Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: My thought experiment for quantum mechanics, take a look :)

  1. #1 My thought experiment for quantum mechanics, take a look :) 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    I was thinking about wave functions and how they behave, see if you can explain this :

    If an artist made a small model car, and placed it in a steel box and buried it where then absolutely no life form could observe the model car inside. Then the artist dies telling absolutely no one of his model car, 200 years later someone by random digs up the box and see's the car inside, how did the wave functions know to collapse to form the shape of the model car made of particles, when the only observer who knew about the model car to make that model car possible is now dead ? In a simpler term, how did the wave functions know to collapse to make the particles take on the physical shape of the model car when the only life form that knew its existence is now dead.

    In theory, when the artist died he should of took all knowledge of the model car with him no longer making for it possible to exist ! But an observer 200 years later can still see the collapsed wave functions of that car !

    Every particle is a wave as well, this wave is a wave of probability- when observed the likely probability is played out in the form of a particle, the point is I'm getting at, is how did the probability know to play out as a particle in the shape of the model car, when the only person to have observed it had died, but yet the probability of the particles to make up the car still exists. I hope I have made it more clear.

    This to me says that the wave functions or the universe holds memory, even after the only observer ( the artist ) died matter still knew to take on the shape of the model car for the next observer.

    Or, the less probable theory - The artist now exist in a higher dimension where he still has observed memory of the model car which is why the wave functions know to collapse into the shape of the model car.

    What do you think ?


    Last edited by shootthenoob; July 14th, 2014 at 03:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post
    where then absolutely no life form could observe the model car inside
    "Observation" doesn't mean "being looked at by a life form".
    And the quantum indeterminacy doesn't "occur" at the scale of car.
    Otherwise the Ford Cortina in your garage could turn into a British Rail cheese sandwich overnight.
    (And thus probably double in durability, if not in value).


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    Yes observation does mean being looked at by a life form, for there is absolutely no other way for something to be observed. And yes quantum indeterminacy does occur at the scale of a car because the microscopic world makes up the macroscopic world, Yes I will fully admit that in the macroscopic world the number is so small that it is plancks h but it still has a measure which can not be ignored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post
    Yes observation does mean being looked at by a life form
    No it doesn't.

    for there is absolutely no other way for something to be observed
    Yeah, the unfortunate thing here is the choice of the word "observation".
    In QM it means ANYTHING that "takes a measurement" that is to say, anything that interacts.
    "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being..."

    And yes quantum indeterminacy does occur at the scale of a car
    Yeah, you're wrong again.
    On the scale of a car the indeterminacy is so "smeared out" that it's utterly insignificant - it simply doesn't happen.

    but it still has a measure which can not be ignored.
    Really?
    Any citations for that?
    When was the last time any macro object "changed" due to quantum indeterminacy?
    I recently came across a piece of junk at the back of drawer (spring cleaning!) that I hadn't seen for 15 years. It was exactly as I remembered it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    "Yes observation does mean being looked at by a life form"

    Again it does, non biological matter can not observe non biological matter, ergo there wave functions can no longer collapse, there MUST be a conscious lifeform to collapse the wave function, no life form = no collapse of the wave function.

    Quantum indeterminacy DOES come into effect, just because something is exstreamly small that you cant notice it, does not mean it is not there, if newtons law of gravity was off by 00000.1 it would mean his laws are false, but there not.

    please explain in detail, how the wave function knew to collapse for the second observer when the first and only observer died, taking all information with him. The only way to disprove this theory is to say that wave functions do not need a conscious observer, when they do - even the fact that top physicists are trying to solve consciousness to figure out that anomaly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    Sorry but this is so full of misconceptions it is "not even wrong". I think you need to do some studying before pontificating on a subject you clearly don't understand, there are people here (myself included) who will help you learn but as you arrogantly keep making incorrect statements I'm not inclined to take the time needed to help you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post
    Again it does, non biological matter can not observe non biological matter
    Nonsense.

    there MUST be a conscious lifeform to collapse the wave function, no life form = no collapse of the wave function.
    More nonsense.
    You're wrong:
    an observation in quantum mechanics is best thought of as an interaction with another particle (technically: a classical system). It doesn't have to involve a conscious observer.
    experiments have proved that it's the setup that causes the "collapse" .... the collapse happens even when no human/living-entity is watching.....
    Observers do not need to be conscious. The chair I'm sitting on functions as an observer. A piece of white paper functions as an observer.
    The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions

    In case you hadn't realised the underlined sentences are supporting (of my stance) links - something you've failed, completely, to give.
    If all YOU have to support your claim are empty assertions you're wasting my time.
    Go away, get an education and stop posting crap.

