Randomness/Determinism and Quantum Uncertainty and Observer Principle

[INRM]

Okay,

Tell me if I'm correct here, Determinism basically states that there is no randomness, and that the reaction of something in the future can be predicted by tracing the reactions that occured before it, and can actually be used to trace the ones that will follow.

Quantum-physics however features an element of uncertainty, which makes it different from determinism.


Okay, my next question comes down to... the observer principle in quantum physics -- which states that the observer is necessary. Does the observer simply mean an object that interacts with the "uncertain" variable? Or does it mean it has to be a sentient-being?

Because I don't really understand why a human would be so special since we are basically just a bunch of chemicals and electrical activity. Why would our observation change the system?

I mean shrodinger's cat strikes me as rather absurd. The cat is either alive or dead until someone sees it? Nonsense, the cat is alive or dead whether anybody peers in and takes a look. The fact someone took a look just enables us to know whether the cats dead or alive.


Am I missing something
INRM

[Darat]

A lot.

[The skepTick]

Okay, my next question comes down to... the observer principle in quantum physics -- which states that the observer is necessary. Does the observer simply mean an object that interacts with the "uncertain" variable? Or does it mean it has to be a sentient-being?

Because I don't really understand why a human would be so special since we are basically just a bunch of chemicals and electrical activity. Why would our observation change the system?

INRM

You have reached the intersection between the physical and the metaphysical. Remember, it doesn't matter if you don't understand it...no one does. In the two -slit diffraction experiment, interference patterns occur until you try to look at what's going through any one slit. In Schroedinger's cat box, the superposition of dead/alive states holds the same explanatory power as the "we don't know" state. Once you pin yourself down to a particular view, you may find yourself believing in multiverses splitting off at each decision point, Bohm advanced waves to prepare the wall for interference, etc. These issues should be posed even if they sound ridiculous because some enterprising genius may figure out a way to test them...and that's how we arrive at the non-local universe.

[orange31]

Am I missing something?



You're having trouble wrapping your mind around quantum physics, since your brain (via half a million years of evolution) operates on classical physics.

You're in good company - Einstein, Feynman, even Bohr.

That's why most quantum guys only look at it by mathematical equations, and consider attempts to visualize it a waste of time, for the philosophers.

[INRM]

The SkepTick,

When you say interference patterns, do you mean that particle wave duality thing that happens with electrons? Does an observer really matter? Sure you wouldn't see it if you weren't looking...

What does a "non local" universe mean?


Orange31,

Well yeah the brain operates on classical physics, but that doesn't seem to make it impossible for humans to understand quantum physics to some extent. Some humans can though.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

What does a "non local" universe mean?

Nonlocality has to do with the speed of light. An example would be something changing something else faster than a beam of light could have traveled between them.

LLH

[thesyntaxera]

A lot.

How enlightening.

If anyone can actually explain this in lay terms I would also be greatly appreciative.

[Reality Check]

Okay,

Tell me if I'm correct here, Determinism basically states that there is no randomness, and that the reaction of something in the future can be predicted by tracing the reactions that occured before it, and can actually be used to trace the ones that will follow.

Quantum-physics however features an element of uncertainty, which makes it different from determinism.


The evolution of a quantum system is deterministic. There is a partial differental equation called Schrodinger's Equation that determines this. Probabilities (not randomness) come into play when somebody wants to make a measurement of a property of the system. That someone is called an observer.


Okay, my next question comes down to... the observer principle in quantum physics -- which states that the observer is necessary. Does the observer simply mean an object that interacts with the "uncertain" variable? Or does it mean it has to be a sentient-being?

Because I don't really understand why a human would be so special since we are basically just a bunch of chemicals and electrical activity. Why would our observation change the system?

I mean shrodinger's cat strikes me as rather absurd. The cat is either alive or dead until someone sees it? Nonsense, the cat is alive or dead whether anybody peers in and takes a look. The fact someone took a look just enables us to know whether the cats dead or alive.


