Seeing your comment inspired me to make this
This is a really high quality edit, I’m genuinely impressed. Probably not too much work mechanically but the attention to detail is great and someone who’s never seen it would probably think it was original. If I were a meme edit rater it would rank very high on my list. I don’t know how to make this comment not sound sarcastic or boomer-y but I actually really love this edit and will send it to people. They won’t understand it but that’s fine.
If they don’t understand it, it’s their loss.
Oh shit I just got it. Thanks.
Thank you so much, that’s such a nice comment!! It took me about 20-30 minutes with paint.net :)
I lost it.
Holy shit, that’s incredible.
This makes me irrationally angry
Then don’t look at it
Now I’m just more angry…
Yes, so we’ve observed
But then they wouldn’t be angry right? Or would they be both angry and happy?
I just imagined someone who’s smiling only while being looked at, and making an angry face otherwise. Perfect nightmare fuel
Yes exactly
Me when they tell me drinking and driving is “illegal”
Then just round your anger. You don’t need that much precision.
Fuck, it’s too early for jokes of this caliber
is this what loss feels like?
I collapsed at the sight.
Im not going to explain this again… OK!.. its not looking, its measure that changes the result of the experiment. To measure implies interaction.
I think the meme is just poking fun at the physics behind the whole thing, but in case anyone doesn’t know:
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.
Yep, the observer it is not only observing, it is interacting in order to measure.
The meme is not about the observer effect or wavefunction collapse
Yeah it is. From that wiki article:
A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment"
The meme is not about the double slit experiment
It is clearly titled “double slit”.
Look, I’m not gonna keep quoting Wikipedia at you until you get it, so believe what you want I guess
Edit: see also the title of the post
deleted by creator
Super curious, and promise not to argue. What, in your summation, is the meme about?
Petulant electrons, I guess.
This meme is about the difference in scales. When your electron’s delocalization is much greater than other scales in your system, the electron behaves like a wave. Otherwise if the electron’s delocalization is the smallest scale, it behaves like a particle.
If you can look at the setup of an experiment with your bare eyes, the electron behaves like a particle. If you cannot - it may behave like a wave.
You can see wave properties from a double slit setup with your bare eyes. Here’s someone who did it with a cardboard box.
https://youtu.be/Iuv6hY6zsd0?si=TIlEJa4AJQhh8da4
If you setup a detector that measures which path the particles took, the interference pattern disappears- again something you can see with your bare eyes.
For electrons you can’t do it. Either way the interference is not a quantum effect and the detector that you are talking about is a simple reemiting device that detects the wave vector and creates the wave in the same direction. Now live with that.
For electrons you can’t do it.
Why are you giving me a theoretical paper? It doesn’t even have sizes, but I assume that the distance between two holes is about 1um, which you cannot see with your bare eyes
deleted by creator
Yeah 😞
In short
😐 = Electron if you look
= Electron if you don’t lookMaybe 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
Please just take the time to learn more before you come at me lol
Consciousness has literally nothing to do with it. In fact, the experiment as demonstrated in this emem would not replicate the double slit results. What has to happen is something along the path has to interfere with the photon (aka observe, which has nothing to do with consciousness, rather just an interaction), which causes the waveform to collapse. Basically, if something needs to know the state, the state collapses into one result. It doesn’t matter what that thing is.
Idk that would depend on what you believe is fundamental Fringe science baby!
Yeah, except we can do this experiment without ant consciousness aware of it even and it gets the same results. The only thing that matters is if the particle has to interact with something, because when it does it becomes a specific particle rather than a waveform. What that interaction is with does not effect the experiment in the slightest. A consciousness does not have any effect on the results of the experiment so there’s no reason to expect that the universe cares about consciousness. To the universe, consciousness is yet just another series of interaction of things that behave the same as anything else, except it happens in a pattern that we think of as thought.
