3 ms·
To "observe" can mean any sort of interaction between the particle and a larger, connected physical system. To observe something, you have to have a physical in
by bbctol 10y ago
To "observe" can mean any sort of interaction between the particle and a larger, connected physical system. To observe something, you have to have a physical interaction with it (it is hit by a photon of light which then hits your eyes, to use the most basic example) and so its quantum state decoheres into a particular state.
Most scientists are fine with the idea that it doesn't matter if the larger physical system has any sort of "consciousness" or "observation"; isolated particles have quantum behaviors, interacting particles decohere towards more normal-seeming physics. However, there are theories that shouldn't be immediately discounted that do still ascribe a role to the particular observer, indicating everything from reality being relative to consciousness being a fundamental aspect of the universe. I wouldn't take these too seriously, but I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand either.
Of course, that's not addressing the worst thing about quantum mechanics: once you've finally rid yourself of the pseudoscience and poor metaphors that make it sound like magic, it seems for just a second like a normal, intuitive process that's just been obscured through poor explanation--then you learn a little more and realize it's far more bizarre than you'd imagined.
- aparent 10y ago>seems for just a second like a normal, intuitive process that's just been obscured through poor explanation--then you learn a little more and realize it's far more bizarre than you'd imagined. This is a great explanation of the process of learning about quantum mechanics. A good test once you start to think you have figured things out is to check how your own conceptual model deals with Bell violations or experiments like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
- karmakaze 10y agoThat blew my mind the first time I read it. There's also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
- Myrmornis 10y agoI'm a lay person when it comes to QM: I get my information from Brian Greene's excellent books. I kind of think it is going too far to say that it's pseudoscience and poor metaphors that make it seem like magic. Readers of the popular scientific accounts learn that the various slit experiments with partial observation etc show that these subatomic particles behave like spreading waves of probability until they are observed at which point it's like a sample is taken from the probability distribution. That seems very magical to me and has done to many scientists over the last century, right?