69 points

permalink
report
reply
62 points

For those confused, it’s worth noting the difference between observed as a layman concept and as a quantum mechanical one.

In QM, to observed is to couple the observer to the “system” being observed. Think of it like “observing” your neighbour, over a fence using a BB gun. When you hit flesh, you know where your neighbour is. Unfortunately, the system has now been fundamentally changed. In a classical system, you could turn down the power, until your neighbour doesn’t notice the hits. Unfortunately, QM imposes fundamental limits on your measurements (heisenburg and his uncertainty principal). In order to observe your neighbour accurately, you need to hit them hard enough that the will also feel it and react differently.

QM behaves in a similar way. Initially, the system is just a single particle, and is not very restrained. This allows it to behave in a very wave like manner. When you observe it, the system now includes the whole observation system, as this coupling propagates, more and more atoms etc get linked. The various restraints cause an effect called decoherence. The system behaves ever more like a classical physical system.

In short, a quantum mechanical “observer” is less sneaky watching, and more hosing down with a machine gun and watching the ricochets.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Thanks! I’ve never fully grasped the concept and this really helps.

I’ve always heard it that observing was actually “measuring” and still wasn’t sure why that would impact anything but chalked it up to the quantum world being other-worldly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Honestly physicists don’t actually know what measuring is either. We don’t know when exactly the system is considered “measured” in the chain of entanglement, this is called the Measurement Problem.

Answers range from “shut up don’t think about it” to “there’s an infinite amount of universes split from each other for each quantum event!”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

We know how it works, we just don’t yet understand what is going on under the hood.

In short, quantum effects can be very obvious with small systems. The effects generally get averaged out over larger systems. A measurement inherently entangled your small system with a much larger system diluting the effect.

The blind spot is that we don’t know what a quantum state IS. We know the maths behind it, but not the underlying physics model. It’s likely to fall out when we unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, but we’ve been chipping at that for over 70 years now, with limited success.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

To be honest I still chalk it up to that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Thank you for the explanation! Almost got into an argument a while back because someone was conflating the layman definition with the QM definition as proof of some kinda metaphysical effect of the human consciousness.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Sure, but that still means the photons derender when nobody is watching them

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I mean, how else are you going to optimise an open world simulation this big?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s a pretty misleading explanation. You’re not applying any force to the system by observing it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Depends on how you are observing it photons impart energy and momentum. The true, detailed explanation is a lot more convoluted, it’s all wave interactions, in the complex plane. However, digesting that into something a layman can follow is difficult.

The main point I was trying to get across is that there is no such thing as an independent, external measurement. Your measurement systems minimum interaction is no longer negligible. How that is done varies, but it always changes the target and becomes part of the equations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

“Greg, we got an order for a lot of unobserved results. Take the rest of the week off.”

permalink
report
reply
20 points

I observe what you did there.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

in a nutshell: punch particles in the face, get surprised they behave differently

permalink
report
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.8K

    Posts

  • 97K

    Comments