How is it that human consciousness has an effect on quantum mechanics experiments...

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN VONCIOUSNESS HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS BEEN POSTED HOLY SHIT

If im correct i dont think its that observation genuinely changes them, it's just that they can't be said to have a fixed state until you check what they happen to be, because they could well be either.

Heh

It does change it though, once you measure it the object goes from "could be either" to "definitely this one".

e.g. if you have a particle that has a 50% chance of being spin up or down and you measure it then you'll get up or down with a 50% probability. However if you measure it again you will always get spin up if the first measurement was up.

Yes, they're in a superposition before measuring, behaving as both
The only reason the particle is affected is because you have to interact with it to take the measurement
It's nothing to do with consciousness

youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E&ab_channel=mindhush
at 3:30 he says they got the wave pattern when they had the photon detectors on while not collecting data.

Is he lying? Do you have any other people talking about trying that?

I wasn't saying consciousness does anything, I was just saying that observing/measuring has causes the system to change.

I think we might agree without realising.

>Is he lying?

He's either lying or grossly misinformed.

The real question is, are they undecided before you measure OR are they decided, but you just can't know which they are before measuring?

>are they decided, but you just can't know which they are before measuring?
No

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Unless you're willing to throw locality out the window.

do you have any sources to say the contrary?

>How is it that human consciousness has an effect on quantum mechanics experiments?
It doesn't. It has been abundantly clear that this is not what's going on at all for over fifty years now.

>The real question is, are they undecided before you measure OR are they decided, but you just can't know which they are before measuring?
Neither of these two narratives are really how things work at all, but "undecided" is closest to the truth.

I am. Locality is a crutch for faggots who retreat into probability instead of accepting the universe as it truly is.

Watching it again I think he's just misinterpreting the experiment.

What happens is:

Measure for photons in slits --> no interference
Don't measure for photons in slits --> interference

He's reading that as

Human mind finds out whether photons are in slits --> --> no interference
Human mind doesn't find out whether photons are in slits --> interference

Which isn't what's going on.

It doesn't really make sense anyway, what would happen if you took measurements but covered up the computer screen so you couldn't see the results. Would you get an interference pattern or not?

Are you ok with information travelling faster than light?

>Would you get an interference pattern or not?
Not. The computer screen can break the interference pattern just as easily as the human.

Yeah you wouldn't, obviously, but is it because of the physical measuring or because of the computer screen's ~~consciousness~~?

It's the first one.

Indeed. Consciousness has nothing to do with the problem.

There is a infinite amount of "yous" when "you" do an experiment each "you" is paired up with a outcome of the experiment in a process called decoherence. If there is no information flow between the results of the experiment and "you" then there is no decoherence.

Exactly

This is the second time I've accidentally argued with someone who shares my view itt.

Watch it again.
2:40-3:40

What he says is:
Photon Receptors off --> no interference
Photon receptors on and collect the data --> Interference
Photon receptors on and don't collect the data --> no interference

Do you have a source of anyone else doing the experiment and getting a contrary result?

He's chatting shit, that's what's happening.

He's saying that if the magnetic tape writer was still writing but with no tape then there was interference. That's not even "not taking data" because the data is still getting translated into the activity of the head, they've just taken out one of the steps of recording it.

Tell me this, what happens if your detector is on with no magnetic tape but then you put some tape in while it's still running? Does the interference pattern suddenly stop?

(no, because it wasn't there to begin with because the photon detectors were interacting with the system)

As says, this can't possibly happen. I deny the data.

>He's chatting shit, that's what's happening.
okay, probably I guess

>Tell me this, what happens if your detector is on with no magnetic tape but then you put some tape in while it's still running? Does the interference pattern suddenly stop?
I have no idea, I am in no position to make tests like this, so I have to look at people who apparently have.

Do you have a source of anyone else doing the experiment and getting a contrary result?

Physical matter manifests as a result of conscious observation. It's just a chicken or the egg question.

>Physical matter manifests as a result of conscious observation. It's just a chicken or the egg question.

>points me in the direction to a board with a higher iq than this nigger pit

fuck off then, if you don't care about facts, only intangible concepts that sound nice when written down

If you want to understand why consciousness has nothing to do with it understand the uncertainty principle.

Sure I'll read the uncertainty principle, but after inquiring 4 times about any contrary results and getting none I'll assume he's right for now on.

>materialist speculation
>fact

The contrary results occur when any experimentalist notices the lack of an interference pattern before checking which slits each photon went through.

An interference pattern appearing when the experimentalist "doesn't record the data" literally doesn't make sense.

you mean the M A T E R I A L I S T S P E C U L A T I O N that's landing astronauts on the moon?

