Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 15 2019 06:46pm)

Observation isnt a conscious observer. A particle interacting with the photon is an "observer" if its final state is dependent on the properties of the other particle. To actually interact the other particle needs defined values for position, so the wavefunction "collapses" into a specific value so the interaction can happen.

This is also a poor analogy, but unless youre getting into the nitty gritty of interference and QM it should be sufficient to understand where your misunderstanding is, and why calling it an "observer" is a poor choice of wording on the part of physicists.

Quote (Snyft2 @ Mar 15 2019 11:02am)

well first of all, i dont have a physics background and this doesnt help :cry: either you didnt answer my question, or you did and i didnt understand it :wacko:

so try to keep it simple please :blush: what would happen if we did exactly what i said, leave the detector on but dont show what it detected? wouldnt it interfere with the pattern just the same :unsure: ?

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 15 2019 07:04pm)

Yes, it would result in the same pattern because the observer isnt you, its the interferrence mechanism.

Observer in physics isnt a conscious person. Its another particle.

Quote (Snyft2 @ Mar 15 2019 11:09am)

wouldnt everything be way simpler if this was at least mentioned by all those rocket scientists, instead of someone with zero physics background like myself having to devise mind experiments for them to prove obvious shit <_< ?

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 15 2019 07:13pm)

Its just a poor choice of wording.

Calling it an "observer" was just asking for it to be mistaken for a conscious observer.

Quote (Snyft2 @ Mar 15 2019 11:17am)

thats what bugs me the most :wacko: i mean hey, if you are a fucking 300 IQ quantum mechanic motherfucker, you should be able to say "OBSERVER PARTICLE" <_< this annoys me a lot

Quote (Snyft2 @ Mar 15 2019 11:11am)

okay so first of all, if you dont know what this experiment is, you may wanna skip this whole thing :wacko: but if you do, i have a question!

so imagine the situation where you set up the experiment parts, the detector, the screen and all that shit. the screen shows if you got the interference pattern or not. so if you turn on the detector and watch through which slit the photon passed through, you will mess up the interference pattern and get the clump pattern on the screen. there are 2 main ideas as to why this happens: according to copenhagen interpretation, the observer causes the collapse of the wavefunction, and according to theory of the universal wavefunction, the wavefunction never actually collapses due to the observer effect, its just that the detector physically interfered with the photons while recording through heat or some other kind of energy transfer to the photons

to me it seems kinda obvious that there is a very easy way to test this. the detector has two main parts, the one that records what happens (and possibly interferes with the photons), and the one that shows the results to us (shows where the photon passed through, possibly causing the observer effect). what if you simply turned the other part off? like keep the detector on, but dont show where the photon went. that way the device will still interfere with the photons and you should get a clump pattern if there is no observer effect, and interference pattern if there is. and if what i suggested isnt possible, then simply put something instead of the detector that generates a shitload of heat and/or light, like some disco ball sort of shit that will definitely interfere with the photons, and see what happens. has this been done? and if yes, what were the results :unsure: ?

thanks for reading my wall of text :cry: !

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 15 2019 07:18pm)

They arent scientists because they can communicate with the layperson. Different skillset.

Blame the pop science journalists for being bad at their jobs.