Am I missing something
INRM
You are missing the mathematics. This states that the cat is both dead and alive until someone makes a measurement.

The observer is necessary since without them there is no measurement. Without measurement there is no way to experience the universe, e.g. every photon that hits your retina is a measurement. However if we were not interested in learning about the universe then the observer can be anything, e.g. a leaf converting a photon into chemical energy. As soon as anybody wants to learn about the universe then they have to become an observer. This implies that an observer has to be a sentient-being (but not necessarily human).

One point of view is that any measurement by anything changes the system but the change does not mean anything to an observer until they observe it.

There are all sorts of wonderful and strange things about quantum physics. Have a look at the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur-Vaidman_bomb-tester).

[Dancing David]

Um, there are two kinds, maybe three of determinism, philosophical determinism is the idea of the clock maker reality, given information one can predict the outcome of a situation. This is the mistaken use of determinism.

Determinism also refers to causality, that ultimately at some classical macro scale a determination can be made into the causes as they relate to an effect. In other words the relationships can be determined.

Determinism is also an error in thinking about evolution.

As far as the observer thing, superposition also called the Copenhagen interpretation is a way of interpreting QM in semi classical terms. It is not a reality, it is a way of approaching the reality of QM.

Particles are waves. It is easiest for me to think that way, they are waves all the time, before, during and after every interaction. What changes is the area of the wave function in intersections with other waves. In higher momentum interactions the wave cross section of interaction can be very small and point like.

Observers are not necessary, the stars that shine in the Andromeda galaxy did so before we ever observed the photons and they required a very specific QM interaction to get around the Coulomb interaction between protons. (If the theory is correct), we can see photons from the cosmic background radiation (300,000 years after the big bang) and galaxies at red shifts that might indicate they are very close to the edge of time. They all shine from interactions that occurred a long time ago.

The deal is that an interaction with another particle constrains the position of both for a brief period. If you bounce a photon off an electron it constrains the electrons position briefly (Bounded by HIP). But the wave function does not collapse, it intersects with another wave function and produces a brief area where a certain constraint is put on the wave nature of both particles.


That is my laymans mish mosh of it.

[hodgy]

I consider myself a determinist but I do not draw a distinction between what is and what wll be. All things are and will be as they are and will be. The distinction between things being caused (determined) or not (random) is irrelevant. Whether an event is caused directly or provides its own first cause doesn't really matter to determinism.

[zosima]

This might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

The jury is still out on 'fundamental determinism'. Right now it depends on how you want to interpret the experimental results of quantum mechanics.

I personally favor determinism, but it has been proven that for that universe to be deterministic there have to be non-local hidden variables. This is very hard to believe from a classical point of view. Basically what that would mean is that the state of a wave/particle would be determined by some sort of instantaneous interaction with every other wave/particle in the universe. I think many physicists find this more distasteful than a probabilistic interpretation because this would make it impossible to properly control any experiment.

As many have mentioned previously, what interpretation is true ends up depending more on metaphysics than physics.

[INRM]

How can there be determinism and be randomness and probabiities?

[zosima]

How can there be determinism and be randomness and probabiities?

If a deterministic interpretation of quantum physics is correct then the probabilities demonstrate our inability to accurately measure and our limited knowledge.

For example, imagine your friend is supposed to drive from New York to Los Angeles and this friend happens to be notoriously unreliable. It takes several days to make this drive. One day prior to your friend's expected arrival you might say "My friend has a 25% chance of arriving tomorrow." You make this prediction based upon the fact that your friend has been reliable one quarter of the time in the past, but not based upon any contact you have had with your friend(ie he didn't call you and tell you he had left). Since it takes longer than a day to drive, whether your friend will arrive on time or not is already predetermined by the decision he made in New York before you made your prediction.(ie whether he is driving to Los Angeles at this very moment). The 25% doesn't reflect any indeterminism in the universe only your limited knowledge about whether or not your friend is currently driving to Los Angeles.

