Thread 16750360

A blind man walks through a park one day. His cane hits a ball, and the ball bounces away. He exclaims "My goodness! The ball bounced from the simple act of observation! Incredible!".

A ball lays in a park. It has no sense. But it knows that in the park an unknown number of blind men prowl around.
At one point a blind man hits the ball and the location of a blind man gets known. You can figure out the rest of the story from here yourself because I don't know where I am going with this.
And that ball? Wilson Heisenberg.

>>16750408
>It has no sense
But it knows that in the park an unknown number of blind men prowl around.
the absolute state

>>16750411
>>16750360 (OP)
so anyway, why havent you submitted this to the scientific community at large?
its almost as if youre intentionally misrepresenting the issue

>>16750418
The only ones misrepresenting the issue are scientists clickbaiting normies with popsci headlines claiming that atoms change their behaviour purely because of human conciousness.

>>16750454
>he thinks "observation" means "by a human"
TOPJEJ

>>16750418
>anime girl poster
tranny

>>16750457
what are you trying to say?

>>16750492
"Observation" simply means "an interaction with some particle in a relevant field which changes some measurable property." It does not require a human be there to see it. An example would be a photon interacting with an electron bound to an atom, promoting it to a higher energy level - the observable change is the light that doesn't interact vs the light that does (an absorption band in a spectrum).

>>16750360 (OP)
cool it with the anti copeism cud

>>16750495
nigga I know that, my opening post is making fun of the people who pretend that observation means just looking and not interacting, ergo creating quantum woo bullshit for normies to lap up

my point is that the fact that when we interact with a thing it changes is not actually that fucking surprising

I can't explain it myself but I think it goes deeper than that, it's not just about the observation doing stuff to the particle.

Sorry about the pop sci reference but this topic is addressed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJZ1Ez28C-A

>>16751196
It literally is
>fire electrons through a slit
>they hit the wall in a pattern
>shoot photons into the electrons
>they go of course and the pattern changes

It's really not so mindblowing.

>>16750360 (OP)
The problem is that it's presented as some sort of Schrödinger's particle, which is in "two potential states at the same time, wow~~!!", when all the experiment actually does is illustrate how hard it is to accurately observe anything at such incredibly tiny scales, because the only way we can observe what happens is by using a method that also disturbs the particles and ruins the whole experiment by changing the affecting the measured output.