>you mean the M A T E R I A L I S T S P E C U L A T I O N that's landing astronauts on the moon?
>M A T E R I A L I S T S P E C U L A T I O N
This thread isn't about aerospace engineering, little boy.

Your post was about "materialist speculation"
So certain types of facts you're okay with but others you prefer intangible philosocringe, got it

>QM
>knowing or being able to prove anything
kek

Human thoughts are comprised of electrical impulses

These moving charges in the mind produce small magnetic fields that affect any charged particles that you are trying to observe

When a scientist thinks hard enough about the particle it is affected by this magnetic field

This is BULLSHIT.

Which part of it?
Thoughts aren't comprised of electrical impulses?
Moving charges don't produce magnetic fields?
Magnetic fields don't have an effect on charged particles?

The only reason that post is bullshit is because you thought about it hard enough

Please reddit stop pretending you know what you're talking about it's really fucking sad

>Magnetic fields don't have an effect on charged particles?
This bit

The magnetic fields in your brain are far too weak to affect electrons in an experiment.

This explanation also falls apart when you realise that photons are uncharged and display the same behaviour.

>Physical matter manifests as a result of conscious observation.
Bohr: "The subatomic universe works according to laws different from the usual macroscopic world"
Idiot on the internet: "Thus, the usual macroscopic world works according to laws equal to the subatomic universe, give me money".

Now measure the distance at which the electrical impulses from someone's brains can influence magnetic waves and the strength of the wave at a distance of however many meters. I'll wait.

I think you're being baited

It's only bait if I think it's bait and the magnetic fields make it so

Can't garuantee any of those measurements will be accurate, ya know quantum mechanics and that

guys but what if when you close your door the world disappears?!

Heisenberg principle of incertainty.

To observe something you need to somehow interact with it.

For example 'throwing' a photon at it.
The subject will absorb the photon and emit it again in an certain pattern. From that pattern you can infer properties of the subject.
But the photon (energy) will make it change it's state. That is what is called the wave function collapse.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong, information has to flow between the experimenter and the experiment.

Kinda right.

Not an answer.

Kinda wrong. If the computer is isolated this isn't true.

Correct but badly explained.

Wrong

Hang on so you're saying it IS to do with consciousness, and the particles somehow intangibly KNOW they're being observed?

>If the computer is isolated this isn't true.
If the photon detectors are detecting photons then it doesn't matter if the computer recording the results is isolated, they're going to collapse the interference pattern regardless.

No. When a particle that behaves like a wave is observed (for example, an electron), it is observed in one position rather than the entire wavelength at once.

Here's a wiki-article that explains it more thoroughly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

(And yes, as a qualified chemist, I can assure you that most Wikipedia articles are credible. If you doubt me, check the sources they cite, then judge the articles. Don't just say "Oh, Wikipedia, must be bullshit.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence#Measurement . When the computer records the result it becomes entangled with the experiment, so for the computer it has an exact value. But if the computer and the human are isolated from each other they are not entangled and the quantum properties remain.

The mistake people make is that they imagine the observer as a single thing when it actual fact an observer will be a whole ensemble of observers when the quantum states of the observer and the experiment come into contact they become entangled. Which means "one" observer will see "one" result in the ensemble.

Fair dues actually, forgot to think of it that way.

I looked the guy up on Wikipedia and 7 out of the 8 references for his biography link to either his own book or websites of authors he collaborated with. The last reference is a paper he co-authored for NASA about repair kits for astronauts. I'm not one of those people to instantly try to discredit someone if they hold views against the mainstream, but from all the consciousness, meditation, metaphysics, binaural beats, and out-of-body-experience references in the article it seems like he's making claims way outside his field of expertise without any evidence to back those claims up.
>tl;dr
Basically, he's another pseudoscientist who panders to misinformed audiences and gains a cult following of fringe science enthusiasts on Youtube

Forgot to add that thinking of it this way doesn't require any "collapse", the state of the observer and the experiment don't change they just become entangled with each other.

>entire wavelength at once
You mean an entire wavefunction at once? Explaining it this way is bad for proper quantum intiution because you put the observer on a pedestal by assuming he's not a wavefunction too. Essentially you are trying to explain quantum phenomena while assuming a person is a classical object, which is why you require the "collapse" mechanism (which doesn't appear at all in the dynamics).

Is quantum entanglement anything like magic, or is it somewhat intuitive that it would exist

It's non intuitive. Some dude called it the strangest part of quantum mechanics. It doesn't really have a classical analogue.

Only if you measure it immediately after. Because as soon as it is measured it begins evolving according to the Hamiltonian/TDSE

>tfw you will never have a quantum GF that is so shy even thinking about her makes her hide or feel weird

Not quite sure what you mean but entanglement is quite simple mathematically. Suppose we have two quantum states, one consists of observers and the other is the experiment.

