DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is the answer to your question.But it is obvious that it has no effect
This is the answer to your question.But it is obvious that it has no effect
For some reason? Really? Are you seriously saying you don't understand why it is obvious that the results would be the same?
Not sure what you are saying so let me restate the issue.I dont understand why you dont understand these objects are considered as the same and why you dont distinguish the fact that you could change the screen.
Just as the lab table is not a variable in the experiment, neither is the screen.No.
why you dont distinguish the fact that you could change the screen.
Just as the lab table is not a variable in the experiment, neither is the screen.
You don't need to explain your idea again. Your ideas are simplistic enough that they can be captured in one go.You have to be carefull as soon as you are doing some experiment, not to interfer with the result.
This is most ever important when you are doing a quantic mecanic experience (because of the "feedback effect" that can occur)
Some scientists think there is a loop within the expeerience and the observer.
Likewise, it is "possible" that the sneakers of the observer could have an effect on the result. After all, in your own words: "...a loop within the experience and the observer."It is possible that the screen (any type of screen), as part of the experience, could have an effect on the result.
No. This is nonsense.Changing the screen consist in "breaking" the link with the next screen.
Also nonsense.You need to choose a new screen on the basis of quantic random to be sure to have changed it.
You don't need to explain your idea again. Your ideas are simplistic enough that they can be captured in one go.
It doesn't change the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about. To-wit:
Likewise, it is "possible" that the sneakers of the observer could have an effect on the result. After all, in your own words: "...a loop within the experience and the observer."
Dicart said:Changing the screen consist in "breaking" the link with the next screen.
No. This is nonsense.
That's why you need to defer to people who know what they're talking about.
Also nonsense.
'observer' in QM terms is not a person; it is any external system that interacts with the test system. That system need be no more than a collection of particles that are not entangled with the test system.The observer and the observed are linked together.
'observer' in QM terms is not a person; it is any external system that interacts with the test system. That system need be no more than a collection of particles that are not entangled with the test system.
This is what QM specialists are saying, despite your interpretation. Pop-sci media is still promoting the antiquated, archaic notion that a living observer is required for QM interactions.
Look, you are reading your sources in a vacuum of learning. Instead of making assertions here, you will do better to ask if you ideas are right, and others can then correct your misunderstandings.
On the contrary, it is trying to teach you something important to a proper understanding of QM.On what is based your interpretation that i dont know this (very basic) fact ?
If you have something interesting to say relativ to what i have writen, just do it, do not use "what you think what i am supposed to know" as an argument (because it is not a scientific argument).
You could spare yourself this useless writing.
Can you tell we what he has teached me, please ?On the contrary, it is trying to teach you something important to a proper understanding of QM.
Look, if you really think changing the screen between each detection could affect the outcome, do you suppose an experiment exploring this would not have been reported by now?
Do you think you have some unique insight that has escaped the physics community?
Or do you think there is some conspiracy to avoid reporting experiments that upset the model?
Either is quite absurd.
There is no reason, in QM, to think changing the screen has any more effect than replacing a wire in one of the circuits. If you think differently, it is up to YOU to make the case, in terms of QM theory, as to why it might do so. Simply asserting that it should be done won’t do.
Don't be silly. We know perfectly well that you are nothing of the sort.i am a scientist after all
No. You need to make a case to us as to why changing the screen might make a difference. For it to do so, you will need to argue that detection of one spot somehow influences the position of the next. Nothing in QM says this would happen: on the contrary, the position of each detection is expected to be independent of the preceding ones.Can you tell we what he has teached me, please ?
So everytime someone propose a new experiment you will tell him this is absurdity because someone has probably already done it ?
So everytime someone propose a new insight you will tell him this is absurdity because someone has probably already tougth it ?
Conspiracy ?
What do you think the goal would be ?
You have strange reasoning...
It is absurd to say it is absurd without any reasoning.
It is up to you to proove me that :
1. The experince have already be done (on my side i can not proove that something doesent exists, i am a scientist after all).
2. The experience will surely not add any knowledge.
No. You need to make a case to us as to why changing the screen might make a difference. For it to do so, you will need to argue that detection of one spot somehow influences the position of the next. Nothing in QM says this would happen: on the contrary, the position of each detection is expected to be independent of the preceding ones.
And you are not a scientist, that is plain to everyone here.
dicart said:Changing the screen.... in this case, doeent only consist on taking the next screen you have handy.
Changing the screen consist in "breaking" the link with the next screen.
You need to choose a new screen on the basis of quantic random to be sure to have changed it.
And you are not a scientist, that is plain to everyone here.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a "link".You dont even understand the words i am using...
What do you dont understant when i say this :
Changing the screen consist in "breaking" the link with the next screen.
"quantic random" is not a thing.You need to choose a new screen on the basis of quantic random to be sure to have changed it.
Exact. You're not a scientist. Don't try to act like one.Exact.
I am not one of those 21 centuries scientist (mathematic parrot guy).
Exact.I am some crow predator
The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a "link".
Exact. You're not a scientist. Don't try to act like one.
Crows like shiny baubles and yelling at other crows. They don't know science, and they don't make up stuff on science forums.