Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

as_a_fake t1_j258j7b wrote

Reply to comment by AutoModerator in [WP] Quantum Physics responds when things are being observed. For some reason, the universe doesn't consider you to be an observer, and daily life can get pretty weird when no one is watching. by akschurman

Just in case anyone doesn't know, the reason quantum mechanics phenomena change when observed isn't that it knows something concious is watching, it's because to observe something you have to have a particle bouncing off of it. For example, the reason we can see things is that there are particles of light bouncing off of them.

The problem with this is that all particles, light included, carry some amount of energy/momentum, so when they bounce off of the subatomic particles we want to observe, it changes the state of that subatomic particle the same way a ball bouncing off of another would change the 2nd ball's speed/position. This is why it's called the "uncertainty principle", because to observe something we have to bounce something off of it and extrapolate based on that, so we are "uncertain" what the particle we want to observe was like before the interaction.

All of this is just in case people wanted an explanation for this phenomenon, not because I think anyone actually thought it worked like in the OP.

Edit: clarifying a bit

45

Ctotheg t1_j25m6a3 wrote

This is an excellent explanation bc the prompt is based on a common misconception (no problem still a good prompt). But specifically your explanation hits all the parts I was nebulous on.

13

akschurman OP t1_j25phqj wrote

Thanks for the explanation. I'm keeping the prompt as it is, since it's fun, but I actually learned something here. My understanding, even from science videos, was that something's state was "undecided" until it was observed, upon which it instantly "snapped" into one of its possible states (alive or dead). This was also the basis of the "multiverse theory", where it "snapped" into all possible states, with each one being it's own resulting reality.

Your explanation, while less fun, does make more sense.

10

as_a_fake t1_j25ykli wrote

> I'm keeping the prompt as it is

Oh Absolutely! This was never meant to correct you (writing prompts aren't supposed to be reality or what's the point?), just as an explanation for people who were curious.

8

Mic_Check_One_Two t1_j26q1q8 wrote

> This was also the basis of the “multiverse theory”, where it “snapped” into all possible states, with each one being it’s own resulting reality.

Not to be that guy, but a fairly recent study in quantum entanglement won a Nobel prize because they proved that the particles do “snap” into the possible state. Or rather, that you can suspend the possibility of it being one result of the other, and predict which it will be. Essentially, researchers discovered that it’s less “Schrödinger’ cat” (where the answer is some combination of “both” and “neither”) and more “this is already a red ball or a blue ball, but this room is too dark to determine what color I just grabbed.”

Basically, the particles are binary; They’re either positive or negative. No in between. So they entangled two particles, which means that they always do the opposite of one another. If one particle measures positive, the other is always negative. It doesn’t matter how far apart those particles move. You could put them on opposite sides of the galaxy, and they’d still always be opposite one another when measured. It has some neat ramifications for things like long distance communication and quantum computing, because if you manipulate a particle on one end, you could potentially send data to the particle on the other end. Like the world’s most complex cups and string.

What won the Nobel prize was when a team discovered that they do “snap” into place when you observe them. Or more accurately, that if you measure the first particle, the second particle is then hung in suspension until you measure it. When you observe one particle, then later observe the other, the second particle will still read opposite what the first did. Even if time has passed.

Prior to the discovery, it was believed that you had to measure them at the same time, because the states are only known when measured, and it was believed that they were always in flux. But the team proved that isn’t the case; You can wait a while, and predict what the second particle will be based on the old results of the first particle. This also technically means that the first particle is hung in suspension, (rather than being in flux) and we simply don’t know what the result is yet because we haven’t measured it.

6