this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
1529 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

In short

😐 = Electron if you look

= Electron if you don't look

[–] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's really frustrating that people who don't understand this experiment have insanely taken into assume that a magic particle spell understands if a human being is watching or not.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps it would be better to explain why instead of attempting a mic drop based on your superior knowledge?

It’s called the observer effect, and it happens because:

This is often the result of utilizing instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.

And particularly in the double-slit experiment:

Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

So for anyone who wants to have a surface understanding of the observer effect, the wiki does a fair job of the basic explanation.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think the issue is that quantum mechanics is hard to popularize without leading people into wrong conclusions, pop science clickbaits make this worse.
I find it easier to understand if you say that observing necessarily means there's an interaction energy (for example a photon), otherwise no information can be retrieved, and however small that information retrieval energy is, quantum systems are so sensitive, that it is enough to modify their behavior.

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'd read a piece that even just having a camera present has the same effect.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

That's not really it. You need something that measures the state of the electron. Merely looking in the direction is not enough. It has to be something that interacts with the electron.

A camera alone isn't enough. But light (eg photons) with enough energy should be enough. But then that energy will manipulate the electron. If you had a completely dark room and pointed a camera at the experiment it wouldn't change anything.

It's kind of like having your cake and eating it too.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah, it turns out that slapping the electron around like with a big stick or whatever causes it to change its behavior, go figure! :-P

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So if we didn't need light to see it then it would continue doing whatever it does?

I wonder how the universe would look if we didn't need light to see πŸ€”

[–] 0laura@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

but light is seeing.

[–] K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Maybe consciousness is fundamental and matter and spacetime are derived from it

edit: this comment is a bit controversial to people just want to say why not explore this idea we spent over 50 years on string theory where has that gotten us

Donald Hoffman Ted talk on consciousness

Papers by Bernardo Kastrup

Please just take the time to learn more before you come at me lol

Consciousness is not part of the observer effect (which is itself named in the most infuriating way possible, specifically because it makes people think that the universe is somehow aware of when something sentient is looking at it). "Observing" a particle requires interacting with it in such a way that you meaningfully affect its current state of being, whether that be deflecting it in a different direction than it was going or changing its velocity, and therefore it is impossible at a quantum level to be a passive observer that does not influence the outcome.

In the case of the double slit experiment, if unobserved light will act as a wave with interference and if observed then it acts like a particle. The reason for this is both complicated and simple: light behaves as a wave due to probability. There's no way of observing a photon without influencing it, so therefore the best we can do is say it has a certain probability of being in this collection of spaces, which in the case of photons is a wave (because it can travel in any of a number of directions outwards from the photon emitter in the experiment, but all going away from the emitter and towards the wall the slits are cut into). For the purposes of this probability wave, the start position is the emitter and the end position is the wall behind the slits, so averaging out a large number of photons will recreate the interference pattern on the wall.

However, if you observe the photons at the slits to try and figure out which slits they're going through you have influenced the photons and thus collapsed that probability wave into a particle, and in the process created a new probability wave from that moment onwards which has the same end position as the original wave, but now starts at the individual slit. From its perspective, there is no second slit, so now the wave acts as if it is in the single slit setup because from its perspective it is, hence the loss of interference.

Nothing here has anything to do with consciousness. You can recreate this experiment with no one in the room and it will behave exactly the same, and has a sound (if very confusing conventionally) mathematical cause.

On a side note, string theory is effectively unfalsifiable and therefore completely useless as a scientific theory.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You need to qualify that statement somehow, or maybe give a citation or source that supports such an idea

[–] K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure firstly id like to say these are theories just as anything in science starts as. I am not saying this is fact by any means and could be totally wrong. here are some sources:

Donald Hoffman Ted talk

Papers by Bernardo Kastrup

[–] bunchberry@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Both these figures are embarrassingly bad.

Hoffman confuses function for perception and constantly uses arguments demonstrating things can interpret reality incorrectly (which is purely a question of function) in order to argue they cannot perceive reality "as it is.," which is a huge non-sequitur. He keeps going around promoting his "theorem" which supposedly "proves" this yet if you read his book where he explains his theorem it is again clearly about function as his theorem only shows that limitations in cognitive and sensory capabilities can lead something to interpret reality incorrectly yet he draws a wild conclusion which he never justifies that this means they do not perceive reality "as it is" at all.

Kastrup is also just incredibly boring because he never reads books so he is convinced the only two philosophical schools in the universe are his personal idealism and metaphysical realism, which the latter he constantly incorrectly calls "materialism" when not all materialist schools of thought are even metaphysically realist. Unless you are yourself a metaphysical realist, nothing Kastrup has ever written is interesting at all, because he just pretends you don't exist.

Metaphysical realism is just a popular worldview in the west that most Laymen tend to naturally take on unwittingly. If you're a person who has ever read books in your life, then you'd quickly notice that attacking metaphysical realism doesn't get you to idealism, at best it gets you to metaphysical realism being not a coherent worldview... which that is the only thing I agree with Kastrup with.