Eyes use visible light . Visible light has a fairly large wavelength . These are smaller hence optical microscopes only see so much then you have to use electron microscopes etc etc
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Zeno Effect confirmed: Atoms won't move when observed
- Thread starter 3phemeral
- Start date
- Status
Eyes use visible light . Visible light has a fairly large wavelength . These are smaller hence optical microscopes only see so much then you have to use electron microscopes etc etc
Just remember the next time you aren't looking at the moon, it may not be there until you look...
TheExecutive
Member
I may or may not have smoked pot before entering this thread. I am confused. So if you watch an unstable atom it won't follow normal rules of nature?
ahah love it
This has nothing to do with life though.
RageWaffles
Member
aw, they're camera shy. they're/we're/everything's adorable ^^
But (to my non-physicist mind) this seems more like a fault in the methods and tools we use to observe/measure them than an intrinsic property of atoms.
But (to my non-physicist mind) this seems more like a fault in the methods and tools we use to observe/measure them than an intrinsic property of atoms.
Jacksinthe
Banned
To be sold as DLC.
brainchild
Banned
It seems like breaking news in quantum mechanics is happening every other week! At this rate, we'll have quantum computers by 2035!
https://youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc
Dr. Quantum rocks! That's a very good explanation on the double slit experiment.
https://youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc
Dr. Quantum rocks! That's a very good explanation on the double slit experiment.
It's primarily because quantum mechanics operates completely different from classical physics. We're trying to understand the quantum world whilst operating in and using classical tools to manipulate quantum objects.
This was my first introduction to the double-slit experiment and it's beautifully simplified. The only thing I don't like is this common description of "if as if it's aware you're looking at it." Sure, it's a "sexy" way to interpret the wonderfully odd behavior but it's also the reason why we have quacks like Deepak Chopra using Quantum Mechanics as some sort of self-help mysticism. Not to say that being less sexy would change things, but I think it would help with preventing some confusion for newcomers trying to understand a very cool phenomenon.
Prax
Member
I like it. Makes sense.
There's no way to "just observe" something, since the act of knowing or observing requires a transfer of information in some way. Usually via measuring instruments using energy in some manner. This will affect whatever it is being observed.
And the explanation seems to be that as soon as you bombard an atom or any particle with something else to measure it, it gets "trapped" in a prison-like stability state instead of the more chaotic nature that it has (Well, maybe in some farfetched way, even "thought/awareness" has an energy we don't know about too that enforces stability, but I am not sure how we'd ever be able to measure that).
I guess this extrapolates to why bigger things outside the quantum level seem "stable" despite being made up of all the chaotic quantum stuff deep inside. It's because everything else gets so bombarded and interacted with that it reaches a state of stability.
But I wonder if we'll be able to manipulate that one day, leading to space travel/teleportation by creating two linked "empty/non-observation" fields. lol
There's no way to "just observe" something, since the act of knowing or observing requires a transfer of information in some way. Usually via measuring instruments using energy in some manner. This will affect whatever it is being observed.
And the explanation seems to be that as soon as you bombard an atom or any particle with something else to measure it, it gets "trapped" in a prison-like stability state instead of the more chaotic nature that it has (Well, maybe in some farfetched way, even "thought/awareness" has an energy we don't know about too that enforces stability, but I am not sure how we'd ever be able to measure that).
I guess this extrapolates to why bigger things outside the quantum level seem "stable" despite being made up of all the chaotic quantum stuff deep inside. It's because everything else gets so bombarded and interacted with that it reaches a state of stability.
But I wonder if we'll be able to manipulate that one day, leading to space travel/teleportation by creating two linked "empty/non-observation" fields. lol
catapult37
Member
Seems like a good time to ask: what's the best, most up-to-date pop quantum physics book?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
That is a Zen koan designed to get you to think about about your subjective perception of reality. It is unwise to apply that stuff to the scientific understanding of the universe.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
So as long as we fuck with an atom, it will always be there to be fucked with. If we stop fucking with the atom, it's like "All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine".
So basically
So basically
brainchild
Banned
Well, I'd argue that it's important for people to understand that you can't watch/observe anything without particles interacting with matter; the two concepts are inextricably connected. It's important for science literacy, because people shouldn't be thinking that their eyes can just magically see things, or that their minds can just magically know things. Humans rely on sensory information for knowledge and that information has to reach our sensors somehow before we can acquire it.
