Are superpositions really 2(+) things at once or is that just an artifact of the math of vectors?>(assume you are answering picrel.)
>>16832171in QM it's not two things, superpositions are a consequence of the fact that particles are described with a wave function, so it can superimpose with other particles and also itself. Basically it's because they are described as a wave, although it's not a wave in normal spacetime but in a complex mathematically space that increases in dimension the more particles in the system.
>>16832173https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUipVyVOm-YI'm essentially trying to understand if what this incredibly cringey and unfunny redditor is saying starting at 5:00 is true, its just one state, described using multiple vector, as this is a new analogical way of talking about quantum shit for retards like me that I've not encountered yet.All this pop shit oversimplifies to the point of being borderline useless, I know that. But is there even a kernal of truth in this?
>>16832180I think the easiest way to visualize it is with the double slit experiment. The particles wave function spreads out in space, going through both slits and interfering and superimposing with itself similar to how water does. Then at the detector the probability to detect the particle at a given point is given by the square of the amplitude of the wave function at that point. So we always detect a localized particle, but the probability is defined by the wavefunctionThis is just showing how different eigenstates of position can superimpose. It also happens with momentum, spin, etc, but those are harder to visualize
>>16832196I took the “observer effect” more seriously in the double slit experiment before learning the “observer” was just closing one of those gates.I’m not sure why “observation” is the word used, when in reality all of the radar/sonar (analogy) is active and we’re directly interacting with the particles not “observing” which is passive language.In the silver atoms one when it comes to spin, this also doesn’t make sense to me. Earth is full of magnetic fields so those electrons should always be in a discrete state of spin in reality if a magnetic field gets them to pick a binary value.
>>16832180Redditor is correct, and does a good job of explaining. He’s not using an analogy, this is the actual math used to model QM.
>>16832373The word "observer" is used that way because there is no way to observe something without interaction
>>16832653My analogy of passive radar/sonar vs active is what I’m trying to get at though. In the macro world you don’t need to ping an object to observe it. I don’t see why you couldn’t measure the which electron passes through which gate without pinging it. For example, measuring its magnetic field, not the way it’s done now by literally blocking on slit or firing a bunch of photons at it, which you would expect to alter it. >it’s too small to measure Okay but that’s an instrument problem, not a real property of electrons.
>>16832687To measure its magnetic field is to interact with that field
>>16832173pseud. why pretend you know
