I'm about as normie as it gets with this.
I watched a super simplified video of the slit experiment, so basically my question is this.
Do we even know a single real fucking thing about the laws of physics at this point? Does this experiment pretty much prove that we know absolutely nothing when it comes to this shit?
What exactly do we know? What exactly do we not know?
Just asking for curiosity, thanks.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
arxiv.org
twitter.com
>Does this experiment pretty much prove that we know absolutely nothing when it comes to this shit?
Yep you figured it out
The thousands of physics profs on the planet just lock their doors and whack it all day
Keep this hush-hush or they might lose their funding
Gave me a chuckle.
But I hope what you said isn't true.
W-We know something right? What do we know? Pls respond.
>yes goyim, tell (((us))) what you know about physics
The double-slit experiment DOES NOT NECESSARILY prove that all objects are both waves and particles.
You do not see an interference pattern if you shot one electron through a double-slit. You only see one impact point. You see an interference pattern if you fire lots of electrons; you'll find that the electrons are more likely to land in some areas, and less in others as you would expect from an interference pattern. Each individual electron is only a single point impact on the screen.
This could mean that all particles are both waves and particles, or it could mean that there is an as-of-yet undetected "guiding wave" that the particles "ride", and it is this guiding wave which experiences interference.
there are two interpretations of the double slit electron experiment, the Copenhagen interpretation is that the electron travels through every possible trajectory on its way to the target. the other is that the particle travells along on a wave that eminates from it.
>The double-slit experiment DOES NOT NECESSARILY prove that all objects are both waves and particles.
Hard to prove since we can't observe it.
>This could mean that all particles are both waves and particles, or it could mean that there is an as-of-yet undetected "guiding wave" that the particles "ride", and it is this guiding wave which experiences interference.
I know that which is why I was confused man. All we know is that we don't quite know and that nothing is proven.
Not only that, but from what I've gathered, this seems to prove that everything we know about the Laws of Physics are no longer laws since there are physical things (particles) which defy those laws. Rendering them as non-laws which we just sorta follow because it still works.
None of it makes sense user and I dunno where to go from here because I'm just a normalfag who watched a video and now I don't know what's real.
>there are two interpretations of the double slit electron experiment, the Copenhagen interpretation is that the electron travels through every possible trajectory on its way to the target.
Haven't heard of this, how is that possible?
and most importantly, why would it behave differently just because we observe it? Why do particles give a shit about whether or not we're watching them?
DOES A TREE MAKE A NOISE WHEN IT FALLS IN A FOREST AND NO ONE IS THERE!?
WELL GUESS WHAT, WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT FOLKS.
It's more that the sources we use to view them fuck them up, not the actual viewing itself.
youtube.com
i kinda like this explenation.
Newton's laws still work fine for macroscopic objects.
Think of it like this; Kepler's laws don't explain why the planets move the way they do, they only accurately predict that motion. Newton's laws DO explain it, but that doesn't make Kepler's work any less accurate.
Likewise, we'll find out how the laws of quantum mechanics apply to macroscopic systems, and we'll see that QM explains why Newtonian mechanics works the way it does.
Basically Newton's Laws aren't wrong, they're just incomplete.
Really? How do we know that's the case? Is that just your opinion?
>Why do particles give a shit about whether or not we're watching them?
They don't. Particles have no agency. When they say "observer" they mean any interacting matter, not necessarily anything conscious.
Think of it like this; you're trying to measure the width of something really soft with a pair of calipers. You pinch the object, and the calipers dig in a little, reporting a smaller distance than they should because you've squished the object.
no, if you were to detect an elextron you'd have to use a magnetic field, or some other type of sensor, and magnetic and electric fields will deflect a charged particle, thus changing its state from if you didn't observe it.
Alright, and we haven't discovered a way to measure it without it getting weird and fucked up.
Do you know that this is true? Or is it, again, just a theory of yours? Sounds like there's a thousand theories.
For all we know, our observation of the particles actually does change how it behaves, perhaps they have agency in the matter or perhaps not. I don't know.
I just feel a little disconcerted that I'm able to even partake in this conversation and comprehend things even remotely near the same as people on Veeky Forums. Because I'm pretty much just a normie brainlet.
and they haven't tried other methods of observing it that don't do this? What are all the methods that have been attempted?
