice chat. But I gotta hit the hay.How about you go ahead and ask ChatGPT directly if it thinks "observer" implies a "conscious observer" in quantum mechanics. Maybe we can pick this back up tomorrow or something if I'm bored enough.
Why the sun? You could try it on a lightbulb what's the difference
>>16785762Don't tell him. Let him stare into the sun for some hours. Hopefully he will never post here again after this.
