• Smaile@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Maybe they shouldn’t have been refering to it as OBSERVATION then poindexters, don’t get mad when you confuse the laymen and he get annoyed.

    For real, the amount of “smart” people saying this actually had an effect via human sight had me not understand how this shit worked for years cuz that made absolutely no sense, as it turned out all those ‘smart’ people turned out to just be parrots not understanding wtf they’re talking about.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      I totally agree. “Observe” was a bad choice of words, but it stuck. It should have been “interacted with”, or “measured”, or something like that.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        BTW, before a detector aparatus can be created, many physics results were (are?) identified through observation, which might include a measurement or might be qualitative.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The point is that you can’t observe anything without some kind of interaction. Even just looking at something requires bouncing light off of it.

      We’re used to our observations seeming passive because light is often hitting the things anyways, but the double slit experiment forces the point because the subjects of the experiment are so small that even just using ways of observing them affects the outcome of the experiment.

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Sincerely yes, we can just stop saying observation and start saying interaction or something else less confusing