To observe something you have to interact with it in some way. Anyway you interact with a subatomic particle will cause wave function collapse.
I don't think there are any theories (at least that are taken seriously) that use "observer" to mean some sentient being doing the measurement.
ill chime in despite having just joined the thread. unfortunately any type of "observation" requires some form of material interacting with the observed particle. and since these particles are so tiny even things like photons have an affect on their behavior. like when you see things with your eyes its because photons are bouncing off of that object into your eyes so really there is no way to detect particle and observe them without interfering in some way.
Shouldn't this mean that there are no particles that are in wave-form? I mean, there is nowhere in the universe without fields. Shouldn't all particles be interacting with these fields at all times, meaning their wave functions would always be collapsing?
So just observing it makes it interact differently, and we have no idea what it is about our observation that makes it act differently. Yet you know for a fact that the particles don't "care" whether we look at them?
But from a laymans point of view, or my retarded normie point of view, that's exactly what happens. If that's not what happens, then I'd need to know exactly why it is the particles act differently.
The multi-verse theory sounds viable to me at this point man.
you seem to think that physicists just sit around coming up with ideas in a coffee shop. physics starts with an experiment and carful observation of the results, "theories" are the scientists trying to understand the results and make predictions as to other experiments. the double slit experiment, wave particle duaity, and the inability to dirrectly observe a ssubatmic particle are all real world problems.
How would they care? By the time we see the results from a camera, the particle has already hit the screen.
>we have no idea what it is about our observation that makes it act differently.
No, we know exactly what it is. Quantum objects are so small that all our instruments affect them.
Imagine trying to locate a billiard ball by hitting it with another billiard ball. You'll know right where it was, but you've got no real idea where it is now.
>How would they care?
I have no clue whatsoever because I don't know anything at all.
>No, we know exactly what it is. Quantum objects are so small that all our instruments affect them.
Oh yeah? How do we know that?
meant for But I mean, how do you know that? Maybe if the multi-verse theory is true and it's a probability wave, that means we're in a reality where the instruments don't actually affect the particles enough to make them change, and they are just changing into particle form when we observe them out of pure chance in our reality.
truth! even bouncing a photon off an electron would change it.
>Oh yeah? How do we know that?
Occam's razor.
The multiverse theory is untestable BS.
... this is a circular argument. you get an explanation, the say "but how do you know that?" well, i've worked in a lab, and dealt with this stufff.
>untestable BS
Like trying to observe particles?
yeah!! high five! I got such a dirty look from my professor when I said roughly the same thing.
back to multiverse theory is too far flung and seemingly unable to be tested and so we go with the simplest solution
You said that the Quantum objects are affected by your instruments.
I asked HOW they are affected by your instruments and why and you just said they are affected without an explanation as to why.
I have no idea why and how particles are affected by your instruments. I have no idea why they change form, and it seems that no one has any real conclusion on what it is they actually change into when they aren't being observed.
how do you feel about pilot waves?
seethats your answer. by manipulating something to observe the particle we are influencing the observed particle.
What is it that you are manipulating?
Oh! well, an electron is a charged particle, its also very very small, so it can't be seen using light, so you have to measure its position with something like a magnetic field, but a magnetic field will deflect the electron because its a charged particle and they're effected by magnetic and electric fields.
We can at least try to observe particles. But there are no conceivable tests to see if the multiverse is true.
A common way to measure the speed of charged particles is to shoot them through a magnetic field. The charged particle affects the magnetic field, and we can see this pretty easily. But the magnetic field also affects the charged particle; it pushes it according to the right-hand rule. So whatever value we measured for the speed is no longer true.
and there's no other way to measure it that doesn't affect it in this way?
Every way to measure it affects it in some way. Different measurement techniques affect them in different ways, but the result is basically the same. When you measure a particle, you change it in some way.
None that I know of.
So we have no idea what a particles usual "state of being" is? Is shooting it through a magnetic field what changes it into a "ball"?
well Ill be honest, im not the most read on this particular discipline of science but from what I have read on the matter it seems like a null answer, to assume that a particle is just a wave coming out of nowhere that we perceive as a particle, unless I am completely misunderstanding it which is very possible.
without applying a force such as a magnetic or electric field, we can only use probability and statistics to guess where an electron is.
So in the slit experiment, what did they use to "fire" the electrons when they weren't "observing" them?