    Quantum indeterminacy DOES come into effect
    Really?
    And the requested citation for this would be... where, exactly?

    just because something is exstreamly small
    I didn't say "small" I said "smeared out".

    please explain in detail, how the wave function knew to collapse for the second observer when the first and only observer died, taking all information with him. The only way to disprove this theory is to say that wave functions do not need a conscious observer, when they do
    What?
    This is meaningless word salad (and/ or a gross misunderstanding of something you've read somewhere).
    What "first observer"?
    What "second observer"?
    What makes you think the "first observer" "took all the information with him"?
    (And your final clause - "when they do" is, once again, YOUR (incorrect) interpretation, not actual physics).
    It's therefore rather hard for ME to "explain in detail" a problem that depends entirely on an interpretation that's not only wrong but exists only in YOUR head.

    even the fact that top physicists are trying to solve consciousness to figure out that anomaly.
    You've just made this up (since the "anomaly doesn't exist - it's (apparently) predicated entirely on your own misunderstanding of quantum indeterminacy).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    you two have seriously miss understood what I'm getting at, and fyi I know lots about this field. I have taken the time to do some research in this debate and it turns out that nethier of us is correct because no one actually knows if you need a conscious observer to make the observation, the end answer is always this
    "how do you know if collapse has happened, even if no human is watching? "

    Moreover I think it is you who has done the miss understanding

    here is your citation :

    http://www.livescience.com/27137-uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    Then I'll leave your ignorance intact. :shrug:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    I will try put it another way for you, and by me arguing my point does not make me ignorant, by you calling me ignorant makes you a facist, because I don't agree with you.

    Every particle is a wave as well, this wave is a wave of probability- when observed the likely probability is played out in the form of a particle, the point is I'm getting at, is how did the probability know to play out as a particle in the shape of the model car, when the only person to have observed it had died, but yet the probability of the particles to make up the car still exists. I hope I have made it more clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    PhD, you're arguing with a child who knows nothing about quantum mechanics. He's read some popular article, didn't understand it, but is convinced he knows more than the science community.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    I've actually taught undergrad QM courses so me calling you ignorant is not "facist" but what we call an "informed assessment". Your attitude is not inclining me to waste any more time on you, I'll leave you to the duck...EDIT at Alex, you're probably right, I can't be bothered with it today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    battleing with a few virgins is hardly a walk in the park for me, look at the citation, its PROOF! you cant deny proof just because you dont want to accept it. Not stating I know more than the science community, but the science community are retarded and can not grasp such a simple thought experiment, infact, everything you through at me I can disprove, you dont like it so you at like babys and cry, its sad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Like I said, an uneducated child.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    And now you're trolling, pathetic really
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    awwh, proof to much for you? this forums and its members blow, I posted this thought experiment on 3 other forums all of which grasped the concept and gave useful insight, the end result I have concluded is this, No one, especially you 3 retards understands quantum mechanics, all that we can to is try to interpret it, my thought experiment trys to make sensce of something that just cant be made sensce of.
    Also notice the " duck " shut up as soon as proof was shoved up his ass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    *shakes head in pity, adds another window licker to the ignore list and walks away*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    We've studied it, and some of us teach it, but after all, a 22 year old dropout certainly knows more than those who have worked in the field longer than he's been alive.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    If your so smart, answer the question, if the car always existed that means the probability wave must also always exist for the wave function to collapse to make the particles for the car to exist for the second observer, yes or no ? honestly I have no idea why that is " stupid " of me to say. If you disagree give me your reasons why and I well try and debate them, which is exactly what I intended to do, if you win the debate with hard evidence, I will gladly say you are correct, but since you cant then why should I say you are correct all you do is name call, well mature.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    if the car always existed that means the probability wave must also always exist for the wave function to collapse to make the particles for the car to exist for the second observer, yes or no ?
    The probability wave for each particle resolved as soon as it came into contact with any other particle. "Observation" is the wrong word, interaction is the correct term. More would be students of quantum mechanics have been screwed up by Bohr's misuse of the word "Beobachtung" than by any other single term.

    You may now go back to watching your cartoons.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    So by the act of wave particle duality " interacting " ment that the car was always there ?
    You may go back to faffing over your cactus now...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post
    So by the act of wave particle duality " interacting " ment that the car was always there ?
    You may go back to faffing over your cactus now...
    It was a car when it was placed in the box, it was a car when it sat there with no one looking, and it was a car when the box was opened.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post
    If you disagree give me your reasons
    I've GIVEN my reasons. And links that actually support them with science.

    why and I well try and debate them, which is exactly what I intended to do, if you win the debate with hard evidence, I will gladly say you are correct, but since you cant then why should I say you are correct all you do is name call, well mature.....
    Yeah, this is bollocks.
    All you've done is make claims that are wrong. And failed, in every way, to support them except by repetition.

    ou two have seriously miss understood what I'm getting at
    Nope, you started off with a misconception and simply repeated it. Even after being informed you were wrong.

    and fyi I know lots about this field
    That has already been shown to be false.