Another similar situation is the Monty Hall Problem, where the location of the prize is predetermined and the probability represents your information on the of location of the prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

[The skepTick]

The SkepTick,

When you say interference patterns, do you mean that particle wave duality thing that happens with electrons? Does an observer really matter? Sure you wouldn't see it if you weren't looking...

What does a "non local" universe mean?


Interference between the waves of photons (or electrons or atoms or molecules) coming from two slits would still occur whether or not there was an observer. This is easily explained when you consider these objects as waves. However, it also occurs when photons (or electrons, etc.) are fired individually at the two slits. They must go through one slit or the other, but the pattern of "illumination" that builds up on the screen is exactly one of interference. Once you try to observe which slit a single photon goes through, the interference pattern breaks down. So, the question becomes how does the photon know where to go on the back screen after it passes through one of the slits? That is a basic question that we have no answer for. Hypotheses range from an advanced wave (or particle) being emitted before the actual one and that this is what the photon interferes with, or that their are hidden variables within each photon that predetermine where it will arrive, or that the single photon actually splits into two and goes through both slits, essentially interfering with itself.

As for locality, the universe is considered local when forces and energy transfer are limited to the speed of light. So, if the sun disappears, we won't know for some 8 minutes. We share a local universe with the sun. This provides some measure of order in that information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light. However, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen produced the so-called EPR Paradox, a thought experiment they used to highlight a particular problem with Quantum theory. Basically, as you've already brought up, the particular quantum properties of a particle (we'll use photons here) are unknown to some degree until a measurement is made...i.e. a wave-function collapse occurs. There are some processes which produce two photons simultaneously, and these two photons must obey conservation laws, so if one has a clockwise polarity, the other must have counterclockwise polarity. But Quantum theory says you can't know what the polarity of one of the photons is until you measure it. Note - I didn't say you "don't know" - I said you "can't know". In essence, the photon doesn't even know so in our example, both photons are in some superposition of left and right polarity. The EPR paradox said that, by virtue of the conservation laws, once you take a measurement of the properties of one of the photons, the properties of the other are immediately established...immediately as in instantaneously, no delay time. If these two "entangled" photons travel billions of light years apart, once the polarity of one is determined, the other is immediately fixed, which means the universe is non-local.

So that was the paradox and is something Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". In 1964, John S. Bell published an experiment that could be performed to determine whether the EPR Paradox was valid. These were called the Bell Inequalities and in the early 1980's, Alain Aspect and others performed this experiment and showed that the EPR Paradox was invalid and that the universe was indeed non-local. Another triumph for Quantum Mechanics.

Some will argue that these two entangled photons are like a pair of shoes. No matter how far they travel apart, once you "measure" one and determine it is the left shoe, you immediately know that the other must be the right shoe. However, this is a common mistake because what quantum theory is saying is that their are no left/right shoes. Rather, each is a superposition of both shoes. It is the act of the measurement that forces one to become either a left or right shoe.

Weird enough for you? It's certainly counterintuitive, but physicists are using these properties of entanglement and non-locality to build actual quantum computers in which the answer to a problem is really a superposition of many answers so the computer can likewise be performing many problems. If realized, it will revolutionize the way we make certain computations.

[orange31]

Weird enough for you? It's certainly counterintuitive, but physicists are using these properties of entanglement and non-locality to build actual quantum computers in which the answer to a problem is really a superposition of many answers so the computer can likewise be performing many problems. If realized, it will revolutionize the way we make certain computations.

That's encouraging, as the sense I got - at least from mainstream physics profs - was that career-wise, nonlocality research was a dead-end in their profession.

For the OP, this may be helpful-

http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf

[The skepTick]

For the OP, this may be helpful-

http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf

Thanks for the link!

