Everybody and their mama knows that making a measurement of a quantum system causes the quantum wavefunction to collapse from a superposition of probable states into single state.
But, what is it about taking a measurement that makes this happen?
As a sloppy example, if I want to measure a glass of water and I pour it into a measuring cup, the act of pouring the fluid causes residue to be left behind in the original vessel, changing the quantity.
That's how measuring water changes the measurement, right?
Now, if I aim my eyeball at a distant star, my retina absorbs that light whereas if my eyeball were absent, that light would strike the Earth and bounce off. So I guess that's how looking at a star changes the state of the entire known universe.
Now, what is the quantum analog? How do we "know" that observing electrons in the double-slit experiment actually forces the probability wave to coalesce into one factual state for that electron? It all reeks of superstition to me. Is this just a remanifestation of that mythical beast we used to call God? Well, nevermind that musing question. My question is, how do we "know" that quantum measurement changes the state of the universe? How do we "know" that the universe was not in that state prior to measurement?
>As a sloppy example, if I want to measure a glass of water and I pour it into a measuring cup, the act of pouring the fluid causes residue to be left behind in the original vessel, changing the quantity. >That's how measuring water changes the measurement, right? People don't actually think like this, right?
Julian Wright
It's like flipping a coin in mid air. When the coin is spinning in the air it's in superposition. In order to see what side is facing up you need to stop it from spinning, or interact with it. Making the coin stop spinning is what collapses the wave function. Kinda like that, but with microscopic particles moving at the speed of light.
Michael Stewart
>copenhagen nonsense
non-determinism is false, get over it
Hudson Ross
"collapse" is gibberish. stick to many-worlds, and it will make sense.
Grayson Sanchez
(assuming you know a bit of the math, i mean)
Alexander Lopez
>But, what is it about taking a measurement that makes this happen?
How do you think you measure something smaller than the eye can see? You fire a particle at it, and observe which way the particle bounces off. Naturally, firing a particle at something the size of a particle will move the thing you're observing, just as if I were to throw an elephant at you, you would be moved by the impact force.
Adam Hughes
"Measurement" just means interaction. It doesn't matter if a person observes the interaction
Nathaniel Ward
You know how some kooks think that the universe is a computer program or hologram? If you look at it from the perspective of "ocular occlusion" [like in Minecraft] it makes a little more sense. That "anomalies" are just the universe trying to be as efficient as possible. Nothing is rendered until something beholds it. Since nothing was looking at it, the result is different than when something actually looks at it.
Henry Lee
>worries why electron goes left or right >doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right
if this isn't religion, nothing is
Eli Martinez
>many-worlds
James Ward
that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
Cameron Adams
>no matter how close we look we see something new >99.999999% of everything is empty space Sounds reasonable to me. Let me guess, only thing not stupid is darwinism and big bang?
Jordan Martin
Since the other guy didn't say it, I will. Kill yourself sub-human brainlet.
Logan Watson
Well done. You copped on. Welcome to the server. We are now in open beta.
Gabriel Russell
holy shit you're dense you're implying that natural selection and cosmic inflation are stupid while suggesting that the world works like a Minecraft game if you're so fucking smart go build a time machine, travel backwards 14 years and abort yourself
Tyler Ward
Not OP here but CAAAN do :D
Lucas Davis
the idea that many-worlds involves active "universes popping up" is a common misunderstanding. many-worlds is literally just what you get when you assume that quantum mechanics scales up as-is to describe the whole universe, not just sufficiently-small stuff which we aren't looking at. quantum mechanics already has all of the math for describing a system of multiple particles; if you treat the entire universe as a system of particles, then many-worlds is literally just "and then that giant system of particles obeys the laws of quantum mechanics". this is "many-worlds" because it means that the entire universe is in superposition, same as how with collapse, tiny systems are in superposition.
I mean, I guess if you feel like really big systems obeying the same laws as really small systems is too WEIRD and SUPERNATURAL, you might have an issue with that
Ryder Diaz
>But, what is it about taking a measurement that makes this happen? Sort of because it involves interacting with the system but people don't really know
>How do we "know" that the universe was not in that state prior to measurement? We don't but there are ways of showing that if the universe was already primed in that state prior to measurement without an inherent uncertainty then the idea of locality must be thrown out of the window.
- If there's no detector, the wave function for the single-electron system evolves in the normal double-slit pattern thanks to destructive interference with itself. - If there IS a detector, then our system involves a single electron AND the detector. So the wave starts as a spike at "electron at starting point and detector untripped". As time passes, the spike propagates toward "electron near slits, detector untripped" and spreads out, just like before. But then the wave "splits" into a front at "electron in left slit, detector untripped" and a front at "electron in right slit, detector trpiped". As it continues to propagate, we DON'T get destructive interference, because the two fronts don't come near each other in the "tripped-untripped" axis.
That's it.
Blake Watson
(of course, this explanation assumes that the electron and the detector form a quantum system together. if you're a "collapse" type, you probably don't believe that's possible, since the detector is too big.)
William Baker
>Everybody and their mama knows that making a measurement of a quantum system causes the quantum wavefunction to collapse from a superposition of probable states into single state.
No, everybody who falls for the fallacy that what cannot be measured cannot exist believes that.
Reifying ignorance is perhaps the biggest mistake in the history of science.
Grayson Anderson
>russell's teapot
Cameron Adams
I thought I was being rather ironic. Sorry, if that didn't come through well enough.
It has been debated via philosophy since the first unheard tree fell in a forest.
Blake Brown
Everything is "subjective," a reaction to a state that is "in the past." The brain-stunted believe in subjectively-fabricated objectivity. Without feelings to affect our thoughts, people are no better than rocks.
Liam Young
OP here, you all suck and that didn't help at all. Also you're adopted fags and your mothers are whores. I know this to be true because I typed it. I go forth into the rest of my life confident in this conclusion.
Just kidding. Thanks y'all.
Jason Fisher
>what is Schrödinger's Cat
Ryan Adams
"suppose that atom theory was true. now think about a cat. a cat would have to be made of atoms. that's ridiculous, cats have macro-scale non-atom like behavior. so clearly the resolution is that things are only made of atoms when we look at them under microscopes."
Alexander Perry
>>>My question is, how do we "know" that quantum measurement changes the state of the universe? How do we "know" that the universe was not in that state prior to measurement?
we don't lol
the problem is foundational (the current limit of physics) we only measure the results of phenomena without ever knowing the true 'cause' of the manifestation of ANY of it...(the basis/origin of matter, what mass TRULY is, etc)
People know...but this knowledge is withheld for good reason...that's your only clue here...
nb4 Reeeeeing which why I'm glad it's suppressed desu senpai-kun
Nathaniel Sanchez
>Comp sci jobs
Top Gtelektheth.
Leo Hughes
exactly, and that's why many-worlds is a steaming pile of bs
Blake Jones
Are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally?
Kevin Gray
amen brother
Jonathan Sullivan
From what I recall, the idea of a probability density that collapses upon measurement is mostly a mathematical one.
Aren't quantum tunneling and particle diffraction physical phenomenon that prove that mathematical interpretation though?
Juan Hall
so you agree that it's absurd to think that things are always made of atoms, instead of just when we're looking at them?
Xavier Hall
so you agree that it's absurd to think that things are always made of atoms, instead of just when we're looking at them?
