Would that also mean if a tree falls in the forest it always makes a sound because there’s always “someone” around to hear it? It sounds like we could say that the air or ground is “observing” the sound waves or impact made by the collision?
I think a tree falling is a little different from the double slit experiment, because the outcome of a tree falling will always be the same. That question is a little more philosophical about whether the pressurized air waves a falling tree makes are actually “sound” or whether it’s the interpretation of those waves done by our ears and brains that actually counts as “a sound”
The double slit experiment actually has two different outcomes, and that’s just some of that freaky quantum voodoo shit.
Yeah, the ambient temperature of the air should prevent the formation of a superposition afaik. And a tree would be too large to be in superporition in any likely scenario anyways.
Kind of, but I think that’s an altogether different question. The tree question is a philosophical one, basically asking whether sound is an objective element of reality or a subjective perception. The observer question is a scientific one, asking what conditions cause the interference pattern to collapse into two lines.
Not because there’s someone, but because it fell and caused the air to vibrate aka sound. Has nothing to do with “observing”.
I’m honestly sick of this rhetoric. “observing” for us humans requires a sense to be triggered, which most commonly would by our eyes and for that we need light. In quantum physics, that’s a problem, largely because even that tiny bit of light is a fucking nuke in this context. By the time it comes back to be picked up by the sensor, it has done its deed and changed everything. Similar issues with non light related ways of measuring.
This video has a lot more info, but she briefly mentions the experiment to further build on another popular myth. It’s such a refreshing channel to watch after all the quick pop science videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U
“Observe” in the double-slit experiment means placing detectors in each slit. Once you do that, the particles start acting as particles only. Without detectors you get the interference pattern. Doesn’t matter in either of the two setups if an actual human is looking at it or not.
Observer in this context doesn’t mean consciousness, but things such as detectors. If humans were replaced by robots and the robots did the same experiment, they would still see the interference pattern. It’s a common misconception that “observer” in the context of the double slit experiment means being observed by a conscious being.
“Observe means observed by a conscious being”
Can something without consciousness make an observation?
Yes, for example a photodiode can make an observation. Or a computer, or a photographic film.
That makes sense.
Would that also mean if a tree falls in the forest it always makes a sound because there’s always “someone” around to hear it? It sounds like we could say that the air or ground is “observing” the sound waves or impact made by the collision?
I think a tree falling is a little different from the double slit experiment, because the outcome of a tree falling will always be the same. That question is a little more philosophical about whether the pressurized air waves a falling tree makes are actually “sound” or whether it’s the interpretation of those waves done by our ears and brains that actually counts as “a sound”
The double slit experiment actually has two different outcomes, and that’s just some of that freaky quantum voodoo shit.
The tree could land in a different way though. Presumably until it’s observed it’s in all possible positions and rotations it could potentially be in.
Although presumably not because there’s always something observing it even if that thing isn’t self-aware and is in fact just a rock.
Yeah, the ambient temperature of the air should prevent the formation of a superposition afaik. And a tree would be too large to be in superporition in any likely scenario anyways.
Kind of, but I think that’s an altogether different question. The tree question is a philosophical one, basically asking whether sound is an objective element of reality or a subjective perception. The observer question is a scientific one, asking what conditions cause the interference pattern to collapse into two lines.
Not because there’s someone, but because it fell and caused the air to vibrate aka sound. Has nothing to do with “observing”.
I’m honestly sick of this rhetoric. “observing” for us humans requires a sense to be triggered, which most commonly would by our eyes and for that we need light. In quantum physics, that’s a problem, largely because even that tiny bit of light is a fucking nuke in this context. By the time it comes back to be picked up by the sensor, it has done its deed and changed everything. Similar issues with non light related ways of measuring.
This video has a lot more info, but she briefly mentions the experiment to further build on another popular myth. It’s such a refreshing channel to watch after all the quick pop science videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U
Yes
“Observe” in the double-slit experiment means placing detectors in each slit. Once you do that, the particles start acting as particles only. Without detectors you get the interference pattern. Doesn’t matter in either of the two setups if an actual human is looking at it or not.
Observer in this context doesn’t mean consciousness, but things such as detectors. If humans were replaced by robots and the robots did the same experiment, they would still see the interference pattern. It’s a common misconception that “observer” in the context of the double slit experiment means being observed by a conscious being.
Does a camera have consciousness, or would the footage change after viewed by a human?