In quantum physics The particle chooses of it spins vlockwise or cpunterclockwise after bring observed...

In quantum physics The particle chooses of it spins vlockwise or cpunterclockwise after bring observed. How dies The partivle knows its bring observed ?

brainlet here
isn't it only a quality of Copenhagen interpretation?

It doesnt, quantum bs is bs.

>The particle chooses

This is your problem : wrong words are used

Yes, it's the Copenhagen interpretation.
But "observed" just means "interacting with something else".
A photon bouncing off the particle collapses the wave-function regardless of whether or not the photon eventually enters an instrument or comes to the attention of a human being.

Quantum mechanics is not so much "the physics of the small" as it is "the physics of isolation." It's just very hard to keep macroscopic objects from influencing their surroundings.

There pretty stables configuration that don't act in a quantum way at the macroscopic level. Quantum effects are also really difficult to scale and have almost always, inconsequential effects.

>But "observed" just means "interacting with something else".
Bullshit. There have been experiments done where the particle doesn't interact with anything and still collapses

I call bullshit on that one. Source?

>There have been experiments done where the particle doesn't interact with anything and still collapses
That's impossible, any sort of measurement would be an interaction, so either you measured it and had an interaction or you didn't measure it and therefore didn't get any information on its state.

Please cite example of one of those experiments. (I regard a particle as "interacting with something else" if it's entangled with a 2nd particle which "interacts with something else." You're welcome to disagree, but an example which doesn't depend upon that will be more convincing.)

Not sure what you're driving at. You seem to be agreeing that we don't notice quantum effects in the macrorealm. It's difficult to prevent decoherence. That's why building a quantum computer is so difficult.

They used entangled pairs. One was measured, the other wasn't. The measurement itself couldn't have caused the collapse of the entangled partner because it wasn't interacted with at all.

In an entangled pair of particles, individual particles in it don't have wavefunctions associated with them. The PAIR has a wavefunction, and that was interacted with.

*drops mic*

Remember that it's not interaction that causes the waveform to collapse, it's information. When a detector is placed, activated but not recording information an interference pattern still forms. It's not the act of measuring that changes how they behave, it's obtaining information

Idiot. See:
>I regard a particle as "interacting with something else" if it's entangled with a 2nd particle which "interacts with something else."
Also cite an actual source next time.

What you regard is irrelevant. It's simple fact that interaction is not what causes the waveform to collapse and it's tiresome that brainlets keep spouting that it must be caused somehow by the act of measuring. It's not. We know it's not and we've known it for a long time. It's information

The interference pattern forms whether or not the information is being recorded. If it's POSSIBLE to tell which slit the photon went through, no interference.
If you put polarizers over the slits, you could tell -- so there's no interference. Each photon now carries a polarization. Doesn't matter if you're actively checking the polarization. You get two stripes and nothing else.
If you erase the information (with a 45 degree polarizer just before the photosensitive screen) the interference returns.

So I agree it's information. I just don't like your "activated but not recording" way of putting it. It's the POSSIBILITY of making the measurement which matters and not whether you actually make it.

Yeah. Anyone who claims to UNDERSTAND QM is deluded or lying.

>you
That's not my post, I'm just point out how someone knew exactly where your bullshit was headed before you shoveled it out.
>it must be caused somehow by the act of measuring. It's not. We know it's not and we've known it for a long time. It's information
A) They're the same thing and B) No serious paper is going to claim any sort of known "cause." Nobody knows what causes that behavior, we just know that it happens.
Speaking of which cite a source already.

Thanks. I mentioned entanglement specifically because I figured would try to weasel out.

>A) They're the same thing
No they're not. There's a big misconception, probably as a result of reactionaries trying to combat quantum mysticism, that the reason the particles collapse into a state is because the measurement device shoots out a photon, interacts with the particle and that interaction is what is causes the decoherence. That is not true because there have been experiments performed where they still measure the particle but destroy the information about which slit it came through and it creates an interference pattern. Thus it's not the act of measurement, or the interaction caused by doing so that causes decoherence, it's the information gained by measuring. If you gain meaningful information about which slit it passed through it collapses, if you don't then it doesn't.

Given a particle with spin [math]s = \frac{1}{2}[/math], considering only the dynamics of this degree of freedom, the eigenstates of [math]\hat{S}_{z} [/math] can be used as a basis for the states of this system, [math] \left\lbrace |+\right\rangle, \hspace{1pt} |-\right\rangle \right\rbrace [/math].
Using a simple model for the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the hamiltonian operator can be written as
[math] \hat{H} = - \gamma \hat{\mathbf{S}}\mathbf{\cdot}\mathbf{B} [/math]
The initial state can be expressed as a linear combination of [math] | \pm \right\rangle[/math],

[math] |\Psi(t=0)\right\rangle = \alpha | + \right\rangle + \beta |- \right\rangle [/math],

where [math] \alpha,\beta \in \mathbb{C}[/math]. The time evolution of the particle state, i.e. the state [math] | \Psi(t)\right\rangle[/math] at any given time [math]t > 0 [/math], can be worked out using the hamiltonian in the Schrödinger's equation. With this general state, at any given time, you can calculate the probability of measuring spin up or down in x, y, or z coordinates.

But, the key point is... the particle is in the presence of a magnetic field; that's how it "knows" it's being observed.

you did a decent job on lecturing this plebs, but you fuck'd up the latex, faggot

Don't fucking listen to this blue pill try hard, the particle is a piece of consciousness at a quantum super position, when it is percieved it gets localised into a super position where the conccious viewer acts as a neutral point of singularity. The point of singularity being a fluctuation point of time so to speak where the particle and the conscious body are in a sense one, This causes the particle to enter polar fluctuation because of duality, as it is and is not part of the conscious viewer it enters a polar rotation where there is essentially a left and right side (positive and negative) and they begin to rotate away from each other causing the particle to accelerate. I know dis cuz im an ascendered wizard

best explanation ive seen