this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
677 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

15724 readers
3044 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kayzeekayzee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Not exactly. Quantum physics applies no matter how you measure it. The double-slit experiment is an example of this: Photons moving through two slits will form a wave interference pattern on a detector plate, even though the detector doesn't affect the position of the photons beforehand.

It's more like: when you become aware of the results of a quantum measurement, you yourself become a part of the quantum system, and being a part of the system requires measurements to have real values. Whether you should interpret this as a wave-function collapse or branching into multiple parallel universes is up for debate though.

[–] Trail@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When you perform the measurement on which slit the particle passes through, then the measuring device is also part of the system and it affects it. The measurement reduces the degrees of freedom in the system so there are no longer two equivalent ways for the particle to pass through the slits (either A or B), but rather you now have a measured slit and an unmeasured slit. Since there are no longer multiple ways to achieve the same result, the is no longer interference due to equivalent probabilities.

Matt Stassler has a nice series of blog posts on this.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, but that's semantics. Clearly the observation has some effect, but it's not from any force we recognize.

[–] Sas@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago

It gets even more interesting: to interfere in the double slit experiment, the light has to take a longer path for some points and light is really good at finding the shortest path. And, since you can extend the double slit experiment to infinite slits with infinitely thin blockers between the slits, you can leave away the slits entirely and still have a valid version of that experiment and get interference. It's just, that most interference is destructive.

Veritasium had a very interesting video about that recently and my extrapolation of this is that there is neither a collapse of wave functions nor multiple parallel universes.

My intuition says that the wave function is there after being "observed". There is no multiple possible outcomes, just very visible ones and a lot of destructive interfered ones.

However what i just wrote is not science but me extrapolating from science so don't take it for anything more than that. It somehow causes quantum physics to make intuitive sense for me so i like it. Nothing more than that.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My example is more in regards to wave/particle duality as it shows up in variations of the double slit experiment. Putting a detector at one of the slits is an active interaction, giving you the particle-like behavior rather than the interference pattern.

[–] kayzeekayzee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What I mean to say is that the detector is not what's changing the particle; It's the process of learning about an aspect of the quantum system that forces it into one state or another (at least from our own personal perspectives).

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 weeks ago

uh, I'm a total quantum layman, but I'm pretty sure its the detector.

[–] pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Why interpret it as either? The double-slit experiment can be given an entirely classical explanation. Such extravagances are not necessary. As the old saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." We should not be considering non-classical explanations unless they are genuinely necessary, and the only become necessary in contextual cases, which the double-slit experiment is certainly not such a case.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

As the old saying goes “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

It may be convenient to look at classical interpretations but "The intuition we evolved to interact with macro systems is also applicable to the micro level" is in itself an extraordinary claim.