It isn’t “looking” that is meant by “observation”. “Observation” is meant to convey the idea that something (not necessarily sentient) is in some way interacting with an object in question such that the state(s) of the object affects the state(s) of the “observer” (and vice versa).
The word is rather misleading in that it might give the impression of a unidirectional type of interaction when it really is the establishment of a bidirectional relationship. The reason one says “I observe the electron” rather than “I am observed by the electron” is that we don’t typically attribute agency to electrons the way we do humans (for good reasons), but they are equally true.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 2 years ago
That’s not really it. You need something that measures the state of the electron. Merely looking in the direction is not enough. It has to be something that interacts with the electron.
A camera alone isn’t enough. But light (eg photons) with enough energy should be enough. But then that energy will manipulate the photon. If you had a completely dark room and pointed a camera at the experiment it wouldn’t change anything.
It’s kind of like having your cake and eating it too.
OpenStars@startrek.website 2 years ago
Yeah, it turns out that slapping the electron around like with a big stick or whatever causes it to change its behavior, go figure! :-P
FinalRemix@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Dammit Jim, I’m a psychologist, not a physicist!
acetanilide@lemmy.world 2 years ago
So if we didn’t need light to see it then it would continue doing whatever it does?
I wonder how the universe would look if we didn’t need light to see 🤔
0laura@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
but light is seeing.