"Observation" should really be called "interaction" when referring to quantum effects. The act of observation is actually an interaction with a quantum object that collapsed the wave to a point. We are affecting the quantum object by making a measurement, not by looking at it. If we don't measure it the wave function doesn't collapse until it interacts with the wall. In this case, the wall is the "observation" that causes the wave function to collapse.
I think the term is fine. Interaction is also too broad a term, as there are many ways to interact with something. The main intent here is to observe, interaction just follows from that.
Observation isn't necessary. You can add a photon detector to a double slit experiment and never observe the output. A quantum state will decohere if a particle emits a photon (which it will do as it's over zero Kelvins) and that photon hits anything
In what way is "observation" the best word for a deep infra red photon hitting air or metal that no one sees?
To be fair if the only way to observe you was to smack another person into you or to electrically yank you down a strange corridor then you'd probably change your immediate behaviour.
To a physicist, sure. To the lay public, observe means you’re watching it. If you’re looking away, you’re not observing. When in reality, it doesn’t matter who’s looking, if the particle is interacting with other particles, it’s being “observed”.
It also implies a person observing, and physics was happening for billions of years before there was anything remotely fitting the description "observer"
I mean the word's common meaning. I understand the physics use of the word is not the same as the common word, that's my point. The use of the word has caused enormous confusion with even some physicists claiming that human observers matter (presumably to reinforce religious beliefs)
One of the older social psych frameworks called Social Facilitation says that when we feel watched by others, how comfortable we are with the task determines if we improve or get worse. I'm of course simplifying for Lemmy but you can look to that framework easily.
They tested it with shoe tying vs putting on lab gear, measuring time to finish in the presence of others. Shoe tying got faster while lab gear, being unfamiliar, was slower.
I often give a more modern but dated example as when I play Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, I tend to choke, because it's not really my genre, but of the same era I tend to show off and do better if I'm playing Metal Gear Solid 2, except the skateboard level of course.
I've never read through the wikipedia article, and wanted to see if it mentioned my favorite fact: cockroaches perform better when observed by other cockroaches. IT DID! So cool!
...
and then it said the classical psychology mood killer: no evidence found when the experiment was replicated.
Look, you could give me a multi-million dollar grant and I will wouldn't want to work with cockroaches, lol. (But then again, that's what grad students are for...)
For me, that's the case with basically every animal, buuuuuuuuut... That's what gloves and secure containers are for in lab work. I am going to bet they never had those roaches 'free' at any time. Having them in one secure container that is then attached to another and a panel between them removed would work fine with me.
For anyone that's in for a bit of philosophy about the concept of the panopticon (a prison where everyone is always observed) following the thought of Michel Foucault:
Maybe we behave differently when observed because some of the electrons within us are being observed
Oh man, one of my biggest pet peeves.
"Observation" should really be called "interaction" when referring to quantum effects. The act of observation is actually an interaction with a quantum object that collapsed the wave to a point. We are affecting the quantum object by making a measurement, not by looking at it. If we don't measure it the wave function doesn't collapse until it interacts with the wall. In this case, the wall is the "observation" that causes the wave function to collapse.
Ok, sorry for the interruption, carry on
I think the term is fine. Interaction is also too broad a term, as there are many ways to interact with something. The main intent here is to observe, interaction just follows from that.
Observation isn't necessary. You can add a photon detector to a double slit experiment and never observe the output. A quantum state will decohere if a particle emits a photon (which it will do as it's over zero Kelvins) and that photon hits anything
In what way is "observation" the best word for a deep infra red photon hitting air or metal that no one sees?
Thanks for this interaction
Works the same way for the human version in this Venn diagram.
To be fair if the only way to observe you was to smack another person into you or to electrically yank you down a strange corridor then you'd probably change your immediate behaviour.
I’d like to nominate Observer Effect for the Worst and Most Confusingly Named Thing Ever award.
Funny meme though.
To a physicist, sure. To the lay public, observe means you’re watching it. If you’re looking away, you’re not observing. When in reality, it doesn’t matter who’s looking, if the particle is interacting with other particles, it’s being “observed”.
It also implies a person observing, and physics was happening for billions of years before there was anything remotely fitting the description "observer"
I mean the word's common meaning. I understand the physics use of the word is not the same as the common word, that's my point. The use of the word has caused enormous confusion with even some physicists claiming that human observers matter (presumably to reinforce religious beliefs)
One of the older social psych frameworks called Social Facilitation says that when we feel watched by others, how comfortable we are with the task determines if we improve or get worse. I'm of course simplifying for Lemmy but you can look to that framework easily.
They tested it with shoe tying vs putting on lab gear, measuring time to finish in the presence of others. Shoe tying got faster while lab gear, being unfamiliar, was slower.
I often give a more modern but dated example as when I play Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, I tend to choke, because it's not really my genre, but of the same era I tend to show off and do better if I'm playing Metal Gear Solid 2, except the skateboard level of course.
Edit: hell, the Wikipedia article is even pretty good at describing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_facilitation
I've never read through the wikipedia article, and wanted to see if it mentioned my favorite fact: cockroaches perform better when observed by other cockroaches. IT DID! So cool!
...
and then it said the classical psychology mood killer: no evidence found when the experiment was replicated.
Look, you could give me a multi-million dollar grant and I will wouldn't want to work with cockroaches, lol. (But then again, that's what grad students are for...)
For me, that's the case with basically every animal, buuuuuuuuut... That's what gloves and secure containers are for in lab work. I am going to bet they never had those roaches 'free' at any time. Having them in one secure container that is then attached to another and a panel between them removed would work fine with me.
The observer effect. They don't want your labels!
Electrons, protons and neutrons last time I've checked
So did I.
Is this a programming of physics joke?
Yes
Whoops, I made a typo. I'll leave it in.
Same
For anyone that's in for a bit of philosophy about the concept of the panopticon (a prison where everyone is always observed) following the thought of Michel Foucault:
https://www.philosopheasy.com/p/panopticism-and-power-how-surveillance
True. My wave-function collapses when observed. My state can only be explained in terms of probabilities.
I think one of the universal rules in science is that whatever you observe is going to be modified by said observation