this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
616 points (98.1% liked)

Science Memes

12400 readers
2173 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.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] leadore@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

Wait, but we're looking at it...

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago)

Yeah they beamed with pride when asked about their work. They were so observant and laser focused and we hit the mark every time while they were here. It was pretty obvious they'd make waves when they quit. Still, no one expected it.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 54 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

This sort of comic always bugs me. Observation in QM is not the same as observation in layman terms.

Best think of it as hit it and watch the pieces fly. When you get small enough, you can't approximate out the impacts. It's akin to studying road traffic by sending an overloaded freight truck the wrong way and counting tires that hit the verge. It might also affect the current traffic's motion.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago (1 children)

Tbh, I think no one who hasn’t solved the Schrödinger equation at least once (at least time independent), should be allowed to talk about quantum.

Like, the uncertainty principle is really really fucking cool when you understand why it works mathematically. But without differential equations and linear algebra, I don’t think it’s possible to really conceptualize what’s going on in quantum.

Idk, I always try to explain to students the deficiencies of the Bohr model and explain the significance of the electron cloud, but probability is hard.

One of my favorite things in quantum was deriving the “quantum numbers” they have you memorize in chemistry (if you don’t remember, you probably got a SPeeDy F) It’s beautiful to watch the way they emerge from the second order diff eq.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

While I'm rusty as hell, my physics degree was actually focused quite a lot into QM.

It's perfectly possible to get a reasonable understanding of what's going on without going head first into the maths. There are definitely areas however that we don't have a good conceptual model of yet. For those, the maths definitely leads the way. 90% of QM is comprehendible with relatively little maths. You only need the maths when you start to get predictive.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

You're right. But the thing that's interesting about the double slit experiment though is that it works on only a single photon. It's as if all the traffic was created by a single car. So classically you might not think that the single car should care if the freight truck is heading down a different lane than the car but in QM it does, because the car is in a superposition of occupying several lanes.

I'm probably driving the analogy straight into the ground of course

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

This is something that I noticed is hard to understand to most people. My SO got served a video of the double slit experiment and thought it was like magic, until I tried to explain to him that at this scale, "observing" doesn't just mean looking at it. Observation makes you part of the system and causes the system to change.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

That is part of what bugs me.

Quantum mechanics isn't magical or unknowable. It's just an area of physics where some of our base assumptions/approximations break down. It's not even that hard to wrap your head around, it just seems most people don't want to try.

[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Quantum mechanics is an area of physics that leans on measurement as a central concept. What things are doing between measurements is not its' concern, and don't even stop and think about it, you'll go nuts, just shut up and calculate!

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Magic is just stuff we don't know but don't care to know :)

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 4 hours ago

No, it's not. Magic isn't real.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There is a magic to perception nothing else can replicate. I'm pretty sure awareness is existence, so it's attention has to change reality.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Perception and observation are different things. Air molecules can be "observers" when looking at electrons etc.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Which is what's so "magical" about it - Newtonian rules seem to break down at the quantum level.

It was an incredible discovery, and for practically anyone not a physicist, it's incredibly hard to comprehend. I say this as a not-a-physicist who struggled to comprehend it decades ago, and read several books on the subject to finally get my head around it (as much as a non-physicist can).

Also, it's just a meme mate.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with it being hard to comprehend. The maths is an absolute bitch, but the basic premise is fairly simple. Everything is (quantised) waves. The rest clicks, once you get your brain to accept this. Everything else is a consequence. Those consequences can lead you down deep dark tunnels, filled with evil maths and mind bending results, but the basic idea is simple.

I have a bit of an issue with memes that are actively misleading.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well, famously, they're waves and particles. The double slit which way experiment will only set off the detector in one slit, as if it was a particle. Yet, without a detector it will interfere with itself as if it were a wave that passed through both slits.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

QM entities are quantised waves. You can make a wave look very close to a particle quite easily, a particle can never behave like a wave.

Dumping the mental short hand of particle interactions is one of the main reasons most people can't get their heads around it.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Lots of folks get their superficial education from memes and will be mislead by this...

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

well that's their own fault, and it's not like stuff like this is vital information for the average person

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Specifically, because it's non-vital information for the average person, I really do not think you can blame anyone for merely learning about it through memes. But I do also think this problem is much greater than just memes. I did not receive a better explanation during high school, despite opting for more advanced physics classes and us repeatedly telling our teacher that it makes no sense to us. I have to assume that our teacher did not know either. As such, I got the impression that more advanced physics is just devoid of any actual logic, which was a major factor why I decided against pursuing it further in college. Reading a proper explanation under a stupid meme, could've made the difference for me.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

sorry I was in the assumption that most people know that it was simply a joke and it doesn't actually work like this

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So why are you so upset with us trying to fix it?

I personally find the anti science, anti learning crowd has gone from amusing, to annoying, to terrifying.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Calmly arguing for misinformation and anti-science rhetoric isn't better.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

i wasn't, i was merely pointing out that this is a meme meant as a joke and not meant to be educational

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

So was "Donald Trump for president" and look at the damage that has caused.

[–] kubica@fedia.io 41 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Can't blame them I also try to act normal when people is watching.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago

I'm not weird. I act perfectly normal when no one is watching. honest.

[–] Kaput@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

I have been tryin to find an actual demostration of this experiement and it seem impossible to find. can someone sow me this experiment done on a single setup. where you have a light source, two slits a screen and an ''observer''. That swithes from interference pattern to two lines, by switching the observer on and off. I am convinced that the science is solid, in its theoric and applied aspect. but that this interpretation of it is complete bullcrap. And i am annoyed by the ''believe this cheap explanation''that is repeated and nauseam. What is the actual equipment required, wave lenghts, slit sizes. I know This is science meme sub, where is the sub where i can find an actual two slit operator?

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago* (last edited 6 minutes ago)

You can put together a version good enough for high schoolers with a laser pointer and some pencils.

To conceptualize though, it might be better to set up some sort of wave table - some sort of tub of water you set up the slits in, then observe the patterns of constructive and destructive interference. (That’s what I did with students.)

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

What are you trying to see exactly? There's this video done with polarizers: https://youtu.be/unCXuRXpEhs Of course, it's not an instant on/off but having an instant on/off doesn't really change anything.

[–] Kaput@lemmy.world 1 points 44 minutes ago

Thank you. Yes something like that. with lab grade equipment would be nice. I agree instant on/off is not required for my understanding.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Put a filter on one slit to measure the beams. Done.

Edit: this thinks about a related experiment, where you build an interferometer instead of a double slit. Now rephrase the experiment s.t. you have to beams serviced from a singular beam. interfere the two beams with each other. If you measure on one beam path (e.g. Pol filter) you destroy the interference pattern.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

You don't really need an on/off switch.

By default you are not observing what slit it goes trough so you should always see the wave pattern.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

This makes me pretty annoyed, mostly because I get flashbacks to assholes pushing The Secret

[–] LifeLemons@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 hours ago

Thanks lemmy user!