Why do most physicists on here seem to really hard deny personal perspective being of any factor in our understanding...

Why do most physicists on here seem to really hard deny personal perspective being of any factor in our understanding of physics?

>undergrad for BA in chem, BS in phys (double major)

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but every time I bring up this problem, every physicist here goes nuts and says what I'm saying is retarded for reasons that are never explained. Basically the idea is that information is a physical concept (as in a real thing with units that can be measured). And as information receivers (smart people who study science), we are subject to certain physical laws (if information can be measured it should obey mathematical/physical laws). So when we research quantum physics and find that our answers indicate that our personal perspective changes the result (i.e. double slit experiments and others like it) why is it not rational to say that the unknown physical laws of information are playing a part here? And why do we stretch the physical definition of existence to say that just because we don't have the information of an object occupying a certain state, that the object must occupy every possible state? Or put in other terms, why do we believe our consciousness alters the universe as opposed to this simply being a problem of the unknown functionality of information?

I don't know what you said, but if you prove something is real with an experiment every physicist will take you seriously.

If information was the cause for the funny results of double slit experiments, it would basically explain that a lack of information reaching our brains is responsible for the mismatched results.

I'm saying our personal perspective isn't good enough to study this brand of quantum mechanics, not without introducing a new study of physical information.

1. Information isn't special, it's just regular matter that interacts like other matter under the laws of physics.
2. Collapse of a quantum system is due to interaction with the system. This can be interpreted as information, but only in hindsight.
3. There's no reason to suggest that matter used to convey information follows laws any differently than matter that isn't. (Because all matter is a form of Information)

People get salty because you're attributing a metaphysical interpretation of fundamental laws. This has been done to death and you should know better.

I generally wasn't interpreting matter as information, I thought it would be more similar to energy (either exactly energy or something slightly different). It's not matter that conveys energy it's photons.

To be fair I've only barely started quantum mechanics in my classes so I don't actually know enough yet.

M8 an observer isn't a person

The use of the word observer was probably among the biggest mistakes in modern physics.

>Basically the idea is that information is a physical concept
It's been known since Boltzmann.

>rest of the post
first off nobody in academia supports the idea that consciousness affects anything anymore
second, yes, there are several interpretations of quantum mechanics based on information. See for example relational quantum mechanics.

However, this is not "simple", as you put it. If what you mean is "dude we're just not good enough at measuring lmao" then you're wrong.

>personal perspective
>what I'm saying is retarded
fgt pls

But you haven't defined what you think information is. Energy is a concept that a system can change states. You can argue that information is really just a by product of the transfer of energy in a system. Without interacting, there can be no information, so matter is always present.

In fact, information has nothing to do with qm at all. The double slit and schrodingers cat and maxwells demon all suggest that information is important, but no observation is needed for those processes to carry out.

there is no end to the pain

/thread

Tl;dr: Why is it that when "I look at a photon" it picks a slit to go through? What part of my eye told it where to go???

/thread

This is so completely wrong. You can't just say "information=matter" and be done with it. True, information requires a physical medium to be processed and transferred, but it represents truths that go beyond any particular medium it might be embedded in.

The only way people have been able to make any sense of QM is by phrasing it in terms of information. In fact our entire concept of what matter is is based on the *information* we observed about the universe. It from bit. What we still don't understand is the interplay between the subjective and objective aspects...and you will never understand it if you pretend information is somehow a superfluous concept.

>our personal perspective changes the result

what word should be used

>BA Chem
>BS Phys
No way you're getting a decent grounding in both.

Come back after you've read all the arguments over how to interpret Bell's Theorem, etc.

Fucking this.

Measurement.

The question "Which slit did it go through?" is completely meaningless. You can't ask that.

i think your "theory" could be more rigorous

The double slit experiment didn't give funny results, it's just counter-intuitive to the thinking you develop in daily life. The maths is perfectly coherent.
This is like when people talk about 'spooky action at a distance'; yes, it's a quirk of quantum mechanics, and yes, it is a paradox in quantum mechanics. However, when we developed quantum field theory, it all became easily explainable.
Long story short; your interpretation of the "information" is completely independent of the reality described by the mathematics.

>However, when we developed quantum field theory, it all became easily explainable.
>easily
come the fuck on now
are you saying that PR/EPR equivalence is something trivial?

>undergrad for BA in chem, BS in phys (double major)
>So when we research quantum physics and find that our answers indicate that our personal perspective changes the result (i.e. double slit experiments and others like it)
You are nothing of the sort, or you'd realize that "observation" has nothing to do with consciousness in the context of the double slit experiment, and that's just a Hollywood meme built on misnomer.

Blame von Neumann, not Hollywood.