In the case of quantum mechanics, merely saying that the instruments affect atoms isn't that informative, because if we could observe atoms without relying on said instruments, the fact that the instruments affect the state of the atoms would be irrelevant. The reason that we describe observation as the factor that affects quantum mechanics is because it is the observation that necessitates the use of the instruments, since it's the only means we have of directly observing the quantum world.
Sounds like science fiction, but it would be awesome!
Many books on pop quantum have different angles they take on the subject (historical/explanatory), so it depends on what you're looking for.
Here's a good place to start
Melon Husk
Member
Amazing!
LegendofLex
Member
The entire way the conclusion is framed is misleading, since it's not even the "observation" or the "measurement" specifically that causes the preservation of the state: it's the application of whatever specific process(es) they were using to observe them.
This is a problem I have with a lot of theoretical physics: it relies on measurements, when we don't know to what extent the process of measuring may impact the thing being measured, nor what impact the processes under observation have on the accuracy of measurements in the first place. Measurements may trend in predictable ways, and this may even yield apparently practical results, but they don't necessarily suggest how things behave in the absence of measurement. We talk often about "time" and "space" but how often does that construction not depend on time as it is physically measured?
Sexifying terminology is only helpful for pop-science sensationalism but it obfuscates the effort taken in uncover these mechanics. It also encourages the kind of mysticism that undermines appreciation of these advancements where observation is confused with a passive action requiring no interaction.
I think, in terms of avoiding confusion when disseminating the research in a popular-science format, I'd argue that it is more informative. It's the option which is less likely to garner a kind of misinterpretation that favors pseudo-scientific thinking.
It's relevant because the act of observation is a step removed from the behavior that's affected. In these articles, it's interpreted as the observation eliciting a response, which isn't true. It's, as you've said, the instruments required to observe said behavior that does. I'd argue that by stating "such and such methodology for measuring such and such behavior," it is more informative, because I think the natural implication by collecting these results implies that some observation must have taken place but that by making a distinction between observation and measurement, it prevents the correlation that the observation itself caused the change.
brainchild
Banned
It's only misleading when you don't understand the the terminology used from the perspective of the scientific community. It's one of the problems with trying to convey the concepts of complex mechanics to the laymen. Many times it ends up being unintuitive, but that really can't be helped.
Anyway, the abstraction of math exists for a reason, and it is a pillar for theoretical physics and quantum mechanics. In many cases, theoretical physicists will use deductive proofs and equations as a basis for their hypotheses, and then later confirm these ideas (if possible) with real world tests.
It should also be noted that not all instruments use active sensors to measure data. Many sensors are just as passive as the human eye. Either way, particles have to interact with matter before we can see it, and we can never truly know what reality would be like without said interaction, so there's no tangible benefit to science in speculating about things that are unknowable.
Anton Sugar
Member
Ironically, he kinda plays a superhero version of this effect in Mystery Men, where he can only turn invisible if no one is looking at him.
pr0cs
Member
Only if you aren't aware of yourself and no one is looking at you
LegendofLex
Member
Maybe? For example, many of the proofs given for "time dilation" seem to demonstrate that time flows differently depending on velocity, but couldn't it be true that clocks (and other phenomena that involve intervals, like waves, molecular transitions, etc.) are impacted by velocity and therefore behave in ways that simply suggest time dilation? How the hell are we supposed to distinguish between the two? Are we simply to take it for granted that time dilation is an observation of how time behaves, and not simply clocks, waves, molecules, etc.?
Likewise for other phenomena that behave in predictable ways, even predictable ways that extend beyond a few limited circumstances. Are we really measuring "time" (that is, a singular thing that exists independently of the phenomena we're observing) or are we simply measuring "intervals" (not singular overarching things, but individual to the objects being measured)? And if we're not measuring "time," wouldn't it be more useful/accurate/honest to say we're simply measuring "intervals" and that those intervals may vary depending on circumstances?
That's not to discount the value of refining these models, since they are useful and have great predictive power. But it's sort of interesting to see how the discoveries are framed, where observations of the behavior of clocks (even very sophisticated "clocks" that use intervals observed in the real world, or are themselves simply real world phenomena) are conflated with observations of the behavior of time.
