42d
@shavixmir saidTell me what?
I don’t know.
But when we tell you, you seem to find it very hard to believe. Like what would be our gain in lying about how scientists and researchers use the term observe?
None.
I didn't say scientists were lying. I said some are ignorant. Some think a conscious mind is required and that is not true. Some scientists do not know they are not "seeing" an electron.
Sad but true. They are interpreting the word "observe" differently and getting it wrong.
@Metal-Brain saidYes. The scientists are wrong and you are right.
Tell me what?
I didn't say scientists were lying. I said some are ignorant. Some think a conscious mind is required and that is not true. Some scientists do not know they are not "seeing" an electron.
Sad but true. They are interpreting the word "observe" differently and getting it wrong.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120956
41d
@Metal-Brain saidAre these the same scientists who invented and use electron microscopes to “observe” objects smaller than the human retina can “see” ?
Some scientists do not know they are not "seeing" an electron.
Asking for a scientist.
@shavixmir saidNo most scientists are right just like I am. Some scientists think that observe means to see.
Yes. The scientists are wrong and you are right.
You are the one who is going against scientific consensus.
"Einstein saw the same problem with the observer-driven idea and congratulated Schrodinger for his clever illustration, saying, "this interpretation is, however, refuted, most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + Geiger counter + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains the cat both alive and blown to bits. Is the state of the cat to be created only when a physicist investigates the situation at some definite time?"
Since that time, there has been ample evidence that wavefunction collapse is not driven by conscious observers alone. In fact, every interaction a quantum particle makes can collapse its state. Careful analysis reveals that the Schrodinger Cat "experiment" would play out in the real world as follows: as soon as the radioactive atom interacts with the Geiger counter, it collapses from its non-decayed/decayed state into one definite state. The Geiger counter gets definitely triggered and the cat gets definitely killed. Or the Geiger counter gets definitely not triggered and the cat is definitely alive. But both don't happen."
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/
41d
@Ponderable
Einstein agreeing with me didn't convince you?
Last paragraph in the article in the link below:
"In summary, quantum state collapse is not driven just by conscious observers. Unfortunately, many popular science writers in our day continue to propagate the misconception that a quantum state (and therefore reality itself) is determined by conscious observers. They use this erroneous claim as a springboard into unsubstantial and non-scientific discussions about the nature of reality, consciousness, and even Eastern mysticism. To them, Schrodinger's Cat is not an embarrassing indication that their claims are wrong, but proof that the world is as absurd as they claim. Such authors either misunderstand Schrodinger's Cat, or intentionally misrepresent it to sell books."
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/
41d
@Metal-Brain saidWTF.
No most scientists are right just like I am. Some scientists think that observe means to see.
You are the one who is going against scientific consensus.
"Einstein saw the same problem with the observer-driven idea and congratulated Schrodinger for his clever illustration, saying, "this interpretation is, however, refuted, most elegantly by your system of radioactive ...[text shortened]... happen."
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/
Seriously dude. I’m the one who explained what’s meant by observation and now you’re saying you are the one, using what I explained to you.
Are you thick or something?
41d
@shavixmir saidYou did not explain anything I did not already know. Einstein agreed with Schrodinger.
WTF.
Seriously dude. I’m the one who explained what’s meant by observation and now you’re saying you are the one, using what I explained to you.
Are you thick or something?
The observer effect is caused by an interaction. It would be helpful if they called it an "interaction effect" instead of an "observer effect". Many people including scientists are confused because they think observe means to "see" in this context. You know it is bad when some scientists are this clueless.
41d
@Suzianne saidhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/07/the-biggest-myth-in-quantum-physics/
The role of the mind is interpretation.
And stop spamming the thread!
You don't need the same post more than once.
Stop telling me what to do on MY thread! Don't like what I post then leave and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
@Metal-Brain saidNo. Go and read your original post.
You did not explain anything I did not already know. Einstein agreed with Schrodinger.
The observer effect is caused by an interaction. It would be helpful if they called it an "interaction effect" instead of an "observer effect". Many people including scientists are confused because they think observe means to "see" in this context. You know it is bad when some scientists are this clueless.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120956
@Metal-Brain saidIT’S MY THREAD!!!! ðŸ˜ðŸ˜«ðŸ˜
Stop telling me what to do on MY thread!
Classic tantrum 😂
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120956
41d
@divegeester saidHey @Metal-Brain
Are these the same scientists who invented and use electron microscopes to “observe” objects smaller than the human retina can “see” ?
Asking for a scientist.
Care to explain these “observations”?
41d
@Metal-Brain saidLook, just admit you know less than nothing about science, especially physics.
@Ponderable
Einstein agreeing with me didn't convince you?
Last paragraph in the article in the link below:
"In summary, quantum state collapse is not driven just by conscious observers. Unfortunately, many popular science writers in our day continue to propagate the misconception that a quantum state (and therefore reality itself) is determined by conscious observer ...[text shortened]... l books."
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/
It's more than obvious on these forums.
You've got to be a Republican. When called out you change your tune to what some expert says. You barely know enough to walk erect.
41d
@Metal-Brain saidSchrodinger would say there is a 50% chance that YOU don't exist.
No most scientists are right just like I am. Some scientists think that observe means to see.
You are the one who is going against scientific consensus.
"Einstein saw the same problem with the observer-driven idea and congratulated Schrodinger for his clever illustration, saying, "this interpretation is, however, refuted, most elegantly by your system of radioactive ...[text shortened]... happen."
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/
41d
@Metal-Brain saidYou're ignorant.
@sonhouse
Why is Kastrup making the false assumption that a conscious mind is required to get an interaction between a photon and an electron?
Some scientists are ignorant. Right?
But you're not a scientist.