    I have taken the time to do some research
    Obviously not.

    in this debate
    This is also where you're wrong: science isn't a debate.

    and it turns out that nethier of us is correct because no one actually knows if you need a conscious observer to make the observation
    Wrong again. See my previous link - second one in post #7.

    Doesn't support your claim.

    and by me arguing my point does not make me ignorant
    Actually it does.
    You've been shown where and how you're wrong.

    by you calling me ignorant makes you a facist
    No, it makes me up-to-date on the science.

    because I don't agree with you.
    Science is about facts, not "agreement".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    due to the fact the particles were interacting with each other? does this mean that other wave particles duality's cancel out each others wave function ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    It's not canceled, it's resolved.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post

    What do you think ?
    I don't think it really needs to be that complicated. We can get ourselves in knots when treating wavefunction collapse as real. There are a variety of different interpretations out there on whether or not a collapse of the wavefunction really occurs.

    My bias is towards those interpretations that do not treat the collapse as real, but rather a classical illusion relating to the fact that when looking for a classical solution, you interrogate the quantum system with a classical measuring device. My personal views support the notion that our 'classical reality' is merely an emergent condition arising from the quantum domain.

    Classical particles are described quantum mechanically as a mathematical wavefunction. We cannot attribute any properties to a wavefunction until after measurement. The way for a classical observer to view this wavefunction is in the properties described by this wavefunction's superposition of states (which are called eigenstates)
    The eigenstates of the wavefunction represent the ways that this wavefunction can only be described classically once measurement occurs and the classical expressions of this superposition of states is defined in terms of probabilities which is described by the schrodinger wavefunction. The schrodinger wave function fully describes the probabilities of where and when the properties of a classical particle will take following measurement.

    In this interpretation of QM, an original unknown wavefunction is interrogated by a measurement through an interaction to determine it's classical properties. What appears to be happening here is that in this interaction event we are superimposing a new *known* wavefunction associated with the measuring device on top of the original wavefunction to resolve the orthogonal components of this new merged wavefunction and hence confirm the classical variables of this new merged wavefunction. The measuring device is throwing a contrived wavefunction with defined classical eigenstates at the wavefunction under investigation so that the merged solution will provide classical answers to the questions thrown at it. This interrogation looks at orthogonal relationships between the eigenstates of the mesuring device and the wavefunction under investigation. Whether or not a collapse actually occurs is hotly debated but those interpretations which do not treat collapse as real can contend with QM issues surrounding conterfactual indefiniteness and locality in a far more straight forward manner. I tend to feel that simply a new wavefunction and its superposition of eigenstates (which describes the prior collapsed interpretation) then exists and on any future measurement will then merge with further contrived wavefunctions seeking classical information.

    With macroscopic systems, the vast array of interactions going on IMO result in the loss of coherence of an original confined quantum superposition and hence creates the appearance of wave function collapse. This viewpoint is referred to as Quantum Decoherence.


    Last edited by Implicate Order; July 14th, 2014 at 07:13 PM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    shootthenoob

    Let me extract a few quotes from your remarks above.

    I will try put it another way for you, and by me arguing my point does not make me ignorant, by you calling me ignorant makes you a facist, because I don't agree with you.
    battleing with a few virgins is hardly a walk in the park for me, look at the citation, its PROOF! you cant deny proof just because you dont want to accept it. Not stating I know more than the science community, but the science community are retarded and can not grasp such a simple thought experiment, infact, everything you through at me I can disprove, you dont like it so you at like babys and cry, its sad
    No one, especially you 3 retards understands quantum mechanics,


    You're new here. But not so new that you couldn't have noticed that these sorts of remarks are not acceptable.

    Have a couple of days off to rethink your vocabulary and adjust your attitude.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,450
    I was going to ask the noob an unscientific question: if I were to be the first to observe a new star wink into existence then who saw it before I did? I had to work up the nerve just to say that but thank goodness I waited until now.....

    Noob guy caught a dose of the Dywyds, which is not a bad thing if you treat it right. The Dywyds is actually akin to a warning sign that your forum health is at serious risk. Easy cure for it, all you have to do is swallow your pride and eat some humble pie, then it just goes away. Trouble is, the Dywyds lie dormant and can reawaken in an even more lethal form if one once afflicted returns to their original bad habits.

    Edit: forgot to mention that it's also highly contagious, best avoid getting too close to someone who's got the bug.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Quantum Mechanics
    By human_being in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 30th, 2013, 07:11 AM
  2. Just a thought - Quantum Mechanics Related.
    By miran.lol in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 30th, 2010, 08:42 PM
  3. What is Quantum Mechanics?
    By TheScienceNerd in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 5th, 2010, 07:43 PM
  4. Quantum Physics Thought Experiment
    By wgulstad in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 8th, 2010, 11:14 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 21st, 2009, 05:30 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •