in quantum physics what is an "observer"
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
18
@raccoon can’t watch video now
@sun i asked a quantum physisist at why bc i always was confused too by this. in my own words i'd say "something who may or may not interact with the thing". so if there's a particle and there's a chance it interacts with a second particle, it will collapse in a state where it either interacted or not. that second particle could be considered the observer in relation to the first.
@sun as far as i understand it, anything which changes the velocity or position - any measurement of the state requires per definition interaction between the object that is measured and the tool used for measurement. observer is just a shitty term imo, if a particle crashes into another one that is also "measuring" it's properties.
@sun
any sort of object/instrument/item that measures a given property of an atomic/subatomic particle
in most cases the properties are either position or momentum
any sort of object/instrument/item that measures a given property of an atomic/subatomic particle
in most cases the properties are either position or momentum
@sun Literally anything that could interact with an incident particle, and thus change its position or velocity
It's by far the most catastrophically misnamed concept in the history of physics
It's by far the most catastrophically misnamed concept in the history of physics
@sun
there's no coherent definition because wave-function collapse as a concept is incoherent, product of mind-projection fallacy (i don't know the state, and therefore it has no state
to be very short, bell's theorem indicates that "locality", the idea of space as smooth-continuous-manifold, is incompatible with quantum phenomena. and, rather than accept that, physicists generally go into denialist handwaving, with their platonic smoothbrane ideals spontaneously changing into disjunct world when "measured", whatever that nonspecifically and self-incompatibly means
p rel is a nice popular-audience book about quantum foundations muddle, though even he doesn't talk this aspect quite directly don't think
Adam Becker - What Is Real.jpg
there's no coherent definition because wave-function collapse as a concept is incoherent, product of mind-projection fallacy (i don't know the state, and therefore it has no state
to be very short, bell's theorem indicates that "locality", the idea of space as smooth-continuous-manifold, is incompatible with quantum phenomena. and, rather than accept that, physicists generally go into denialist handwaving, with their platonic smoothbrane ideals spontaneously changing into disjunct world when "measured", whatever that nonspecifically and self-incompatibly means
p rel is a nice popular-audience book about quantum foundations muddle, though even he doesn't talk this aspect quite directly don't think
Adam Becker - What Is Real.jpg
@sun depends on what interpretation you subscribe to.
The fact of the matter is, these "interpretations" of quantum physics are different theories altogether, some predicting different things than others. In the many-worlds theory by Everett, there is no such thing as an observer, but there are entanglement and decoherence. You could say that an "observer" is someone or something entangled with the quantum system that he "observes".
The fact of the matter is, these "interpretations" of quantum physics are different theories altogether, some predicting different things than others. In the many-worlds theory by Everett, there is no such thing as an observer, but there are entanglement and decoherence. You could say that an "observer" is someone or something entangled with the quantum system that he "observes".
@sun an atom can collapse a particle's wave function, not necessarily a conscious observer. extrapolating wave function collapse to macroscopic events and large time scales (ie shroedinger's cat) gets pretty absurd.
@sun any interacting particle
