Do electrons exist?

[Angrboda]

For me there are two choices.

1. Quantum Theory, when you get down to the nitty gritty, is too boring for me to stay focused for long enough to understand it.

2. I'm not intelligent enough to understand it.

Nevertheless, the way you people talk about it like it's so easy peasy sometimes gets on my goat.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Richard Feynman

[The Grand Nudger]

Any entanglement caused by the proximity of a human being to some phenomena would just be another case of air coming out of a tire.

If you have something else in mind, create a term for it, and stop using the term "observer effect" to launder your misconceptions.

Let me be crystal clear.

I'm not saying whatever it is you think I'm gearing up to say, and neither was the guy in the video.  Here it is again.  The bit I was talking about starts at 9:15 with the punchline being at 9:50.  If you are not willing to engage with the material I was talking about, then say something original enough to provide intellectual interest, or as usual I reserve the right not to respond to you.

I like the video I linked because it introduced a very interesting idea-- that the observer effect works supposedly "in retrospect" because we ourselves are entangled with the particles we are trying to experiment on. That's deep.

The presenter is saying that observation may be entanglement, Benny, not the observer effect, neither of which have anything to do with the universe "watching us". The observer effect isn't something that works ("in retrospect" whatever you think that means..I assume you're using it to comment on how non-locality doesn't violate causality, and may not violate it when the effect is retroactive).

It's not a magic trick, lol- it's something that happens, when, again..... air pressure comes out of a tire as you try to measure it, for example. The observer effect "works" here not for quantum entanglement and not in any way retrospectively. The observer effect presents itself in qm experiments as the instrument effect. We can posit that the observer effect happens between two particles in isolation because the effects of all other interactions and entanglements are filtered out for the model - and, ultimately, this is the reason that qm explanations for classical effects are interesting, but not entirely operative when it comes to something the size of a human being or many of the things we observe. Too many particles interacting to form a sort of interactional stasis for the individual effect of one quantum this or that to present itself in isolation.

The entire universe is entangled. It's a cool video, and QM is neat, but..as usual when you get to talking about qm and how it causes you to choose idealism, it just doesn't mean what you think it does, and you're convinced that these misconceptions are "just semantics".

I'm, like, a choo choo train, man.....we're entangled...and qm demonstrates this. Any disagreement is just semantics.

[bennyboy]

I didn't say that the observer effect makes me choose idealism. It is the inability to represent elemental particles unambiguously in space and time which did that, as I've mentioned in maybe half a dozen other threads we've had about it, and which I've already explained in this thread.

And I'm not trying to say "the universe is waaatchinnng ussss"-- which I've also already said. Relax. I will hereby formally stipulate that an observer is anything which, in measuring a particle, can affect its state or behavior. So. . . we're on the same page, right?

Now, I WILL digress with an observation about the nature of light. We know that for a photon, no time passes in its journey, right? The idea of time is meaningless from the "perspective" of a photon. In essence, the Universe from the perspective of a photon must be a singular point connecting two molecules, the transmitter and the absorber. In at least that frame of reference, it's not moving, and it can't change state.

Now, there's one thing about the experiment that bugs me. In order to generate interference using a splitter mirror, it seems to me that in order for a particle to be reflected, it must be absorbed and re-transmitted-- while this is not necessarily true for a photon which passes through the mirror. But in QM, all possible paths are realized, which means no information was lost in the absorption and re-transmission of an entangled photon. What does it MEAN?

[The Grand Nudger]

Now, I WILL digress with an observation about the nature of light.  We know that for a photon, no time passes in its journey, right?

Negatron, that's what the term "light years" refers to.  Time passes as light travels, even as fast as light travels. Even in entanglement. QE may not violate causality, but that flows both ways. Causality doesn't violate QE.

The idea of time is meaningless from the "perspective" of a photon.  In essence, the Universe from the perspective of a photon must be a singular point connecting two molecules, the transmitter and the absorber.  In at least that frame of reference, it's not moving, and it can't change state.

Nothing that we know makes the idea of time meaningless.  Not even QM.

Now, there's one thing about the experiment that bugs me.  In order to generate interference using a splitter mirror, it seems to me that in order for a particle to be reflected, it must be absorbed and re-transmitted-- while this is not necessarily true for a photon which passes through the mirror.  But in QM, all possible paths are realized, which means no information was lost in the absorption and re-transmission of an entangled photon.  What does it MEAN?

