What the fuck?
AI garbage in AI garbage out
>>17061252These flock cameras really have something to answer for.
>"observer"Is there a single euphemism that's caused more misconceptions about a field than the euphemism of an 'observer' in relativity/quantum mechanics has caused for physics?
>>17061419Tease us moar, Big Science Daddy!
>>17061252that's wrong, they're waves the moment they leave the emitter. it's not the slits that "transforms" them into fucking waves
>>17061419Threadly reminder that there is nothing special about measurement. It's just another physical interaction. You introduce a measurement device into a quantum system, you just get a more complicated wave function. Only an actual observer can testify that he's not in a superposition.
>>17061760yeah but why isn't the observer getting entangled with the experiment?suppose we have schroedinger's cat, and me and you, and you go check. now, as far as I'm concerned, are you both seeing the cat alive and dead at the same time? until you tell me? from my point of view
>>17061760>an actual observerEverything is an observer and every observation is interaction/measurement. The truth is there is no such thing as superposition mumbojumbo because everything is always interacting so every single objects current state is always 100% certain and defined, there is no such thing as uncertainty.
>>17061829>current state is always 100% certain and defined, there is no such thing as uncertainty.that's legit nonsense, proven even.
>>17061833>it's been PROVEN using these imagined symbols a monkey thought
>>17061833Well, go on, prove it then.
>>17061845>>17061846https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/brainlets gonna brainlet
>>17061804>yeah but why isn't the observer getting entangled with the experiment?I don't know. I'm just saying the term 'observer' stuck for a reason. In classical physics, measurement (as in the theoretical idealization) is part of the framework's meta. It doesn't physically interact with anything and isn't subject to physical description. It's formally outside the system because you need it to define the system in the first place. In modern physics, measurement gets demoted because it's subject to the uncertainty principle, so something else needs to take its place and fulfill the same criteria. In a sense, the observer isn't getting entangled with the experiment because if he did, you couldn't reason about anything and wouldn't have a framework to talk about entanglement.
>>17061851>1000 word article with no math written by a publication that said everyone was going to die from the fluIt really is like they say about normies and groids.
>>17061851I said "prove it" not "post a link to a jewish popsci publication"
>>17061902>an economics prof wrote thatuhmmm yeah let me know when a real professor talks about it
>>17061858>It doesn't physically interact with anything and isn't subject to physical descriptionbut that's nonsense. you cannot fully decouple yourself from this environment. you interact with something. you just aren't aware of it. air molecules, various atoms, fuckload of photons of all kinds (so all kinds of radiation basically). it would actually be next to impossible to fully decouple yourself from the environment, which would technically put you in superpositionthus everything is interacting with everything and collapses shit. so we're all part of eachothers collapsesSchrodinger's cat is a normie metaphor, it is not technically doable, because you need to fully decouple the insides of the box from the environment, so they don't itneract. you cannot fully decouple the cat, it interacts with IR photons and a lot of other shit. you do know this don't you? just because your cat goes in another room doesn't mean that as long as you don't see it it's in fucking superposition lmaothe fundamental idea is that nothing should interact with it as to not reveal the state, thus collapse the wavefunction. that's what probing the state is, interacting with it. so a photon interacting with it can collapse it. space radiation, whatever
We should test this on your mom.
>>17062367>thus everything is interacting with everythingOk.>and collapses shitNo, the product is still a wave function.
>>17062367>everything is interacting with everythingHahahahah get a load this fucking queer trying to interact with my PENIS. It's for women only, FAGGOT
only virgins do double slit experimentsus chad are too busy fucking the single slit iykwim haha
>>17061252No paper, no replication, no real experiments, no science, no value. That slit BS is the usual modern scam.
>>17061846Aspect et al, 1982
>>17065600>glorified photon detector machine that just measures the polarity of the incoming photonWhat is this supposed to prove again?
>>17065635So an experiment that can only be explained by quantum mechanisms and uncertainty isn't proof enough for you? Or are you just too stupid to understand it?
>>17065675You misunderstand, I'm not questioning uncertainty as a measurement problem, I'm saying uncertainty as a fundamental property of matter doesn't exist.
