Physicists Finally See Light as a Particle and a Wave at the Same Time

[grmcdorman]

Which is exactly what the article says: a machine 'observes' the electrons, resulting in the QM determination. Absolutely no consciousness involved.

This mistake is very common with non-physicists, especially ones given to theological or "new age" interpretations. Bottom line is that the system, or event, needs to be detected by something: a machine, a piece of film, a lump of rock in space, a hydrogen ion in an interstellar gas cloud - or any eye. The QM determination happens when it is detected (e.g. in your eye), not when your consciousness receives the input from your eye.

[LionKing]

Which is exactly what the article says: a machine 'observes' the electrons, resulting in the QM determination. Absolutely no consciousness involved.

This mistake is very common with non-physicists, especially ones given to theological or "new age" interpretations. Bottom line is that the system, or event, needs to be detected by something: a machine, a piece of film, a lump of rock in space, a hydrogen ion in an interstellar gas cloud - or any eye. The QM determination happens when it is detected (e.g. in your eye), not when your consciousness receives the input from your eye.

first thanks for taking time to comment on this.
what is being argued by the pro-consciousness group is that the machine is an extension to our consciousness. we are observing behind it, so it is observing, maybe arguably, consciously, but

what I want to know is the other point of view: HOW does the machine interfere? this is the basic question that I want a scientific answer for. had it been that explainable, the article wouldn't have referred to this as strange in a sense. thnx

[Andromeda]

what I want to know is the other point of view: HOW does the machine interfere? this is the basic question that I want a scientific answer for. had it been that explainable, the article wouldn't have referred to this as strange in a sense. thnx

I don't think anybody really knows.  Hence "quantum weirdness".

[grmcdorman]

With respect to the "pro-consciousness group", I think it's sophistry. In particular, if you follow that argument to the ultimate point (reductio ad absurdum), the universe did not exist before there was consciousness.

There is no apparent link between the object "measuring" or "sensing" the event and a final, conscious, observer; as far as we can tell, all that is required is that something "senses" the event.

As to why "sensing" the event causes the QM determination, as Andromeda says we don't really know. QM is weird, and not just in this way; at this level our everyday experiences are not only not applicable but interfere with understanding what is going in. I can say, as mentioned above, that it is not possible to observe a system without interacting with it in some way; i.e. the act of observing necessarily affects the system being observed. (Note I say system and not event; you can observe the effects of an event without directly affecting the event itself, but the system - everything connected to the event - must be affected in some way.)

[Andromeda]

Yup.

A macro scale example of observation/measurement interacting with a system would be the act of measuring the temperature of a cup of hot water with a mercury thermometer.  By the very nature of it, the thermometer must take some heat energy from the water (which then expands the mercury and provides a reading).  There is no way to use a thermometer to "observe" the temperature of water without changing the temperature of the water.

Hope that makes sense, I'm on my phone!

[LionKing]

Yup.

A macro scale example of observation/measurement interacting with a system would be the act of measuring the temperature of a cup of hot water with a mercury thermometer.  By the very nature of it, the thermometer must take some heat energy from the water (which then expands the mercury and provides a reading).  There is no way to use a thermometer to "observe" the temperature of water without changing the temperature of the water.

Hope that makes sense, I'm on my phone!

albeit we understand that the thermometer takes the heat and it is in direct contact with the particles. can we say this about the observer here??

also see this if you want, especially to the end..

but I have to re-watch it as I don't claim I understood fully.. OMG my brain will burst..

take care

[Andromeda]

Well - what does "direct contact" mean?  On a quantum level, interactions are different.  That's why it's so difficult to understand - it is at odds with our everyday understanding of how things work.

I might watch the video later.

[Luke Pemberton]

I will add to this with Heisenberg. Many scientists were really uncomfortable with the uncertainty principle (UP) because they believed it meant that we cannot measure a system accurately. They understood that the uncertainties in QM meant that physics could not be measured with certainty. A great misconception with undergraduates is to take the same world view, and take the naive understanding that the UP means that quantum systems have error which cannot be resolved.

What many people do not understand it the dx (position) and dp (momentum) are non-commuting operators in quantum theory, so as we observe one with more certainty, the less we know about the second. John Gribbin explains this in a beautiful way that makes sense (even in the weird of QM).

dx describes the wave part of the quantum wave function and dp the particle part of the quantum wave function. If we set up an experiment to make dx small we can determine more about the wave but little about the particle. If we set up an experiment to make dp small we can determine more about particle part but less about the wave part. In other words, depending on the conditions of how we observe, we can see something behave as a wave or something as a particle, but never both at the same time.

Point being is that the nature of observing in itself has meaning at the quantum level, and by the very nature of quantum mechanics, the notion of of observing is embedded in quantum interactions with the film, eye, CCD as they themselves are quantum in nature.

[Andromeda]

They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"

"No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies.

The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!"

The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?"

"We do now, asshole!" shouts Schrodinger.

The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.

[Luke Pemberton]

They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"

"No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies.

The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!"

The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?"

"We do now, asshole!" shouts Schrodinger.

The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.

Heard it many times before, but still makes me laugh. I'm a sucker for physics jokes.

[Echnaton]

Ernest Rutherford splits.

[Luke Pemberton]

Ernest Rutherford splits.

You're spoling me. Stop it 

Bar tender says 'Sorry, we don't serve tachyons in here.'

A tachyon walks into a bar.

[LionKing]

Ernest Rutherford splits.

You're spoling me. Stop it 

Bar tender says 'Sorry, we don't serve tachyons in here.'

A tachyon walks into a bar.

I prefer poetry here to jokes 

"And I'd choose you
 in a hundred lifetimes,
 in a hundred worlds,
 in any version of reality,
 I'd find you and
 I'd choose you"
 -THE CHAOS OF STARS

[Trebor]

Which is exactly what the article says: a machine 'observes' the electrons, resulting in the QM determination. Absolutely no consciousness involved.

I like to replace the word 'observes' with 'hit by a hammer' or just 'hits', it gives a more accurate impression.

[grmcdorman]

'Activates' would work too, I think.