This depends on what interpretation of QM you like. The Copenhagen Interpretation says its a wave until it interacts with something, and becomes a "ball". The pilot wave interpretation says there's another, as of yet undetected, field. Quantum-scale objects are always "balls" and "ride" waves on this undetected field.
Both of these require some very non-intuitive assumptions. Pilot-wave theory requires non-locality; the wave is affected by the state of the entire universe all at once, violating the speed of light. The Copenhagen Interpretation requires that you accept that things don't actually exist when nothing is looking.
But yeah, basically we have no solid proof either way.
A particle accelerator; basically a big set of magnets designed to guide charged particles in a certain direction.
when you heat metals, they emit electrons, you can use focused electric and magnetic fields to accelerate them towards a target.
>Super simplified video
Well there's your answer right there. Instead of asking in a fucking Veeky Forums thread, why not watch a more informative video? Why not learn about a topic so that you become informed? Then, you can have conversations with real people and learn from each other's input and knowledge. You might even ask a good question and make someone much smarter than you think about something in a totally different way.
I did the double slit experiment with a gutted CRT and a vaccume chamber.
(Samefag here)
This is the problem with forums now. Instead of people talking about a topic that everyone in informed on, it's just morons arguing about things that HAVE EXISTING ANSWERS instead of just reading a goddamn article.
>This depends on what interpretation of QM you like.
I don't "like" anything, I just wanna know the answer :(
>The Copenhagen Interpretation says its a wave until it interacts with something, and becomes a "ball".
Okay, what is the evidence to support this? If you don't mind spoonfeeding me a bit.
>The pilot wave interpretation says there's another, as of yet undetected, field. Quantum-scale objects are always "balls" and "ride" waves on this undetected field.
Oh God, this is sounding like extra-dimensional shit again. What the fuck.
>A particle accelerator; basically a big set of magnets designed to guide charged particles in a certain direction.
Why doesn't the particle accelerator affect its form? Do we know it doesn't affect its form?
(Samefag again)
I'm pretty drunk, this post is actually pretty civil and well researched excluding a few people. Saging myself.
Well fuck you buddy. I did watch more informative videos and I didn't understand a single thing because I'm retarded. So I made a thread to ask science fags about it. Because people explaining things makes more sense to me.
Yes, we actually know how it all works. Don't listen to those atheist "scientists". About 6000 years ago the universe was deterministic, because God would decide everything that would happen. He was directly involved in our development. For example, in your double slit thing, that wouldn't have happened 6000 years ago. God would have said "all particles go through this slit" and they would.
What happened? Not too long ago atheist, homos and democrats started existing and when God saw this he saw how this universe was fucked up. So he left a random number generator deciding everything and fucked off, probably to start a new universe with no homos and liberals. That is why you now have stuff like the double slit experiment. A random number generator is deciding where the particles go, because God has left us and its all the fault of the homosexuals.
the electron beam accelerates the particle in a linear direction, the detection grid applies a perpendicular force wich changes the direction of the electron, basically disrupting their trajectory through the slits and collapsing the waveform.
hahaha, don't try to understand QM when you're drunk, thats what general relativity is for!
So, in your opinion, personally, does the particle itself turn into a wave? Or does it remain as a ball and ride an "undetectable" wave which basically means other dimensions exist.
I like pilot wave theory just because its nicer to work with, but I don't know if its right. I studied cosmology just because I didn't like QM.
In case you don't know, you're conversing with a few different people. I'm
>I don't "like" anything, I just wanna know the answer :(
Nobody knows the answer. Not for sure anyways. My money's on pilot-wave.
>Okay, what is the evidence to support this? If you don't mind spoonfeeding me a bit.
You're hitting the limits of what I know; I'm not a big QM guy. I believe the reasoning was mostly that they did not want to throw out locality like Pilot-Wave theory does, and instead they had to throw out object permanence.
>Oh God, this is sounding like extra-dimensional shit again. What the fuck.
Not really. The pilot-wave field wouldn't be the first new field discovered. ~500 years ago we had no idea about ANY fields.
>Why doesn't the particle accelerator affect its form? Do we know it doesn't affect its form?
These are great questions. I HIGHLY doubt the accelerator does not effect the particle. I suspect the answer is that we have a good idea of how exactly the particle will be affected, and can use statistics and a big sample size to see through any unintended effects our accelerator has.