In the case of the scenario in the OP, it really isn't at all the case that "continuous observation" is what causes the particles not to decay; there's no reason not to clarify this.
brainchild
Banned
I'm talking about mathematical proofs. In other words, logic or reasoning that is based on certain axioms of truth and then are proven by the conclusions of their theorems or premises. They exist completely in abstraction and do not rely on the physical world to prove that they're true. However, you can experiment in the real world to see if the proofs line up with reality. An example of this are the deductive proofs of arithmetics. We accept them as true because of the proofs, but (for the most part), they also line up with reality.
As for your time dilation example, again, we don't just believe it exists because of real world observations, but because of mathematical extrapolations from concepts like the special theory of relativity. It just so happens that reality also seems to confirm it.
Now, one can also make the argument that there's some unknowable force/factor/variable affecting our perception of reality, but that's not particularly useful information in science. I mean, you could be alluding to fairies and unicorns for all we know, and it wouldn't get us any closer to understanding the world around us.
brainchild
Banned
I don't know what the hell happened, but my original response to this post is gone. Weird.
Anyway, I'll try to make this short. We're arguing different things. Yes, I can see how that video might be misleading. It implies that our eye sight by itself has some effect on quantum mechanics, which is wrong. HOWEVER, 'observation' is a scientific term in this context. It does not end with the human senses. Seeing != Observing, yet many people conflate the two when discussing scientific matters, and that needs to stop.
Observation in the scientific context is a systematic process by which we empirically gather information. This process involves many factors, including human sensory input, electromagnetic radiation, matter, space, time, and scientific instruments. Scientific observation is comprised of ALL of those factors. Just because the laymen don't understand that, it doesn't mean that the scientific community should just stop using the term as an explanation for what is affecting quantum mechanics when we try to gather information about it.
The scientific community should never change the reasoning behind their findings just because people can't understand them. They should just do a better job in helping them understand the terminology.
To put it succinctly, observing an atom affects its state, but merely seeing the atom doesn't.
No arguments there. My qualm is mostly when findings are filtered for pop-science journalism, communicating the understanding is important for the science illiterate (though, Phys.org isn't really guilty of IFLSs brand of reporting).
I get that being faithful to the science language is important also, but if you're also saying things like "it's as if it knows we're watching," you've already taken a massive linguistic license and thus, have a responsibility to clarify what you mean. Granted, it would preferable to avoid describing these wonderfully complex concepts in inaccurate ways to begin with, but that's largely my complaint.
Extra Sauce
Member
A video file or game is usually not playing while you're looking at the code... reality is a simulation confirmed?
brainchild
Banned
I can definitely agree with that. We have to be careful with oversimplification, because it can lead to inaccuracies, regardless of the intent.
Worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq1H0soun-E
Nothing is real. Reality is an illusion brought to life by your consciousness and you can't do anything about it because you've been made to observe data slower than the illusion runs in real-time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq1H0soun-E
Nothing is real. Reality is an illusion brought to life by your consciousness and you can't do anything about it because you've been made to observe data slower than the illusion runs in real-time.
As with most of the weirder principles in physics, time dilation is a result of mathematics making a prediction that was (much) later confirmed by experiments. It's not like we had these weird clock measurements and came up with the theory to explain them. Einstein had a mathematical theory that made all these predictions, and then we went and tested them.
The mathematics that made that prediction allow us to calculate relative time differences in infinitesimally small fractions of a second with both precision and accuracy sufficient to base our entire communications and transportation infrastructure off of those calculations. The predictions the theory makes are about the very nature of the universe itself, it has nothing to do with clocks(that's just the experiment we used to verify it), so it'd be one hell of a coincidence if there was some other strange physics going on that affects clocks only(and all types of clocks even when they are based of completely different mechanisms). It's 100% settled science until someone comes up with a new mathematical model that can make better predictions. Whoever does is going straight to Stockholm to pick up their Nobel though.
brainchild
Banned
Exactly. It's pretty much the foundation of quantum physics at this point. Considering our real world limitations, we're mostly left with theories based in math.
It's kind of ironic when you think about it, considering that Einstein wasn't too hot on some of the speculation about quantum mechanics at the time, yet many of his theories are quite relevant to them!