>>17061861>>17061865https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5039https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938The least bit of work you could have done. They also got a Nobel for it:https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/
>>17061252
>>17065684>muh nobel prize>say retarded shit like "What happens to one of the particles in an entangled pair determines what happens to the other particle, even if they are far apart" even though it's demonstrably wrong
>>17065682Prove it.
>>17065687>>muh nobel prizewell see now you sound like fucking imbecile.I mean statistically speaking, if we are to weigh the Nobel committee and the people who analyzed their work, and some random faggot loser on 4chinz who cannot even properly formulate an idea, I'd put my money on the Nobel. statistically speaking you're some nobody imbecile talking nonsense
>>17065697It's called law of identity.
>>17065701>appealing to authorityOkay buddy, into the timeout corner with you.
>>17065705you are incapable of reading what I said, but I will dumb it down for your gorilla retarded brainauthority doesn't guarantee anything, but the way we set it up makes for statistically higher chances of getting it right. that's how it works. there are no guarantees, but statistically speaking you are better off listening to an authority of said subject, than some random idiot on the street.you can run this experiment yourself, question both random people on the street and people from said field, and in the end you will see a disproportionate amount of correct information coming from authorities on said subjects.that's...why we have the education system. that is what it does, quite specifically. it massively increases the chances for someone who goes through it to hold more relevant information on a subject. you should understand this, even as a retarded fucking gorilla.now, going back to my post:>>17065701>I mean statistically speaking>I'd put my money>statistically speaking you're some nobody imbecile talking nonsensenow, see that I correctly predicted you are an absolute imbecile? you cannot even properly call fallacies
>>17065702got it, you're a retard.
>>17065716>no argumentI accept your concession.
>>17061252Any kind of photon sensor messes up with its wave aspectHow to observe a photon without any sensor though
>>17065711>you can run this experiment yourself, question both random people on the street and people from said field, and in the end you will see a disproportionate amount of correct information coming from authorities on said subjects.That is assuming that the information is correct in the first place. As we've seen in recent years that is increasingly less true.
>>17065728again, statistically speaking.that doesn't mean your random nobody can't come up with the most important discovery. it's just very unlikely. these two things are wildly different.
>>17065733Sure, but when the supposed experts are saying things that clearly cannot be true then where do you draw the line?
>>17065742>things that clearly cannot be truesuch as?
>>17065764Such as the claim I brought to attention here >>17065687
>>17065769but how do you know that cannot be true? how do you *know*? do not answer classical intuition for quantum shit. please.
>>17065773Take two entangled hydrogen atomsOne is attached to a fluorine atom and the other to chlorineShow that influencing one of the hydrogen atoms influences the other in a demonstratably correlated manner and it is repeatable such that a specific input to one hydrogen always produces a specific output for the other
>>17065776entanglement doesn't mean you poke one and the other moves. you do know that right?
>>17065779Yes, that's why that statement is incorrect like I said.
>>17065789but collapse is not about them moving when poking one of them
>>17065795I didn't say anything about moving, I asked you to show me that interacting with one demonstrably influences the other, which is what that sentence says.
>>17065798hidden variables have been ruled out anon
>>17065798>>17065800and honestly I'd be more amazed by tunneling, that shit seems like dark magic
>>17065800That's not what I asked.
>>17065807you asked me to please you classical intuition. I cannot do that
>>17065808No, I asked you to show me that interacting with one entangled particle influences the other, which is what that nobel prize wimning sentence says.
>>17065812did you read the papers anon? how would *I* be able to show you anything? again, there are no local hidden variables, and the particles do not have a definite spin. until you measure one of them.if your argument is>unless you personally show me in a lab I do not believe youthan you're not being serious, or you have some brain issues maybe
>>17065815>still doesn't answer the question>still attempting to move the goalpostCome on, does interacting with one entangled particle influence the other or not? This should be easy to answer by your own accord.
>>17065685photons spread in single slit because the slit edges attract them by micro gravityit's classical, quantumsissies stay coping
what a retarded discussionthe qm theory, which is math, plainly includes wave function collapse during measurement that influences the state of the entire system, incl. the other particle. if you don't understand it just study it more until it becomes clearthe experiments show that the theory is correct in that part. this has been studied thoroughlythese experiments are difficult and expensive to perform, so nobody is going to demonstrate to you how it works. also i dunno what you expect. if you were to observe the actual experiments, you also don't see the entangled photons with your eyes, lol. it's a bunch of data collected over days and then analyzed. the prerequisite for any insight derived from that is that you must know the theory already, at which point it will be an anticlimactic conclusion that yep, qm works
>>17061252is this evidence we live in a simulation
>>17065887>the qm theory, which is math, plainly includes wave function collapseWhich math implies wave function collapse? Be specific. Protip: you're a hallucinating biobot.