Perhaps the particle is simply moving so fast that it appears as a wave but once it smacks into something it slows down enough to be observed
Btw I do not know any significances about this subject
Nope. That isn’t it. My understanding is it essentially has to do with the position being required for an interaction to happen. It exists as a waveform until some interaction (any interaction) requires the position to be finite for the interaction to take place. That collapses the waveform (aka, the likelihood for all possible positions collapses into just one possibility) and the interaction happens. It has nothing to do with speed, only the need of the position to be known to perform an interaction.
Ok but how do you actually remove consciousness from the experiment? Seriously curious because from my point of view no matter what a conscience agent has to check the results
Use a computer? I guess you could say it all collapses when an actual consciousness checks what state things are at, but that’d be a rediculous claim to make. This is where Occam’s Razor is useful. Why introduce a concept of a consciousness being required when it would function identically but be significantly stranger and more complex?
What is consciousness to the universe anyway? It’s nothing but a system of electrical impulses, and there no reason to think there’s anything physically special about it. It’s just an interesting phenomenon that happened, but fundamentally it isn’t anything special.
I’m totally in agreement that the observer effect is not caused by consciousness, but…
What is consciousness to the universe anyway? It’s nothing but a system of electrical impulses,
This is a claim unsupported by evidence. I submit to you that just as we can explain the observer effect without invoking consciousness, we can also explain cognition without it. We can’t even prove consciousness exists at all! I know I’m conscious because I directly experience it, but I can’t prove to another person that I experience anything, nor can I prove to myself that anyone else experiences anything.
I know my consciousness, memory, and brain are intimately connected. I know that what people describe as a loss of consciousness on my part is strongly correlated with gaps in my memory. I know those gaps correspond to time periods when people tell me I’m unresponsive to stimuli. I even know other people become unresponsive in connection to same kinds of things that cause gaps in my memory, and they likewise describe similar experiences to mine when, say, they ingest substances that I’ve found to alter my behavior, and which feel like they alter the quality of my consciousness.
All of that is to say that we have very good reasons to suppose that consciousness (if it exists) interacts with the world of measurable phenomena all the time, and that other people experience consciousness. But what we can’t do is measure the difference between a conscious being and a p-zombie. There’s plenty of correlation, but correlation is famously not causation, and we don’t have a testable theory that would explain the causal link, or allow us to test whether, say, a cat, a tree, or an LLM is conscious.
Sure I agree it could be that as well but there is no actual way to prove that. Since we don’t actually understand what it is or how it works we can’t remove it, therefore with materialism at this point it’s not provable either way. it’s also another theory and why I started my original comment with maybe. It’s better to explore that data in my opinion then outright deny it without any actual evidence proving it’s not. Occams razor is a cop out here
There’s no way to prove that any god(s) exist or not either. It doesn’t mean we should waste our time with their explanations. The hand of God could be reaching down to set things up just in time for us to see them and that’s exactly as reasonable of an explanation as the universe is aware we’re conscious so sets things up just in time for us to see them. The explanation that requires adding the least number of new things is that interactions cause a collapse of the waveform and it happens then, not waiting for a “conscious” observer.
If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that’s enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it’s less than useless. A god existing makes more sense.
Edit: Also, you can’t explore this “data” because it’s literally impossible to collect information on if you assume it exists. There’s nothing to explore. I guess you can entertain the idea and ask what you’d do differently if you assume it’s true, but I’m betting that’s literally nothing. It’s the same issue as the “universe is a simulation” hypothesis. It’s unprovable and untestable, and the only thing to do with it is assume it isn’t true and keep living life as if it’s real.
Science requires testable and verifiable hypothesis. If they can’t be falsified they aren’t a part of science. They’re a belief system. That’s fine to have, but don’t mix it with science. All you’ll do is end up not accepting more data as we learn it because you’re filtering it through faith.
One day Materialism will be rightfully recognized as cringe
You’re my favourite person in this comment section. never stop learning!
