@shavixmir saidMy interpretation of observation is perfect. It is an interaction with an electron and a photon, not a real observation. The interaction is causing the observer effect. In this case observer is a misnomer.
Scientific observation is more than just seeing.
As I stated, your interpretation of observation is too narrow.
This has led to people into falsely thinking consciousness causes the observer effect. These people are taking the word observation too literally and are making fools of themselves. Consciousness has nothing to do with it.
@Great-Big-Stees saidI think you may have meant see their written words, as they cannot actually hear what they type, unless of course they say every word they type out loud, which is a strong possibility with some. 🙂
Some folk like to hear themselves. Speaking of which, why, when you hear your recorded voice does it never sound like you thought it did.🤔
-VR
1 edit
@Metal-Brain saidYou are taking the word observation in a too restricted sense to mean only sensory observation. Our senses cannot detect infrared or x-rays, nonetheless, we have devised instruments which are sensitive to those ranges of electromagnetic radiation, just as our ears are sensitive only to certain ranges of frequencies, but we have instruments which can detect frequencies beyond our range of hearing. It would be bizarre to say that we have no observational data of infrared or x-rays. The same applies to electrons and photons. The idea that an electron is a tiny billiard ball, with macroscopic properties, such as a determinate size, location, velocity, shape, and surface characteristics, such as smoothness or roughness, is a metaphor or figure of speech; macroscopic properties, such as smoothness or roughness simply do not apply at quantum levels, and as bizarre as it sounds, our macroscopic concept of having a determinate velocity and a determinate location also do not apply at quantum levels. Electrons are not little billiard balls. They are packets of measurable energy.
My interpretation of observation is perfect. It is an interaction with an electron and a photon, not a real observation. The interaction is causing the observer effect. In this case observer is a misnomer.
This has led to people into falsely thinking consciousness causes the observer effect. These people are taking the word observation too literally and are making fools of themselves. Consciousness has nothing to do with it.
1 edit
@moonbus saidThis has led people into falsely thinking consciousness causes the observer effect. Isn't that really silly?
You are taking the word observation in a too restricted sense to mean only sensory observation. Our senses cannot detect infrared or x-rays, nonetheless, we have devised instruments which are sensitive to those ranges of electromagnetic radiation, just as our ears are sensitive only to certain ranges of frequencies, but we have instruments which can detect frequencies beyond ...[text shortened]... y at quantum levels. Electrons are not little billiard balls. They are packets of measurable energy.
@shavixmir saidNo. You need to call it measurement. That is a more accurate term, but that still requires an interaction between a photon hitting an electron.
Scientific observation is more than just seeing.
As I stated, your interpretation of observation is too narrow.
Observer is a misnomer. It is a measurement.
@sonhouse saidThe Observer Effect: Seeing Is Changing
@Metal-Brain
Show us a scientific article that says they 'observe' electrons or protons or neutrino's.
https://fs.blog/observer-effect/
Seeing? Not with eyes. Do you see how people take the word "observe" too literally? They think it is seeing when you cannot see an electron.
@Metal-Brain
Wow, we did not know that. We ALWAYS thought we could directly just see electrons. Who would have known?
Basking in your superiority again?
@Metal-Brain saidYou sound more like Orangeman every day.
My interpretation of observation is perfect.
@Metal-Brain saidLike ninety percent of observations you observe it indirectly by its effects on other stuff.
@shavixmir
How do you observe an electron? You cannot see electrons. You hit it with something to know it is there, right? Calling a collision an observation is silly, isn't it?
Like observing climate change by the uptick in extreme weather events and wild fires etc or observing the effect of alcohol by walking into a lamppost sideways ( true story )
You are correct in saying you cannot see an electron with the naked eye but I couldn’t read your post with my naked eye either, fortunately I own some reading glasses
@Metal-Brain said🙄
No. You need to call it measurement. That is a more accurate term, but that still requires an interaction between a photon hitting an electron.
Observer is a misnomer. It is a measurement.
Let’s see. Your opinion or that of the scientific community?
Which one do you think I’m going to adhere to?
@shavixmir saidMy opinion is that of the scientific community.
🙄
Let’s see. Your opinion or that of the scientific community?
Which one do you think I’m going to adhere to?
@sonhouse saidThe writer of that blog did not know that.
@Metal-Brain
Wow, we did not know that. We ALWAYS thought we could directly just see electrons. Who would have known?
Basking in your superiority again?
You asked me for an example and I gave you one.
@Metal-Brain saidThe Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
The Observer Effect: Seeing Is Changing
https://fs.blog/observer-effect/
Seeing? Not with eyes. Do you see how people take the word "observe" too literally? They think it is seeing when you cannot see an electron.
In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.
@kmax87 saidHow long have you been suffering from it?
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.
