We can observe the end result. E.g. observing the screen only, and you get wavelike behaviour. When you also observe the slit, the wavelike behaviour disappears, and it seems particle like.
Both end in an observation, 1 has an extra observation.
You could detect decoherence in the system, that doesn’t indicate a human observer, however.
That process is, however, used to protect cryptographic keys, transfered between banks. A hostile observer collapses the state early. The observer gets the key instead of the 2nd bank, which is extremely conspicuous to both banks.
It is “guessed” using whatever mathematical model that matches the system.
Of course, if our whole theory is wrong, then the guess will be wrong and we won’t know unless some condition arises where the predicted result and the observed result are different.
A log is an observance itself. Any measurement changes the state.
How is the unobserved state ever known about, then?
You observe the result, not the experiment while it is running.
They say, “I’m not peeking” but cross their fingers behind their back.
We can observe the end result. E.g. observing the screen only, and you get wavelike behaviour. When you also observe the slit, the wavelike behaviour disappears, and it seems particle like.
Both end in an observation, 1 has an extra observation.
yeah so if I looked at a log of all that, wouldn’t I have a “extra observer” detector, then?
You could detect decoherence in the system, that doesn’t indicate a human observer, however.
That process is, however, used to protect cryptographic keys, transfered between banks. A hostile observer collapses the state early. The observer gets the key instead of the 2nd bank, which is extremely conspicuous to both banks.
It is “guessed” using whatever mathematical model that matches the system.
Of course, if our whole theory is wrong, then the guess will be wrong and we won’t know unless some condition arises where the predicted result and the observed result are different.