[INRM]

Interference between the waves of photons (or electrons or atoms or molecules) coming from two slits would still occur whether or not there was an observer. This is easily explained when you consider these objects as waves. However, it also occurs when photons (or electrons, etc.) are fired individually at the two slits. They must go through one slit or the other, but the pattern of "illumination" that builds up on the screen is exactly one of interference. Once you try to observe which slit a single photon goes through, the interference pattern breaks down. So, the question becomes how does the photon know where to go on the back screen after it passes through one of the slits? That is a basic question that we have no answer for. Hypotheses range from an advanced wave (or particle) being emitted before the actual one and that this is what the photon interferes with, or that their are hidden variables within each photon that predetermine where it will arrive, or that the single photon actually splits into two and goes through both slits, essentially interfering with itself.

But how does an observer affect this? Wouldn't it look the same way if a camera took picture of it from the same position of either eyeball or the position of both your eyes put together?


As for locality, the universe is considered local when forces and energy transfer are limited to the speed of light. So, if the sun disappears, we won't know for some 8 minutes. We share a local universe with the sun. This provides some measure of order in that information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light. However, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen produced the so-called EPR Paradox, a thought experiment they used to highlight a particular problem with Quantum theory. Basically, as you've already brought up, the particular quantum properties of a particle (we'll use photons here) are unknown to some degree until a measurement is made...i.e. a wave-function collapse occurs. There are some processes which produce two photons simultaneously, and these two photons must obey conservation laws, so if one has a clockwise polarity, the other must have counterclockwise polarity. But Quantum theory says you can't know what the polarity of one of the photons is until you measure it. Note - I didn't say you "don't know" - I said you "can't know". In essence, the photon doesn't even know so in our example, both photons are in some superposition of left and right polarity. The EPR paradox said that, by virtue of the conservation laws, once you take a measurement of the properties of one of the photons, the properties of the other are immediately established...immediately as in instantaneously, no delay time. If these two "entangled" photons travel billions of light years apart, once the polarity of one is determined, the other is immediately fixed, which means the universe is non-local.

Oh, I know what you mean with non-locality stuff. I just didn't know what it was called.

[Reality Check]

It would look the same way if a camera took picture of it from the same position of either eyeball or the position of both your eyes put together. In fact that is basically the way that 2-slit experiments are done. Nobody bothers to watch the interference pattern build up (or not). There is a camera to do it.

But my guess is that you want to know what the result of the experiment was. Thus you have to become the observer and look at the camera's image. This also apples to any entity in the universe that want to know the result of the experiment. The observer can then compare the expected results with the observed results.

[PixyMisa]

There are all sorts of wonderful and strange things about quantum physics. Have a look at the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur-Vaidman_bomb-tester).
That's beautiful.

[Beerina]

Nonlocality has to do with the speed of light. An example would be something changing something else faster than a beam of light could have traveled between them.

LLH

Apparently for quantum mechanics, you'd have to give up on one of two things, both of which were esthetically distasteful to Einstein:

1. Locality -- two particles interacting faster than the speed of light between them.

2. Reality -- that particles and things "out there, in the real world" actually exist with definite, real properties (like mass, position, and so on)

[godless dave]

Okay, my next question comes down to... the observer principle in quantum physics -- which states that the observer is necessary. Does the observer simply mean an object that interacts with the "uncertain" variable?

Yes.


Or does it mean it has to be a sentient-being?

No.

[Third Eye Open]

...........................

Because I don't really understand why a human would be so special since we are basically just a bunch of chemicals and electrical activity. Why would our observation change the system?



It's just that the computer program is saving memory by only loading in sections of the world that the players are looking at.

[Almo]

There are all sorts of wonderful and strange things about quantum physics. Have a look at the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur-Vaidman_bomb-tester).
That's beautiful.

Woa. :hit:

[INRM]

It's just that the computer program is saving memory by only loading in sections of the world that the players are looking at.


Huh?

[thesyntaxera]

It's just that the computer program is saving memory by only loading in sections of the world that the players are looking at.Huh?

A simulated universe proponent?

[INRM]

That could be what Third Eye Open was getting at. I don't believe that's the case though.

Hypothetically... (For the sake of mental masturbation, hypothetically) would that mean there is no randomness in total?