You need to qualify that statement somehow, or maybe give a citation or source that supports such an idea
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:
Thanks for sharing, I’ll take a look when I get a chance!
Thanks for being open minded and at least looking at the data before you draw your conclusion
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.
Please keep cooking until we unlock magical abilities
What is magic dude Fucking biobots man
*Photon
I’d read a piece that even just having a camera present has the same effect.
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.
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
Dammit Jim, I’m a psychologist, not a physicist!
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 🤔
It isn’t “looking” that is meant by “observation”. “Observation” is meant to convey the idea that something (not necessarily sentient) is in some way interacting with an object in question such that the state(s) of the object affects the state(s) of the “observer” (and vice versa).
The word is rather misleading in that it might give the impression of a unidirectional type of interaction when it really is the establishment of a bidirectional relationship. The reason one says “I observe the electron” rather than “I am observed by the electron” is that we don’t typically attribute agency to electrons the way we do humans (for good reasons), but they are equally true.
Edit: a way of putting it is that the electron can only be said to be in a particular state if it matters in any way to the state of whomever says it. If I want to know what state an electon is in, it must appear to me in some state in order for me to get an answer. If I never interact with it, I can’t possibly get such an answer and the electron then behaves as if it was actually in more than one state at once, and all those states interfere with each other, and that looks like wavelike patterns in certain measurements.
Edit 2: just to be clear, I used an electron as an example, but it’s exactly the same for anything else we know of. Photons, bicycles, protons, and elephants are all like this, too. It’s just that the more fundamental particles you involve and the more you already know about many of them, the fewer the possible answers are for any measurement you could make.
So you’re telling me the people from The Secret lied to me?!
I have no idea what that is so I’ll just go with yes, probably!
No, the electron only understands sentient thoughts, if a camera or an animal looks at it, it won’t work.
Well that’s not right
Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the “observer effect” in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment’s results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the “observer” to be conscious (versus merely existent, as in a unicellular microorganism) is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]>
I suspect it was a joke. Can’t be sure though.
I’m pretty confident it’s a joke, but clearly from other comments people may actually believe something like that. It’s best someone corrects it, even if not for the sake of the poster.
Not just sentient, but intelligent thought. I proved it in university. When I setup the lab, I got no interference pattern. When my more intelligent labmate did the setup there were fringes.
Wait! That means I was the sentient one! I was cheated! (Or maybe I just sucked at lab.)
Can’t blame you electron, me too
Electron? Is this some fancy lightning gun experiment?
Me who’s not a physicist
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.
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.
The interference disappearing from measurement is not really because the instrument alters the state. Or, at least, putting it like that occludes the more fundamental reason.
Fundamentally, measurements are subject to the uncertainty principle, which dictates that one can not define precisely the values of two complementary observables at the same time. Position and momentum of any quantum object are such complementary observables, so measuring one – for example position – requires that the other (momentum) becomes less defined.
When the position of a particle is narrowed down to a pixel on a detector screen, its momentum becomes very uncertain and we must talk about all the possible paths for it to have arrived at that point.
The probability of a particle being measured at any given pixel is given by the probability of all possible paths combined[1], with this important quirk: when combining possible quantum states, they interfere with each other, constructively or destructively. Repeated measurements of positions give you what appears to be wave-like interference due to the way the probabilities of all paths interfere.
By checking which slit a particle passes through, you exclude all the possible paths through the other slit and end up not observing the same pattern because the two slits simply do not interfere.
To be more precise, by “combining” I mean state vector addition. Probability is magnitude squared of a quantum state vector. So for a given position, you take all possible paths there, sum their state vectors, then square the resulting vector’s norm (magnitude) to get its probability. The sum of all positions’ individual probabilities will be exactly one - meaning that it will always be somewhere. ↩︎
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.Agreed completely, especially about the clickbait-y titles that are at best half-truths. Quantum mechanics are difficult to grasp even on a surface level for sure.
deleted by creator