If these two are isolated they are represented by vectors in two Hilbert spaces, say, vector o in O and e in E. When they come into contact they become entangled and make a composite entangled system represented by o x e in O x E (where x is the tensor product). It's the tensor product that pairs the each observer with a single result.

>It does change it though
No it doesn't. No where in the mathematics does a collapse happen.

See and second response in

I was assuming it was in a magnetic field or something, in that case the spin would just precess around itself and the probability wouldn't change.

Thanks, so it's existence doesn't really logically follow from anything else we know about

Can someone thoroughly explain me this:
The particle that we want to make some measurements about does interact with a lot of objects around it (e.g. earth's gravitational field, electric field created by the electrons around that specific particle etc). Now what I don't understand is how does our measurement method is different from those other interactions that particle goes through so that it is in a superposition before that?

I always thought that experiments on quantum mechanics where they put a camera in the environment to record something lead to things being different was just because the fucking camera was doing something to the environment, not because humans looking at the recording somehow fucking alters reality or something. That's just fucking retarded. The universe does not fucking revolve around humans.

>(((quantum mechanics)))
reminder that pilot wave theory is the only white approved theory of quantum mechanics

Yeah go for it.

Quantum mechanics is a wisdom beyond life and death. The kamma you reap is a quantum mechanic.

/pol/ has ruined so many boards on Veeky Forums. I really wish you'd leave

>interacting with quantum phenomena collapses the wave function
>in order to observe a phenomena, you need to interact with it
>all observations are interactions, but not all interactions are observations

This raises the very interesting probability that we might have some sort special affect on the universe because we're 'sentient'
I'm no scientist or mathematician and I'm just kinda of spit balling here but it's still very interesting to think about especially considering we still don't fully understand the human brain or consciousness

Please, anyone?

hiroshima didn't have the balls to make the /mlpol/ merger permanent

it's what i would have done, but i think /pol/s bandwidth is wasted by shitskins pretending to be white.

Veeky Forums won't like my answer, but...

The act of measurement involves interacting with what you are measuring -- in the case of particles this would be by bouncing some other particle off of it, which changes its velocity and thus its future location.

"Quantum superposition" is nonsense -- reifying the ignorance that existed in the potential observer's mind before making a measurement as some quality posessed by the thing being measured.

As a model, a way of thinking, that works fine, but mistaking it for an objective, real property of nature external to the observer is a mistake.

tl:dr -- My ignorance is not a really a property of the things I am ignorant about.

I gave myself mercury poisoning a few months back, and I gave myself the power to control fucking vending machines, and what people say and do, or I could see the future, but I sure as fuck made my mother try and buy me an orange juice from the vending machine, then I thought "no", I made the vending machine stop, the light turned off, the drink didn't fall, the money came out and the machine turned off.

It was a fucked up three days I spent in hospital, but I believe, and still do, and kinda always have done, that I can control other "things", things that are about to happen, it's not forethought, it's more than that.
Even more so within those three day, I felt kinda like the master of the universe, but more of my own destiny, I could control "things" (again) and perceive things much more greatly than I had been able to do so before and since.
I red signs, i made informed choices, I was not hearing voices, I was completely concious of what I was thinking, saying and doing.

I am a fully functional member of sociality.

So OP, I do not know.

Wrong and contradictory to evidence.

it's not about consciousness, it's about information transfer.

how would you know
EXACTLY

into QBism m8

It's not literal observation like you would usually assume from the word. It's scientific observation. The tools and methods we use to measure these events on a quantum scale, at least at the moment, can't be delicate enough to not affect the outcome of the event. It's not the literal act of observation that changes it, it's our ways of testing.

Care to express your views on the matter?

Why does matter have two state at the same time? I don't get it, the way matter was explained to me at school was like building blocks of the universe, but how can the building blocksof the solid universe be solid matter and energetic waves at the same time.

Just take advantage of the brewster angle and block annoying reflected light with a polarizer

kek, but this is actually a pretty dank explanation

But what about the nominal limit, from the outside to the nominal object? It really kind of brute forces a circumstance. Ignorance is a property you have therefore it's decomposable. But perhaps there is a non symmetric dichotomy going on here, i.e. interpolated, but with the same sign.

Therefore ignorance is modeled first through the nominal limit function, then the mathwork intuitively comes, making ignorance somewhat universal.

>Studying quantum mechanics
>"hey dude, can you take a look at my car"

It means the soul is real and you should turn your faith to God fast otherwise you'll end up in hell

you didn't understand how it works. consciousness or humans have nothing to do with it