INRM

[INRM]

Well, I thought I'd have a little fun with it

[The skepTick]

But how does an observer affect this? Wouldn't it look the same way if a camera took picture of it from the same position of either eyeball or the position of both your eyes put together?


Basically, anything that you do to try and pinpoint what slit a photon goes through is enough to destroy the interference pattern. An electron, for example, has a de Broglie wave associated with it and will create an interference pattern in an appropriate 2-slit experiment. Same is true for individual atoms and even molecules. Suppose your slits had a nanowire to measure the electric field as the electron went by. You fire individual electrons and some will take the left slit while others the right. The pattern you build up is a Gaussian curve directly behind each slit, just as you would expect if you had two different electron guns positioned at each slit.

However, remove your wire so you can't tell which slit the electrons are going through, and you get an interference pattern building up. It's as if the electrons are too shy to interfere with one another while being observed.

BTW, since you started this thread, researches have used quantum entanglement to create the first entangled visual image...of a cat! The image is fuzzy, but you can tell something is there. Of course, I had to take liberties (http://wayofthewoo.blogspot.com/2008/06/first-quantum-image-shows-ghost-skulls.html) with what the image was supposed to be...because it looks like something else entirely.

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Apparently for quantum mechanics, you'd have to give up on one of two things, both of which were esthetically distasteful to Einstein:

1. Locality -- two particles interacting faster than the speed of light between them.

2. Reality -- that particles and things "out there, in the real world" actually exist with definite, real properties (like mass, position, and so on)
From what I understand, you don't have to give up #2, Reality. You just have to give up the notion that things like "a proton" or "a quark" actually exist with definite real properties. They are similar to "a cat" or "a house", which are discernible patterns even though it's nigh impossible to point to physics and say "there, that equation describes houses". Instead the thing-described-by-the-wavefunction exists, and one of the most common patterns in it we label a "photon". It's not physics' fault that our brains evolved to intuit tigers and billiard balls rather than the wavefunction. Oh wait it is physics' fault.

Here is an attempt to explain quantum physics that involves no more math than algebra: Quantum Physics Revealed As Non-Mysterious (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/quantum-physics.html). Warning: it is quite long. But the posts (and often but not always comments) are quite good.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If someone here can please give me some object that can be observed without using any form of energy in that observation I will answer everything you wish to know.

[INRM]

Just out of curiousity, does the observer principle only pertain to photons? Or are electrons included, or is that particle-wave duality (with the electrons) partially different.

Does the Heisenberg-Uncertainty principle depend on the observer rule? Or is that seperate?

[The skepTick]

Just out of curiousity, does the observer principle only pertain to photons? Or are electrons included, or is that particle-wave duality (with the electrons) partially different.

Does the Heisenberg-Uncertainty principle depend on the observer rule? Or is that seperate?

It applies to both electrons and photons, leptons and bosons. They are waves and particles at the same time, but you can only measure them as either one or the other. Also, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, just like nearly all equations that govern physics, does not depend on the observer. It is an underlying rule, like gravitation, which doesn't care whether we are here to observe it or not. But not everyone agrees with this last statement, so you should decide for yourself ... which is hard to do because not much makes sense in the quantum world, and that is why there is still much philosophical debate.

[lenny]

If a deterministic interpretation of quantum physics is correct then the probabilities demonstrate our inability to accurately measure and our limited knowledge.

are you suggesting that an electron is like a billiard ball, that is has a precise position and momentum and we are merely uncertain of the true values?

or is the electron an electron, and there is a fundamental indeterminacy in its position and momentum? (nothing to do with uncertainty in a precise but unknown value)

[Reality Check]

are you suggesting that an electron is like a billiard ball, that is has a precise position and momentum and we are merely uncertain of the true values?

or is the electron an electron, and there is a fundamental indeterminacy in its position and momentum? (nothing to do with uncertainty in a precise but unknown value)
Hi lenny: Note that zosima starts the sentence with "if".

Tha posting is in response to the question"How can there be determinism and be randomness and probabiities?"
The answer is : Determinism in the Schrodinger equation, probabilities in the expectation values of measured quanities.

