this post was submitted on 08 May 2026

237 points (92.2% liked)

Science Memes

20131 readers

2505 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

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

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

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

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

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

SciBot@mander.xyz

fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com

237

Literally exactly how it works, too. (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 hours ago by ivanafterall@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] EVIL_MAN@lemmy.zip 78 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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

[+] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club -10 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Nah, man, it's literally how it works (for all we know). The wave function doesn't collapse until the data is read. You can't prove otherwise, so people are free to believe it.

[–] CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 20 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

no... This is a major failure of all science communicators that get off on mystifying people despite the error being pointed out to them. You need to interact with something to obersve it. It isn't magic and you have been intentionally misled.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Does the result of the experiment change if there's a sensor active that records data to a hard drive that no one ever looks at and it just gets deleted? Does the result change again if someone decides that if they get a wave pattern, they will interrupt the deletion process and look at the data?

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

But the way it works is only the top one if im not mistaken

[+] ivanafterall@lemmy.world -43 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Agree to disagree!

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 53 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Nothing to agree or disagree with, you're factually incorrect. The observer effect has nothing to do with whether someone's eyes are looking toward it or not. It basically just means when a process is happening and anything external occurs to it then that will change the way the process is happening.

[–] jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I was curious, so I went to Wikipedia, as one does.

A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process

Edit: erhm. this isnt an ad for Wikipedia. the words just shook out that way. lol

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 19 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

If anybody still doesn't understand, when the wave function collapses, that is called observation. Again, from Wikipedia:

In various interpretations of quantum mechanics, wave function collapse, also called reduction of the state vector, occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an observation and is the essence of a measurement in quantum mechanics, which connects the wave function with classical observables such as position and momentum.

Physics has this problem with naming things. They use words like "particle", "observation", and "spin", among others, which are words that every English speaker knows, but then they use those words to describe stuff that's actually only similar to the words everybody knows. This makes physics a lot more approachable for people who know nothing, but then completely confuses people with only a little knowledge.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

This makes physics a lot more approachable for people who know nothing, but then completely confuses people with only a little knowledge.

My favorite example of this is the use of "stress" and "strain". In common language they're synonyms, but in Physics they're definitely not.

[–] dalekcaan@feddit.nl 3 points 3 hours ago

"Theory" is another bad one in all of science. That's what leads knuckleheads from saying dumb shit like "evolution is just a theory!"

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago

In general, I agree, but spin is quite surprising in how much like angular momentum and dynamos it behaves. Either way, we don't know enough about it yet, and it's at best a coincidence.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I think we all understand the joke is that the eyes represent the endpoint of the observation apparatus. That is the first panel is isolated and the second panel has a detector measuring the path that the scientist then looks at.

So yeah, "eyes" don't cause a waveform collapse. But how does a two panel cartoon with no words represent no interaction? First panel is blank?

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

On the other hand, maybe our personal observation doesn't just cause a waveform to collapse, but also collapses a logical path for said wave backwards into time. This would mean that even the results of the initial observation only collapse at the moment you look at them.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

So at what point in human evolution was one human conscious enough to have the first observation and therefore spring quantum mechanics into existence in the universe?

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Someone gets it

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago

That's not "litterally" how it works then, just "figuratively".

[–] EVIL_MAN@lemmy.zip 28 points 7 hours ago

You are wrong though.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 16 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours 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 7 hours ago

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!

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 hours ago

only if you have robot eyes

[–] Ratio_Tile@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, technically

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world -3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

They should just show this in physics classes and skip all the boring words.

[–] Ratio_Tile@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 4 hours ago

I mean, thats also how we got weird pseudoscience about how the universe shifts around our consciousness.

Its usually not made clear in school that things can only be measured by touching it or bouncing something off of it. On the macro scale, looking at something doesn't move the thing you're measuring because you're just capturing the abundant photons that are already bouncing off the thing in the billions per second. On the quantum scale, looking at something involves shooting particles at the thing, which is often comparable to measuring how big a cat is by trying to bounce a kickball off it and measuring the angle it rebounds. It works, but you can't expect the cat to continue behaving the same after being assaulted out of nowhere.

[–] humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 hours ago

I bet if you wait a few more years they'll be putting memes in science textbooks.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

You used literally incorrectly, "that really makes me want to literally smack a crowbar upside your stupid head."

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago

It's a matter for interpretation, but I think they used "literally" correctly, but they were just wrong on the science.

Like, if I say that when the sun appears over the horizon, it is literally plaid colored, I am using "literally" correctly, but the fact that I am conveying is wrong.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club -2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Words mean what people think they mean when they say them. Nothing else. Miscommunication can occur if the speaker and listener don't have the same concept in their head, but it doesnt change the fact that words are just people serializing their thoughts into sounds or text. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are documentative.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Okay but that's a dishonest argument. Sure reality is just perception and perception is unique to the individual. All that said words have meaning which we have agreed upon. Otherwise I could write gibberish, call it meaningful text, and prove anything. It's the fact that words have specific meanings which makes them useful. Otherwise it's baby talk and that's cute but not great for communication.