>>17065919> Which math implies wave function collapse? Be specific. The Born rule and the Projection postulate. The first describes measurement, the latter the wavefunction state immediately after the measurement.
>>17065923>The Born ruleDoesn't imply any wavefunction collapse, only tells you the probability of some outcome.>Projection postulateThis is not math.Try again.
>>17065927> This is not math.[eqn]|\psi\rangle \;\longrightarrow\; \frac{\hat P_i|\psi\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle\psi|\hat P_i|\psi\rangle}} = \frac{c_i}{|c_i|}|a_i\rangle[/eqn]Oh rly?
>>17065930Yeah, really. "Let's postulate wave function collapse" is not a mathematical derivation of wave function collapse.
>>17065931> mathematical derivationYou seem to think physics is pure mathematics and everything can be derived. You might want it to be the case but it's not. We have equations that work, provably so. What they physically mean, if anything, is all interpretation and you seem to be hung up on that. Get over it.
>>17065933>You seem to think physics is pure mathematics and everything can be derivedNo, it's just that you seem to be profoundly retarded and incorrectly assumed that wave function collapse somehow naturally falls out of QM. It doesn't. They literally just made it up and stapled it to QM.
>>17065934What you call it doesn't change the math and the evidence it works. The fact the projection postulate looks and act as if it is a collapse is merely the most obvious and simplest interpretation. Why are you getting your knickers in a twist about that?
>>17065940>What you call it doesn't change the mathPostulating wave function collapse doesn't change the math, either. The math doesn't imply any wave function collapse.
>>17065945It absolutely does imply that. To say otherwise is facetious. It doesn't prove it, nothing can, that's why even Copenhagen is an interpretation. You are never going to get definitive proof for something that doesn't exist so stop whining about it.
>>17065950>It absolutely does implyYou have a severe psychotic illness that makes you basically nonsentient. Your word string has no meaning or intent behind it. It's fully automatic, botlike word guessing.
>>17065919>if you don't understand it just study it more until it becomes clearsorry qm is too big to fit in a 4chan post
>>17065953kek. someone's mad they got BTFO.
>>17065992>mentally ill highschool dropout accidentally puts his own fear of math on display while projecting it into othersYour next reply won't contain any math, either. And there WILL be a next reply. Your latent NPC narcissism doesn't allow you to stop.
>>17065885they spread because they're not focused duh you need to move the slit a bit back/forward until line is in focus and sharp
>>17065992>qm is too big of a mess to fit anywheretrue
>>17066242thats different thing
>>17066248twas a joke you doofus
>>17065635It proves that Bell's inequality is violated, meaning it's impossible for the particles to have definite independent traits while obeying relativity.>>17065702This is an abstraction, an idea. Not a fact of reality.
>>17066268>Bell's inequalityA completely made up number that doesn't mean anything>An object being itself and having properties that define it as itself is an abstraction not a fact of realitylollmao even
>>17066273> A completely made up number that doesn't mean anythingWatch out everyone, this nigger just went full retard.
>>17066274>if we just dismiss all the variables and simplify our system to output either 1 or 0 then that proves there are no other variables
>>17066253cool token spam
>>17061252not to be mega autistic or anything, but you can't have interference if the beams from each slit fall on different sites. you need the bands to overlap for quantum interference to appear, and what you'll see are basically forbidden zones in the previous 2 bands, so it's impossible you see particles where the 2 bands can't reach
>>17066288>dismiss all the variablesIt's not a dismissal, brainlet. It's literally a calculation made in an attempt to figure out the highest possible limit of nonlocal hidden variables. It's mathematically impossible for correlations to surpass 2 with local variables.
what is the distance constraint on the two slits? can they be 1 mile apart?
