Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    06 Mar '19 15:311 edit
    @deepthought said
    In your post on page 1 you wrote:
    "However, if there is an effect that depends on the absence of an observer then it is outside physics."

    How do you know it is not the other way around? If an effect depends on an observer then perhaps that is outside physics. Observing changes the result, right?
    The only effects we can measure are ones in the presence of a ...[text shortened]... ian sense, it just means that the theory cannot be falsified making measurements of that prediction.
    I didn't write that, you did. You said outside physics, I did not. That is exactly what I took issue with. You are dismissing one in favor of the other and have not explained why.

    "Observing does not change the results, it creates them, if there were no observer there would be no results - the results being a collection of measurements taken during the experiment.

    No results?That is absurd.
    If you cannot get a result unless it is observed how do they know there is a difference? If that were true we would not be having this conversation.
    If the results are created by observing that is just as bad. If there is a different result from not observing you have the same problem, which one do you trust? That is what I asked you. Which one do you trust? If there are different methods of observing then you should point that out. Don't give me that "outside physics" crap. You are interjecting unnecessary jargon to complicate things. Which one do you reject and why?
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    06 Mar '19 16:20
    @metal-brain said
    I didn't write that, you did. You said outside physics, I did not. That is exactly what I took issue with. You are dismissing one in favor of the other and have not explained why.

    "Observing does not change the results, it creates them, if there were no observer there would be no results - the results being a collection of measurements taken during the experiment.

    ...[text shortened]... crap. You are interjecting unnecessary jargon to complicate things. Which one do you reject and why?
    How do you know there is a different outcome in the absence of an observer?
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    06 Mar '19 17:441 edit
    @deepthought said
    How do you know there is a different outcome in the absence of an observer?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    07 Mar '19 00:17
    @metal-brain said
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
    I'll spell it out: If a tree falls over in a forest with no observers present, how do you know whether it made a sound or not?
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    07 Mar '19 09:22
    @deepthought said
    I'll spell it out: If a tree falls over in a forest with no observers present, how do you know whether it made a sound or not?
    By your logic there should be no observer effect at all. Once again, if you want to point out the different ways of observing, go ahead.

    If you insist on using faulty logic, perhaps you would like to explain how scientists know something different happens when not observed. By your logic they should be completely unaware of it. You are deliberately being overly literal and you know it. Stop obfuscating.
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    07 Mar '19 14:16
    @metal-brain said
    By your logic there should be no observer effect at all. Once again, if you want to point out the different ways of observing, go ahead.

    If you insist on using faulty logic, perhaps you would like to explain how scientists know something different happens when not observed. By your logic they should be completely unaware of it. You are deliberately being overly literal and you know it. Stop obfuscating.
    There is nothing wrong with my logic. You, on the other hand, seem to want to dismiss the theory because the particle is not directly observable when it is inside the potential barrier, but started arguing with my point about observers being of central importance in physics theories. The predictions of the theories are what an observer would see, they don't really predict anything in the absence of an observer. Effects that depend on the absence of an observer are not handled by theories and, by definition, experiment. So, I don't think you are arguing anything consistent.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    07 Mar '19 14:32
    @deepthought said
    There is nothing wrong with my logic. You, on the other hand, seem to want to dismiss the theory because the particle is not directly observable when it is inside the potential barrier, but started arguing with my point about observers being of central importance in physics theories. The predictions of the theories are what an observer would see, they don't really predi ...[text shortened]... by theories and, by definition, experiment. So, I don't think you are arguing anything consistent.
    What theory? This is not the first time I have asked you this. What bloody theory are you talking about?

    You are wasting my time with jargon.
    Here is an excerpt from the Feynman Technique:

    "A lot of people tend to use complicated vocabulary and jargon to mask when they don’t understand something. The problem is we only fool ourselves because we don’t know that we don’t understand. In addition, using jargon conceals our misunderstanding from those around us."

    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-feynman-technique-the-best-way-to-learn-anything

    Stop using jargon to pretend you don't know what I am talking about. There is no shame in admitting that you do now know the answer to something. That is always going to happen in physics. How many sub atomic particles have been discovered so far? You are studying a complex subject. It is impossible to understand everything. Just admit you do not know.
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    07 Mar '19 18:45
    @metal-brain said
    What theory? This is not the first time I have asked you this. What bloody theory are you talking about?

    You are wasting my time with jargon.
    Here is an excerpt from the Feynman Technique:

    "A lot of people tend to use complicated vocabulary and jargon to mask when they don’t understand something. The problem is we only fool ourselves because we don’t know that we ...[text shortened]... e studying a complex subject. It is impossible to understand everything. Just admit you do not know.
    The one about particles quantum tunneling we were discussing from page 1 to here. You are showing signs of not actually knowing what the discussion is about.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    07 Mar '19 21:33
    @deepthought said
    The one about particles quantum tunneling we were discussing from page 1 to here. You are showing signs of not actually knowing what the discussion is about.
    How is the observer effect of quantum tunneling different to the observer effect of the uncertainty principal?
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    08 Mar '19 06:04
    @metal-brain said
    How is the observer effect of quantum tunneling different to the observer effect of the uncertainty principal?
    I don't think they come with different observer effects.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    13 Mar '19 20:54
    @deepthought said
    I don't think they come with different observer effects.
    Then what are you nit picking about? They are both observer effects. What is the difference if I use the uncertainty principal as an example instead of quantum tunneling? I just figured since most of us are familiar with the UP I would use it. Got a problem with that?
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    14 Mar '19 20:22
    @metal-brain said
    Then what are you nit picking about? They are both observer effects. What is the difference if I use the uncertainty principal as an example instead of quantum tunneling? I just figured since most of us are familiar with the UP I would use it. Got a problem with that?
    The uncertainty principle was mentioned briefly on page 2 of this thread. I spent one post correcting what you said and then was talking about the tunneling effect. If this caused you confusion it is your own fault for introducing what you now seem to think is an irrelevancy in the first place.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    15 Mar '19 04:18
    @deepthought said
    The uncertainty principle was mentioned briefly on page 2 of this thread. I spent one post correcting what you said and then was talking about the tunneling effect. If this caused you confusion it is your own fault for introducing what you now seem to think is an irrelevancy in the first place.
    I think you are the one who is confused. You did not correct me at all.
Back to Top