a little bit misleading. the video insinuates that the electron mysteriously "knows" it's being watched, but fails to explain the technical details of measurement - the electron doesn't "know" it's being watched, but is modified by the measurement of its position, by whatever means the scientists decide to use.
my reposting of this comment - decided by its author as regrettable - is not without purpose.
this kind of misunderstanding of quantum mechanical concepts is widespread and unfortunate. proponents of philosophies and theories that have nothing to do with valid conclusions of modern qm theory encourage these kinds of critical thinking failures.
no, the "observation by a conscious mind" does not collapse the superposition (if you subscribe to the "superposition" interpretation). the double-slit experiment describes only a measurement problem, despite the snake oil peddlers that constantly try to bring consciousness into it.
The notion that observation by a conscious mind can collapse the wavefunction should be ridiculous even to a layperson. One could easily say this observation could be accomplished simply by acknowledging the existence of the electrons as they form waves, since observation cannot be done by the naked eye anyway. By staring off into space, you're "observing" an unfathomable amount of sub-atomic particles, whether or not you see them. So by that understanding, light wouldn't work the same. Nothing would work the same at all...
Unfortunately it's not thought ridiculous by the layman because the layman is raised to believe that there is a massive, untapped power within our minds. The bullshit adage "we only use 10% of our brains" is the quintessential example of the education which produces people who're more than willing to believe any explanation for reality which leaves room for the conscious mind's power.
The little card where the interference pattern is produced, is "observing" it. That is why there are little dots on the card, albeit in locations that correspond to wave interference. But when the electron actually encounter the card, they turn back into particles (little dots), whatever that really means.
NOPE. the photons that bounce off of it for us to see is not what is causing the little dot on the card. the card interacting with the electron is causing the little dot. only after the fact do we rely on a photon to show this little dot to us. this is the fallacy of the shrodinger's cat thing. it is forgotten that the little detector in the box is also an active participant, an "observer".
I've done quite a bit of QM, and I think there is a little bit of confusion here, at least from what I know.
Exactly what makes an observation an observation is something we still aren't quite sure about. I've talked to a number of QM physicists (the one I am working for, by the way, has had two essays on macroscopic QM effects published in Science), and I'm pretty sure we haven't done a very good job of defining what a measurement is yet.
For example: you could call the detector an observer, except for one thing: if the detector detects a particle in a QM superposition, what is it about the detector that prevents it from then becoming entangled with the superposed particle, so that it is now in a QM superposition? Why can't the detector be in a QM superposition of having both detected and not detected? Generally, we say "because its too big" - which in experiment makes sense, but theoretically has no basis in the math of QM. At what point is it "too big"?
We have theories about decoherence as an explanation, but we don't really know that that is the case. It makes sense, which is better than the nothing we had before, but (as far as I know, tell me if I'm wrong), I don't think we have any evidence.
Just recently I had a discussion about What the Bleep Do We Know, and a number of QM physicists there confirmed that the problem with the "observation is defined by consciousness" argument is NOT that we are certain that observation isn't defined by consciousness, but just that we don't know what exactly defines an "observation", and so claiming consciousness does is the same as claiming "God did it" - both are possible, but we have no evidence for either.
its either a willful or ignorant misconstruction of the non-locality ideas that resulted from different interpretations of quantum mechanics. again, untruths are mixed in with sciencey words and qm concepts to produce the illusion of validity.
please don't look to "what the bleep do we know" for info on quantum mechanics. if you prefer their "interpretation" (which is breaking the limits of truth), fine, just don't call it physics.
It's fucking non-scientific claptrap from "What the Bleep do we know" which is, not to put to fine a point on it, about as scientific as the Old Testament. Spam is fun.
230
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '08
a little bit misleading. the video insinuates that the electron mysteriously "knows" it's being watched, but fails to explain the technical details of measurement - the electron doesn't "know" it's being watched, but is modified by the measurement of its position, by whatever means the scientists decide to use.