this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
543 points (92.2% liked)

Science Memes

20971 readers
800 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EVIL_MAN@lemmy.zip 125 points 3 months ago (49 children)

It doesn't work like this, popular misconception. It is cool in sci-fi though.

load more comments (49 replies)
[–] Iunnrais@piefed.social 42 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It only kinda works like this. If you have two slits, looking at it or not, you will see the top one. Now, the really weird thing is that if you fire a single photon at a time, you will still get the top one over time, suggesting that the single photon is somehow going through both slits and interfering with itself to do so. But the even weirder thing is, if you place a detector in one of the two slits to check which slit the photon is going through? You suddenly get the bottom picture.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

My understanding is. Every method of measurement influences the results.

I'm in cognitive sciences not physics. But it applies there as well.

The measurement method always interferes in some way with the result.

I have used this example with helping students understand research methods.

Doesn't matter how "non-interfering" you think your method is.

In some way or another, the act of measuring or the device used to measure (or both) changes the thing being measured.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Exactly, I like to imagine it with our senses.

In order to see something lightwaves had to have interacted with the objects we see.

In order to hear something objects had to have moved or interacted in a way to produce changes of air pressure.

In order to smell something an object had to have "lost" some of its molecules into the air.

Well, and touching and tasting are kinda obvious, your body has to directly interact with an object.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pmk@piefed.ca 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

What constitutes "measuring" here? Is it in the wider sense of any quantification of an observation, or are there conditions?

[–] DarthFreyr@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not a true expert, but I think it comes down to "observing" a particle/phenomenon like this inherently comes down to some sort of interaction, and it can't just be neglected like you could on a macro scale. Even for something like holding a ruler up to an object and seeing what mark lines up, you're relying on a bunch of light bouncing off the object (and the ruler) to be able to judge that. If the thing you're trying to measure is on the order of one particle of light, blasting it with a bunch of anything is gonna affect it pretty severely, and who knows what a "ruler" would even mean in that analogy. So it's less like some idea of sapient knowledge, and more like when you struggle to measure something like a tiny feather or single bead of Styrofoam, like you can't even get near the thing without the wind from moving or some random static or something else moving the thing around uncontrollably, except many orders of magnitude more sensitive.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nicolauz@feddit.org 3 points 3 months ago

A photon doesn't care if you watch it or not. Unless it goes into one of your eyes and dies there, you can't see a photon.

Anyway, what I wanted to add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurement

What I'm getting from this meme is even less interaction than a weak measurement ... They just look at the result and it's changing... That's not how measurement(-problem) works... I think.

Have I mentioned that I'm German and that btw I'm running arch? 😘

[–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

uwu 👉👈

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 3 months ago

Naw. "observing" doesn't mean, a human looks at the data. It means, we force the particle to be in one place on a quantum level. the word "observation" is overloaded in some sense

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

WE ARE WAVE, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE (unless you measure us), your biological distinctiveness will receive energy and transmit it in a periodic fashion

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ha! That's what you think!

I'll have you know, I sawed the legs off that periodic table.

It's chaos I tell ya, all chaos!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Observation" or "measurement" actually means interaction. We literally can't measure anything without interacting with it. If you place something at the slits which is able to detect a photon going through, it can only do so by interacting with it.

The common way seems to be that the passing particle induces a tiny electric current in a wire loop. Obviously, that takes energy away from the particle (that energy is now in the movement of one or more electrons in the wire). And that means, its wave function in that very moment is one locational probability of 1 - it is collapsed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] islandcoda42@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 months ago
[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Until we have a solution to the wave function collapse, it kind of freaks me out.

[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that the tools that are used to observe it cause the wave function to collapse. Like how putting a thermometer into meat to check the temp makes a little hole.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Yep! The only way to "see" a photon is to actually absorb it. You can't just detect it as it goes by, it has to be absorbed and reemitted, and that has an effect on it.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

only if you have robot eyes

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 3 months ago

intference pattern by light wavelengths, used by many animals to give them those iridescent colors.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Stealing photons.

[–] Ratio_Tile@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›