Sàmban;183052178 said:
I cannot wrap my head around Thomas Warren Campbell's arguments completely. Like, I can even entertain the aspect that consciousness is a finite property, but everything else seems a bit much on the full simulation side.
Then again, it's been ages since I gave his work a go, and his work has a lot of data and points to dig through. I'm much of an Alan Watts guy by saying "it is" and understanding the illusion of a separate self. Everything else is beyond my comprehension in terms of processes.
Hasn't this been around as a theory for a while though?
I definitely remember hearing that it is probable the reason atoms might act unnatural in lab environments is due to the effects of the instruments observing the models.
I know this is being "confirmed" now, but this was a theory that held ground in school, right?
I definitely remember hearing that it is probable the reason atoms might act unnatural in lab environments is due to the effects of the instruments observing the models.
I know this is being "confirmed" now, but this was a theory that held ground in school, right?
Pegosaurus
Banned
????
andrerobot
Member
Can someone explain what this topic is about to someone who is not a DBA?
I cannot wrap my head around quantum physics, neither setup an Oculus Rift.
I cannot wrap my head around quantum physics, neither setup an Oculus Rift.
brainchild
Banned
Don't worry, the quantum world and the classical world have very different physics.
It's not an exaggeration. Shining lasers on atoms is considered observation, according to the scientific definition of the term.
That's correct. You can expect a lot of confirmations of hypotheses regarding quantum mechanics for years to come. These things take time.
Observation in science just means 'the process we use to gather data'. In this case, observation means 'pointing a laser directly at an atom and measuring the atom's behavior'. The results we get from doing this show us that the atom stops moving when the laser interacts with it, and differ from the results we get when we indirectly measure the behavior of the atom when no laser is pointed at it and indicate that the atom moves freely without such observation.
If an unstable atom is suspended in time-space as we've seen when we directly observe it, it will never lose energy as long as we're observing it. It's literally frozen in time-space. Pretty cool!
As a programmer, this feels like a memory management thing. If the process (observer) has an active pointer to an object, the OS isn't allowed to mess with it, but once the process releases the pointer, garbage collection and OS related background tasks can safely occur.
I guess what I'm trying to say is...
Everytime I hear about this it makes me feel like we're in The Matrix and we've discovered a glitch in the system. They're going to reset us, yo.
I guess what I'm trying to say is...
Everytime I hear about this it makes me feel like we're in The Matrix and we've discovered a glitch in the system. They're going to reset us, yo.
brainchild
Banned
The Matrix sounds terrifying. The thought of my actual body existing somewhere else, helpless and vulnerable to imminent death is spine chilling.
That's funny you should say that because of this thing I posted earlier.
What do you make of Jame Gates's Supersymmetry "there's error-checking binary code in the equations of quantum mechanics" theory? I'm certain this is another example of "finding the most parallel, culturally relevant example for the layman." Given that, should we at all be surprised that the universe has error-checking mechanisms that regulate potentially "corrupt" data? I'm probably misunderstanding this mechanism entirely.
Funny you say that, because we have many error-checking binary like forward error-correcting code and Hamming rule, that detects and corrects the solution and cyclic redunancy that detects errors and functions within functions by polynomial arithmetrics. One interesting thing is that on qubit level, the possibilites may be almost unlimited , to be even capable of self-prevention if it predicts failure.
Yep, there's all kinds of funny weirdness to how the universe seems to work that could be explained as part of a simulation.
Of course, it could also be a kind of second order observer effect, where the patterns we expect to find begin to emerge because we expect them to.
I was just thinking the same thing, lol. Universe is trying to save memory by not having to deal with shit until someone's looking close enough.
brainchild
Banned
It's best not to conflate quantum physics with classical physics. Size matters, and apparently, it's a huge factor in how physics behave.
Supersymmetry is like the theoretical physicist version of 'the God of the gaps' argument; it's an ever receding theory that's increasingly showing itself to be completely unnecessary.
The Standard model of physics is pretty solid right now (though recently it's had a few challenges to deal with, like seemingly being wrong about lepton universality), but with all the data we're getting from the LHC, it's becoming very obvious that we don't need Supersymmetry to explain away all the weirdness in particle physics.
As for the error-checking binary code bit, I suppose it's interesting, but I don't put too much stock into science fiction theory's like simulation. I'll leave that to books/TV/movies/games.
- Status