PBS SpaceTime has some really good videos on quantum mechanics, check them out maybe?
Do scientists seem to not like QM just because they don't know stuff about it?
I just got the vibe that it's avoided by some people because it basically says "everything you know is wrong" or at least a lot of it.
Despite my inherent alarm when I made the OP of this thread. I still really get the impression that we don't know anything, and that even the most basic theories on this might be based on too much arrogance in our own knowledge. I have no idea what to really believe. Theories might not be taken seriously, but it seems like theories that don't make sense might be correct at this point. So why not be even open to the possibility that even sentients looking at things affects them?
I mean, time is relative, and we've learned that time can go at different speeds and that fucking blew my mind. Maybe more things affect other things in different way that we haven't even discovered yet?
I have no clue though. It just seems like me not having any clue is just as good as anyone pretending that they do have a clue when they don't.
The problem with QM is that its not intuitive at all. If you don't know the math, there isn't really much you can do in a discussion but throw around buzzwords.
There are pretty much no quantum-scale phenomena that work how your macro-scale intuition would expect. Which means you basically have to relearn how to think.
Time isn't relative. Simultaneity is. You're drawing unwarranted philosophical conclusions from empirical results that do not necessarily suggest what you think they do. And it's not "we don't know anything", it's that fundamental physics ran up against an interpretational conundrum that it didn't know how to solve, so it shoved it aside and got to work on experimentation, which works quite well. Physicists don't know what's "really going on" in the double-slit or quantum eraser, but the consenus is that the quantum state is ontic and that it represents something that is neither a particle nor a wave but can manifest itself as both depending on how the measurement process is performed. Furthermore, we know based on empirical violations of Bell inequalities that reality violates local realism, but whether the "local" or "real" part is violated is a topic of contention.
I would suggest, if you are incapable of learning math, that you avoid pop-sci reifications and read some books on the philosophy of physics in order to better understand what is actually demonstrated in a scientific experiment and what actual physicists believe the role and purpose of physics is.
yeah, when I was learning about "spin" it gave me a headache.
Yeah but that means the laws of physics are basically wrong. Sure on a "macro-scale" these laws continue to work. But ultimately they are not true.
So it's entirely possible that things are possible which we didn't think are possible.
Almost as if to say, in a philosophical sense, "nothing is impossible with God."
Like I said above, it doesn't prove the laws of physics wrong; only incomplete. That's an important distinction.
Well what if they're wrong dude. Or what if there are areas where physics is just different?
It's clear that we just don't know the answer. It's nice that you prefer to use the word "incomplete," maybe as a comfort? I dunno, but you get exactly what I'm saying.
>These are great questions. I HIGHLY doubt the accelerator does not effect the particle. I suspect the answer is that we have a good idea of how exactly the particle will be affected, and can use statistics and a big sample size to see through any unintended effects our accelerator has.
This just raises more questions. I love it and hate it at the same time.
quantum mechanics works in a lot of fields. predictions regarding quantum tunneling helpeed us come up with solid state memory, the fact that electrons behave as waves when they orbit a nucleus helps us understand why different atoms emit light in sspecific wavelengths...
just read this
So? We could still be wrong about pretty much everything.
Will do.
Hahaha, Schrodinger as a bad guy I could see, but Einstien and de Broglie?
wrong or right is relative. newtons interpretaton of gravity wasn't perfect, but it was all we needed to get to the moon, Einstiens gravity is much better, and without it our GPS satilites wouldn't work. science is just a quest to better our understanding of the world around us.
>watching pop-sci video or reading such book
>overloaded with motivation to go deeper
>opening serious textbook and getting panic attack from those hard math formulas
I'm gonna read it anyway but is it basically just someone projecting their philosophical opinion into this paper?
Yeah, that's me alright. I'm interested but I'll never be able to take the time to know everything. So I have to dig for what I can when I have time I guess, and when I'm interested.
Because I have my family, my work, and everything else. So all I can really do is read about the theories. Such is my life, but what else am I supposed to do?
I feel it's the other way around. Schrodinger at least understood that the implications of his thought experiment taken as a true account for how the world operates was simply an inane conclusion. Einstein on the other hand went to extreme lengths to somehow preserve locality and he was right that quantum mechanics as it stands implies action-at-a-distance in nature before anyone else realized it and de Broglie was just dismissed for his wacky interpretation.