Not what you think.

No, we're not on the same page. You had opinions on the observer effect, which isn't what the presenter was talking about. You imported that, and got it wrong, and it isn't just semantics. Use any words you prefer, any semantics, you still got it wrong. The presenter was simply offering that observation may be entanglement, which is a "no shit" statement..as the definition of both observation and entanglement contain each other as terms in the model. Anything observing any other thing is said to be "entangled" in the qm model, but all things are always entangled regardless of any observation in that same model...and this state of affairs doens't mean anything novel.

Quantum entanglement is the baseline in quantum models, but doesn't mean what people think it does and isn't "the observer effect", which is what you commented on. The observer effect doesnt work because of quantum entaglement, even if all things are entangled. It "works" for other...entirely less (more accurately "more") than quantum reasons.

[bennyboy]

Now, I WILL digress with an observation about the nature of light.  We know that for a photon, no time passes in its journey, right?

Negatron, that's what the term "light years" refers to.  Time passes as light travels, even as fast as light travels.  Even in entanglement.  QE may not violate causality, but that flows both ways. Causality doesn't violate QE.

You might want to reread what I said, your response, and a beginner's guide to physics, bud.

---

No, we're not on the same page.  You had opinions on the observer effect, which isn't what the presenter was talking about.  You imported that, and got it wrong, and it isn't just semantics.  

I just gave a specific definition of the observer effect. If you say we're not on the same page, then you disagree with that definition. Do you? You seem to be trying really hard to hang on to a parenthetical aside I made on like page 1 of this thread. Gotta let it go, dude.

[Little lunch]

Ok, now I don't feel so bad.
Sorry Rhythm. :-)

[bennyboy]

Quantum entanglement is the baseline in quantum models, but doesn't mean what people think it does and isn't "the observer effect", which is what you commented on.  The observer effect doesnt work because of quantum entaglement, even if all things are entangled.  It "works" for other...entirely less (more accurately "more") than quantum reasons.

No, but the quantum eraser effect very much works for that reason, which is what the original video was about.  In that case, the particular observer effect is peculiar to quantum mechanics. The live experiment I linked also shows and explains that.

Here, let me do your move:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

There ya go. Now, be a good dude and go back and check the title of the linked video.

[Abaddon_ire]

Recently I took a class at university called “Systems analysis”, and that was when I fully realized everything we create is a model around a system. So, based on experiments, we know “something” exists, and based on the properties we describe it, and give it a name. So we have electrons. But even though we describe them, we don’t really know what they are. Which as a scientist and future researcher, this is a scary idea because how can I think about the behavior of things I can’t see? Almost any hypothesis is valid since I am free to imagine whatever model I want. How do I know I am on the right track when working with forces I can’t see?

Take the duality of light for example. We created 2 models (waves and photons) of this phenomenon. Not because the light actually behaves differently depending on the situation, but because the models complement each other, meaning that they are incomplete individually.

We humans don’t really fully understand anything, we just grasp things using mathematical models, which are often incomplete. It’s somewhat scary.

Do electrons exist? of course they don't. God created an army of electric spirits whose sole task is to carry charge from point A to point B.

Does this explanation make more sense or less sense?

Can you measure electrons or spirits?

Is there more evidence for electrons or spirits?

Answer those questions and you have your own answer.

As for believing in things you cannot see, do you "believe" in the smallpox virus? Why or why not? After all, you have never seen one.

[bennyboy]

Do electrons exist? of course they don't. God created an army of electric spirits whose sole task is to carry charge from point A to point B.

Does this explanation make more sense or less sense?

Can you measure electrons or spirits?

Is there more evidence for electrons or spirits?

Answer those questions and you have your own answer.

As for believing in things you cannot see, do you "believe" in the smallpox virus? Why or why not? After all, you have never seen one.

Actually, the question is valid, but should be qualified. It depends what you mean by exist. If you mean that they are objects which have independent properties and can be located unambiguously in time and space, then maybe not.

If you mean that there's a measurable transfer of energy in the form of light, then yes, and obviously so.

[Macoleco]

I asked the question in that way to attract more attention. What I explained on the post is what I really meant