[INRM]

SkepTICK,

Okay, so the Heisenberg Uncertainty thing has to do with particle-wave duality and thus the Observer principle appplies... yet the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle does NOT apply to the observer?

I'm confuseled

[Reality Check]

Wikipedia is your friend: Uncertainty principle and observer effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principal#Uncertainty_princ iple_and_observer_effect)

[The skepTick]

SkepTICK,

Okay, so the Heisenberg Uncertainty thing has to do with particle-wave duality and thus the Observer principle appplies... yet the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle does NOT apply to the observer?

I'm confuseled

Sorry. I probably confused you by bringing up the two-slit experiment in the first place. The wikipedia link is a good one. The uncertainty principle is a real "property" of the things in our universe. Observers are also subject to the uncertainty principle and, in fact, are part of the overall system. But even if there were no observers, there would still be the inherent uncertainty given by Heisenberg.

[lenny]

Hi lenny: Note that zosima starts the sentence with "if".

Tha posting is in response to the question"How can there be determinism and be randomness and probabiities?"
The answer is : Determinism in the Schrodinger equation, probabilities in the expectation values of measured quanities.

hi RC

i saw the "if", it was the distinction between "uncertainty" and "indeterminacy" that i was aiming to clarify with my question.

as long as one speaks only about the results of measurements i'll not argue with your answer above, but zosima's post talks about where his friend "is", where the prize "is" and uses macroscopic language which to me (perhaps incorrectly) suggested that there is place where the electron "is", and we are merely unsure of it. my question aimed at understanding zosima's view on this.

[Reality Check]

I see - you are talking about zosima's use of English in the bit of the post that you did not quote.

His friend is an example where he can use macroscopic language.

Most people use macroscopic language in regards to microsopic things because it is awkward to replace 'is' with 'the expectation value of the position'.

[INRM]

Wikipedia is your friend: Uncertainty principle and observer effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principal#Uncertainty_princ iple_and_observer_effect)

Okay, so the observer principle DOES play a role in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

However this seems to only regard active detection (sending something out in order to detect the object). Passive detection shouldn't pose a problem here as the observer does nothing to it in order to detect it.

[sol invictus]

Observation has nothing to do with it. The wavefunction of a particle collapses when it interacts with any macroscopic system, regardless of whether that system is an "observer".

[Reality Check]

Okay, so the observer principle DOES play a role in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

However this seems to only regard active detection (sending something out in order to detect the object). Passive detection shouldn't pose a problem here as the observer does nothing to it in order to detect it.
No. The observer just needs to observe and have knowledge of the experiment (I think). They do not need send anything to observe the results. For example 2 observers Alice and Bob agree to perform an experiment. Alice runs it. Bob observes the result. Bob sees the quantum effects that may arise from Heisenberg uncertainty but has not actually run the experiment.

[Dancing David]

are you suggesting that an electron is like a billiard ball, that is has a precise position and momentum and we are merely uncertain of the true values?

or is the electron an electron, and there is a fundamental indeterminacy in its position and momentum? (nothing to do with uncertainty in a precise but unknown value)

Fundamental indeterminancy of a wave form.

[lenny]

His friend is an example where he can use macroscopic language.
surely not when his friend is used as an example to illustrate QM! (we must agree on this,no?)
I see - you are talking about zosima's use of English in the bit of the post that you did not quote.

with respect, i asked a question which neither you nor zosima answered. had you engaged with the question its relevance might have become clear.

and the difference between "uncertainty" and "indeterminacy" is much more than a "use of English" question. had the German been translated (are more often translated) as "indeterminacy", then much confusion might have been avoided.

similar problems pop up all over (macroscopic) statistics, where Bayesian approaches to reducing uncertainty are (mis)applied in cases of indeterminacy.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No. The observer just needs to observe and have knowledge of the experiment (I think). They do not need send anything to observe the results. For example 2 observers Alice and Bob agree to perform an experiment. Alice runs it. Bob observes the result. Bob sees the quantum effects that may arise from Heisenberg uncertainty but has not actually run the experiment.