No. It's an informative primer on common misconceptions relating to quantum mechanics, some of which you will find floating around here as well. Stop asking so many fucking stupid questions and start reading
don't forget a lot of physics isn't all crazy QM and GR theory stuff... a lot of it is kinematics and impulse... start with the basics, study some good old fashion colisions!
hahaha, I was just saying that schrodinger made a good bad guy cuz... you know... he was a nazi... who was trying to build a nuclear bomb for germany.
nice one
Xander is that fucking you, you fucking cunt
God the way you ask shit makes me want to kill you
Well then fuck off outta my thread then. I'm reading shit right now.
OP you're a fucking cunt. You secretly think super highly of yourself and your intelligence and get off on pretending to be humble and unintelligent and try to argue with people who actually are intelligent and knowledgable and then think by winning an argument on PURE SEMANTICS you are smarter than these intelligent people and use that to secretly stroke your ego. People like you are a huge detriment to the hard sciences. Fucking holier than thou bullshit fuckery this guy.
Doesn't parity and quantum entanglement support non-locality, but is grounded by observer speed?
Well if that's how you feel, I hope you spent the next hours being in more of a rage over my posts than you should be.
Cry about it.
other dimensions don't fucking exist. You can't see the fucking air can you??? but it exerts a fucking force upon you. Same fucking principle you fucking multiverse multi-dimension fuck
I was just referring to those crazy String theory videos that I kept running into when I was looking this stuff up.
STOP WATCHING POPULAR SCIENCE. NONE OF IT IS REAL.
No, we know a shit ton of QM. There are simply energy requirements to finding shit out. Hierarchies of size. You can only get so precise with the equipment you have until more precise equipment comes along. So until you have that equipment you kind of have to make models and guess the best you can until your shit is either proven or disproven. Thats why QM fascinates a lot of people. Because we know so much and only a tiny bit is left to know. And so finding one thing revolutionizes the entire world.
FUCKING FRICTION
FUCKING FLUID DYNAMICS
PHYSICS IS SUCH COUNTER INTUITIVE SHIT
JUST END THIS NIGHTMARE CALLED ENGINEERING
Why do you have to keep jumping to retarded conclusions like being slightly wrong about something makes everything we know completely bullshit? Are you just an asshole?? what the fuck man people must hate you
Stop trying to argue with semantics holy fuck this isn't a philosophy and language board
WELL WHAT IF YOU'RE A FUCKING ARGUMENTATIVE FACETIOUS CUNT
More like you should cry about people hating your guts for being such a stupid button pushing, narcissistic cunt. Have fun having a shitty marriage and cunty ass kids
no such thing as "knowing", you build models that work. if they don't work, you build another for different usage or refine the present one, generally by getting more data and/or approaching from different angles. you use these models for making shit, without them you wouldn't have the world beyond mud/wood huts and tribes.
>Why do you have to keep jumping to retarded conclusions
Because I am not good at science so I just do that and start asking hundreds of questions.
REEEE'ing at me for not immediately assuming you are correct isn't gonna help me. I have no idea who is correct and who is not. Why would I pretend like you're right? How do I know that Pop-Sci isn't just a buzzword you guys throw around at theories you don't like?
I'm enjoying your rage either way, since you are easily trolled and irritated.
I still have to read this article the guy gave me anyway. I won't feel it's a good idea to reply to people after this post until I do that.
>REEEE'ing at me for not immediately assuming you are correct isn't gonna help me.
Nobody said it would.
There you go jumping to conclusions again.
What will help you, like I said previously is not jumping to conclusions, but you chose to ignore the advice to criticize instead to protect your ego.
And your jumping to conclusions has nothing to do with how educated you are on a topic or how well you understand it
It is just a part of your flawed personality.
No need to project yourself onto me so much user. You could have just ignored this thread, is there something here that you feel threatens your ego?
Projecting what? I couldn't even graduate UW chem e summa cum laude. I know just how much of a retarded brainlet I am.
But you seem to secretly think your some kind of genius while feigning humility. Otherwise you wouldn't be here trying to understand the most complex theories of the physical world with pop science articles, which take literal geniuses years to study.
Keep defending yourself. It won't erase your flaws.