/sci/ - Science & Math

Interaction alone does not necessarily collapse the wave function, see delayed choice experiments.

>>15828021
superposition is not real.

>>15828032
> Interaction alone does not necessarily collapse the wave function
Yes it does. Anything that collapses the wave function is by definition an interaction / observation / measurement.
> see delayed choice experiments.
You're an idiot.

>>15828066
Why are you commenting when you don't even understand the statement you're quoting?

>>15828077
I understand it better than you, that much is obvious.

>>15828021
pic rel pretty much says it all. cat either dead or not. a thread actually died for this.

>>15828078
Dunning Kruger

>>15828021
>when does quantum superposition even exist?
It doesn't exist. Schrodinger's Cat was a joke meant to humiliate people who think it does.

>>15828021
Observation happens when an observer applies the projection postulate.

>If observation is particles interacting, then when does quantum superposition even exist?
Your premise is invalid in orthodox quantum mechanics, but the answer remains the same: outside of observation, otherwise it doesn't, nor does any of its consequences such as interference phenomena. Hence alternatives to quantum mechanics admitting some sort of "objective" observation/collapse (by interaction or other means) make different testable predictions, and all but the most contrived variations have been killed off by experiment.

>>15828021
It's just taught experiment, to see if somebody would x-ray a box.

>>15828021
>What does it actually mean to "observe" in quantum physics

Exactly what you'd think it would mean.

It implicitly acknowledges the statistical observations from a conscious perspective, and provides a minimal description of what you'd expect to see as a human experimenter given no further stipulations of philosophical speculation, given the statistical data that we can form models of. It isn't "technically about particle interactions", there is no euphemism involved, the meaning of observation is observation by a conscious being who is to expect to see the statistical distributions of events as predicted by quantum mechanics.

This is the most honest way of presenting the expectations predicted by the models we have, created by scientists with the foresight to create philosophically accurate descriptions of what they had discovered. "Um, observation actual means just an interaction" is bugman level dishonest 'objective' science. Maybe 'many worlds' is true, maybe 'consciousness causes random appearances to manifest', maybe 'super determinism' is the case. We don't know, but QM describes what we can predict we will see.

>>15828021
Depends on the interpretation.

>Copenhagen (common)
Observe = undefined/magic soul/consciousness/mumbo number 5
Collapse = all possibilities become extinguished
>Many Worlds
Observe = misnomer, its just interactions at every point
Collapse = interactions of this particular strand of world with a particles, neither observation nor collapse are unique or permanent as the universe never really "collapses" but rather becomes tangled/untangled at various points in interactions

>>15828327
Both sound crazy. I could imagine particles as waves and those waves interacting and localizing the particle in the area of interaction, but many worlds sounds schizo.

>>15828021
It means a conscious entity perceives it locking the position in place, collapsing the wave function. This conversation is shitpost central because no one has any direct evidence so all there is to do is speculate and call others retards for not seeing it your way. All a physicists can tell you about this is, well this is how the universe is and you're not owed an explanation from the universe. Which is true, but fuckibg useless as far as understanding goes.

>>15828341
Particle/wave dynamic is outdated. Its now fermions/bosons. In otherwords, packets of energy + fields.

>>15828021
>What does it actually mean to "observe" in quantum physics
It means a conscious mind thought about it. Consciousness is deeply entwined with reality.

>>15828052
this

>>15828358
define "conscious entity"

>>15828449
ur mom

>>15828021
To make an observation is to collapse quantum information into classical information and the observer becomes entangled with the outcome of such observation. Note that the quantum information only collapses for that observer.
In the experiment the cat itself is an observer, either dead or alive depending on its observation outcome. If it is impossible for the scientist doing the experiment to know if the cat is alive or death until he opens the "box that conceals any knowledge about what is inside", then the cat is in superposition for the scientist, both dead and alive. Once he opens the box the cat will be either dead or alive. In turn the box and the scientists can be inside a larger box that also conceals any information. For a second scientist, the first scientist would be in a superposition of seeing a dead cat and seeing a living cat, until the second scientist opens the larger box.

>>15828021
>What does it actually mean to "observe" in quantum physics
for me it's like it makes sense in the head of an observer. since qantum physics may very well be tied to an observer, in the sense that it's a model for reality, for an observer, say like us. it doesn't mean that without an observer there is no tree, it just means that it doesn't matter anyway, if there's a tree or not, since there's no observer. ergo quantum physics can only be considered when there's an observer, using it to make sense of reality.

>>15828021
To make an observation is to collapse quantum information into classical information and the observer becomes entangled with the outcome of such observation. Note that the quantum information only collapses for that observer.
In the experiment the cat itself is an observer, either dead or alive depending on its observation outcome. If it is impossible for the scientist doing the experiment to know if the cat is alive or death until he opens the "box that conceals any knowledge about what is inside", then the cat is in superposition for the scientist, both dead and alive. Once he opens the box the cat will be either dead or alive. In turn the box and the scientist can be inside a larger box that also conceals any information. For a second scientist, the first scientist would be in a superposition of seeing a dead cat and seeing a living cat, until the second scientist opens the larger box.

>>15828066
You don't understand material implication

>>15828792
>hurr durr muh tree
if a tree falls, it still falls and isn't suspended in motion because there is no one to observe its fall.
>hurr muh observer
so before intelligent life or life in general even existed, did nothing actually happen because a conscious entity was not there to see it? how did earth or even the universe even form without someone observing it? we are clearly here so it must have happened without a conscious observer. ergo the observer argument is fucking retarded.
>inb4 the observer is god
fuck off

>>15828818
you're pretty retarded anon, you did not understand what I said.
I specifically said
> it doesn't mean that without an observer there is no tree, it just means that it doesn't matter anyway, if there's a tree or not, since there's no observer
it doesn't matter if there's a tree or not, because there's no conscious entity inquiring about it. it's not that the tree doesn't exist and doesn't fall, it's about the fact that it doesn't matter. nobody cares. the quantum framework si something WE need to make sense of reality. without you there's no quantum framework, even if there is anything, if there's no observer the concept DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! there's no one to make sense to.

>>15828341
The true nature of reality would probably sound schizo, if only because it seems like sane intuition does not fit experimental results.

>>15828837
I wasn't necessarily talking to you, just in general. the argument that the wave function requires a conscious observer for it to collapse is stupid because it implies that without said observer nothing would happen. yet clearly for 13 billion years things have happened, the universe, galaxies and planets formed and life began.

not to mention what constitutes a conscious observer. is a monkey conscious? is dog conscious? is an insect conscious? are bacteria? fungus? plants? viruses?

>>15828021
>>15828032
>>15828052
The cat observes itself. Superposition cats are impossible.

>>15828854
>e it implies that without said observer nothing would happen
no, that implies nonsensical shit like what was before causality. if causality makes sense in our universe, you cannot ask ok what was before it, because it's retarded. so is trying to understand what happens without an observer. you can try, but it doesn't even make sense.