It is a time problem your never observing something in real time, light and energy have to travel though space time and inter react, so as was stated above, by,

sol invictus,

Observation has nothing to do with it. The wavefunction of a particle collapses when it interacts with any macroscopic system, regardless of whether that system is an "observer".

Your always observing something as it was not as it currently is after the enter reaction of the energy necessary for observing the particle in the first place.

Based on the energy and observance you can only make predictions on the real time and future state of the particle.

You have to use a form of energy to observe something and that energy will alter the particle and it will react with the macro-system around it to change the position and spin of the particle to an unknown state.

[sol invictus]

Based on the energy and observance you can only make predictions on the real time and future state of the particle.

You have to use a form of energy to observe something and that energy will alter the particle and it will react with the macro-system around it to change the position and spin of the particle to an unknown state.

You've just contradicted yourself - either you can make predictions about the current state of the particle, or it's in an unknown state. Which did you mean?

In fact, one normally considers measurements that leave the particle in a definite state of some operator. For example you might measure the spin along the z-axis, which leaves the particle in a state of definite spin along the z-axis (and an uncertain state along the x or y axis).

But my point was that this effect has nothing to do with "observation" per se - I could program a computer to make the measurement, or the particle might pass through a diffraction grating on its own, or whatever, and all of those would have the same effect. What matters is that the wave function of the particle interacted with the wave function of a macroscopic system, whether it be a human brain or a computer or a chunk of metal.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You've just contradicted yourself - either you can make predictions about the current state of the particle, or it's in an unknown state. Which did you mean?

In fact, one normally considers measurements that leave the particle in a definite state of some operator. For example you might measure the spin along the z-axis, which leaves the particle in a state of definite spin along the z-axis (and an uncertain state along the x or y axis).

But my point was that this effect has nothing to do with "observation" per se - I could program a computer to make the measurement, or the particle might pass through a diffraction grating on its own, or whatever, and all of those would have the same effect. What matters is that the wave function of the particle interacted with the wave function of a macroscopic system, whether it be a human brain or a computer or a chunk of metal.

Oh you can make a prediction of the future state, however while the Observance is taking place the particle is traveling though space time, and any interaction will alter the spin and charge.

So even if you measure the particle in the z access that will only be a limited measurement, because time is involved and particles evolve over time, charge and spin are altered.

[lenny]

Fundamental indeterminancy of a wave form.

indeterminacy, agreed.

the confusion between "uncertainty" and "indeterminacy" causes much confusion. the monty hall problem is a horribly misleading "illustration" of QM exactly because the location of the prize is well defined and merely uncertain.

[Dancing David]

It is allegedly the word that Heisenberg preffered. So it is HIP instead of HUP.

[plong]

So is it confusing to use the term "observe" rather than "interact" when measuring? We lay people assume observation is a sentient acknowledgement of the action but I believe this is not so and it is just the pure act of interfering with the particle that is the "observation".
As you say it is not possible to measure anything without interfering with it.
Also if photons travel at the speed of light does that mean that as far as they are concerned they take no time to travel (time slowing to zero at the speed of light?)

[KingMerv00]

So is it confusing to use the term "observe" rather than "interact" when measuring?

Yes. The term "observation" in this context just muddles things.

Also if photons travel at the speed of light does that mean that as far as they are concerned they take no time to travel (time slowing to zero at the speed of light?)

As an object approaches the speed of light, it "experiences" time within its own frame of reference as it always did. In other words, if a particle near the speed of light were wearing a wristwatch, it would tick at the normal rate from the POV of the particle. However, it would "see" the rest of the universe as sped up. Were the particle to actually reach the speed of light, it would watch the entire universe age and die instantaneously.

However, my understanding is that any object that has mass cannot actually reach the speed of light, though it can get close. Thus, only photons can travel at the speed of light.

(Sol, feel free to correct me.)