>>17066299>it's literally a calculationNo, it isn't, because it isn't calculating anything>muh correlationsThis means absolutely nothing and is just another made up equation that was constructed to output a value that was desired in the first place>uhh if we make a machine that has two outputs that are always opposite to eachother and the outputs are opposite to eachother then that means we are correct
>>17066302>>uhh if we make a machine that has two outputs that are always opposite to eachother and the outputs are opposite to eachother then that means we are correctthe outputs are opposite to eachother but they do not have a definitive state until you measure one. you keep missing this one important and crucial detail. it's like your brain just cannot comprehend it
>>17066304>they do not have a definitive state until you measure oneYou don't have to, the measurement was already made the moment the particle popped into existence and gained specific properties with specific values that define its identity and how it interacts with the system it is in, because measurement is just interaction and interaction is just existing, something can't exist without having properties with defined values that are determined the moment the particle is created and every single one of its variables always has a definite value at each instant of time because it is always measured by nature of existence itself.
>>17066314>something can't exist without having properties with defined valuessee I keep telling you that you are trying to satisfy your chimp intuition and you keep doubling down on it, even though we have plenty quantum phenomena that rape your chimpanzee intuition. like electron tunneling for example.you can insist as much as you want, it won't make it true. just because your intuition is telling you it must.honestly, your brain cannot comprehend it, it literally says "nah".
>>>17066314>measurement is just interaction and interaction is just existing, something can't exist without having properties with defined values that are determined the moment the particle is createdYour premise is basically opposed to your conclusion. If measurement is "just" interaction then it doesn't reveal anything intrinsic to any particular object.>>17066320>generic redditbabbleReminder to humiliate redditors and ignore their "points".
>>17066324>t. picrel
>>17066325>mentally ill and seething
>>17066326>what do you mean they have no definitive state??>they must!>bb...because!
>>17066320>like electron tunneling for example>he thinks tunneling is a probabilistic phenomenonlollmoaWhat's next, photons are just magical probability distributions?You've fried your brain reading too much word salad papers that consist of nothing but unsubstantiated jargon with no actual basis in reality.
>>17066327>redditnigger gets filtered by an anonymous image board
>>17066324To exist is to interact, to interact is to measure and be measured, these are just 3 definitions that all mean the exact same thing.>If measurement is "just" interaction then it doesn't reveal anything intrinsic to any particular object.The intrinsic properties and their values are already defined at the moment of existing, because by existing the object imparts some interaction or measurement on the system it exists in and vice versa, so by existing all the properties of the object are already measured and defined by the system it exists in, because those properties define what the object is.
>>17066336>because by existing the object imparts some interaction or measurement on the system it exists innot the spin. spin is in superposition, not the particle. the spin of the entangled particles is in superposition. that has no value until it's probed. the moment the spin information can be extracted from either of the two particles that are entangled then both spins collapse to a value
>>17066302>This means absolutely nothingNo you deeply unmathematical baboon, if they are predetermined then the correlation CANNOT exceed 2. Go ahead and explain how if you disagree.>made up equation that was constructed to output a value that was desired in the first placeJohn Bell was desperately trying to rescue determinism, fool.
>>17066328>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling>unnelling is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and quantum indeterminacy. The quantum wave function describes the states of a particle or other physical system and wave equations such as the Schrödinger equation describe their evolution. In a system with a short, narrow potential barrier, a small part of wavefunction can appear outside of the barrier representing a probability for tunnelling through the barrier.>Since the probability of transmission of a wave packet through a barrier decreases exponentially with the barrier height, the barrier width, and the tunnelling particle's mass, tunnelling is seen most prominently in low-mass particles such as electrons tunnelling through atomically narrow barriers. However tunnelling has been observed with protons and even atoms and tunnelling has been used to explain physical effects with particles this large.
>>17066328>What's next, photons are just magical probability distributions?for the simpler minded who need drawings:https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs
>>17066385>the spin of the entangled particles is in superposition. that has no value until it's probedBut it is already probed, if it exists it interacts, if it interacts it is being measured, if it is being measured then the properties and their values must be known, it is literally impossible to conceive an object which doesn't undergo measurement (or observation as many like to call it) because if the object isn't being measured then, by definition, it simply doesn't exist.>>17066387>explain how if you disagreeQuantum correlation is completely arbitrary, you can set up any system such that any chosen properties are correlated, so no real information can be derived other than the coincidence of two outputs.
