Timeline for Does the Observer Effect define quantum behavior regardless of conscious observation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 5, 2016 at 19:32 | history | suggested | isometry |
Add measurement-problem tag
|
|
| Nov 5, 2016 at 19:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 5, 2016 at 19:32 | |||||
| May 9, 2016 at 8:03 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @CortAmmon: If you need proof: just glance at the hundreds of questions we are getting about wave-particle dualism and the various misconceptions of people about how quantum mechanics "works", the numerous home made theories about the nature of particles (like electrons) etc. and the occasional question about the consciousness of the universe/observer, not to mention the total nonsense called MWI. All of that originates in a total misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It doesn't have to be that way. The ingredients of a proper ontology have been known since the 1930s! | |
| May 9, 2016 at 7:42 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @CortAmmon: Santa Clause is also a very useful way to explain Christmas to a three year old, but it is not the correct historical explanation for why the holiday exists. It's actually much more useful than the observer effect, which is just as false and totally useless. If you think you need it, then you simply don't understand quantum mechanics and you never will because you are holding on to a false belief system rather than being interested in the facts. That's not a winning recipe in science. | |
| May 9, 2016 at 4:07 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @CuriousOne That is probably the fastest way to learn physics, but its also the hardest. Its very hard to grapple with all of the behaviors of quantum physics without trying to tie it into real life along the way. The observe effect may be an illusion, but it is a very useful illusion in 99.99999% of life. It just so happens that QM is most interested in the remaining 0.000001% | |
| May 8, 2016 at 22:42 | comment | added | CuriousOne | My suggestion is: let go of EVERYTHING you have ever heard about observers and consciousness in physics and start over from the facts. Learn what the coupling to the environment does to a system. That is real physics and it explains everything that seems strange to you at the moment. | |
| May 8, 2016 at 22:41 | comment | added | CuriousOne | There is no such thing as "the observer effect". There is a deep misunderstanding among many, including physicists, about the fundamental differences in the behavior of open vs. closed systems. In practice all systems are open because electromagnetism (and potentially gravity) are mediated by massless bosons that constantly mix the state of the system with that of the environment. If that mixing is slow, then we can have a short term illusion of a closed system. If it is not, then we need to look at the behavior of the system+environment, which is what you call "the observer effect". | |
| May 8, 2016 at 15:40 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 8, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | Řídící | I fail to see the ambiguity that you refer to. | |
| May 8, 2016 at 15:00 | comment | added | Thom Blair III | This quote in particular I find confusing: "As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." Well, what does he mean? Does she collapse the wave function or not whether you take down data or not? | |
| May 8, 2016 at 14:58 | review | First posts | |||
| May 8, 2016 at 15:00 | |||||
| May 8, 2016 at 14:56 | comment | added | Thom Blair III | If people feel the Wikipedia article is written in an ambiguous way, can someone please correct it? I feel they tried to make it unambiguous, but inadvertently used ambiguous wording. | |
| May 8, 2016 at 14:54 | history | asked | Thom Blair III | CC BY-SA 3.0 |