shaybebaby:
Sell out!

yomz1e:
lolz................really ! u gotz jokez! wanted to share the wine with you , but you went off long now! nah dear, the migration is just getting out of hand, put a check on it and it woud be ok.... why deny one country because they are not part of another continent.... its been very tuff on africans migrating ..

smedia...social media.......

yomz1e:

But honestly do you think its because of the EU that there has been peace ...far from it, people are now more wiser and can dialogue much better than go to war, how many people want to fight now, i certainly dont? before a country cant go into war, the majority of the citizens has to support it. its good we came out, lets stand on our own, and show how sovereign we are. the only remain people are upper class rich buisness people that are have business interest in europe... ok if Turkey shoud join, you and i know where they will be heading to. my problem is why cant they go to places like germany, france etc because no body gives free money like the UK does. whats your Facebook nick

author=shaybebaby post=47083844]
Facebook, that's about it for me. Will reply your pm tomorrow...my phone got stolen and I haven't bothered configuring my email on this one cos I intend to get another one.
Yeah I get your point about our African brothers but ... The EU has brought about peace for over 70 years since then end of the Second World War. Without peace, there cannot be prosperity. That alone is worth setting aside individual ambitions for a collective good. Yea it is very bureaucratic but the same freedom of movement we crave as Africans is the very thing they are trying to curtail.
There is trade to consider, eu support for businesses, research and agriculture is immense, we are going to lose out on that. No tariffs on importing from within the region, get ready for food prices to go up because there will be tariffs now and no subsidies either. Let's see if anyone has time to worry about immigration when we cannot afford to eat. Maybe then immigrants will be welcome, we can eat them.

Jupxter:



The EU is a fluke, a camouflage, a war machine disguised to be a colony of pacifists. Brexit all the way !

shaybebaby:

No, no, no! It is the equivalent of jumping blindly into the abyss. We have NO idea what life post brexit is going to be like, no economic plan, nothing.

Jupxter:



Nope, I have blueprints, different types.

Anyway The prime minister of Scotland stammered when also asked this question and the doubt he projected affected his campaign.

Britain and United Kingdom will be fine outside the EU. It is never the destiny of the United Kingdom to be on its knees, trust me, years later, you'll remember this conversation and my continuous clamor for Britain leaving the EU. The EU is Germany's war machine in the guise of an economic union. Britain was in existence for over 800 years before the EU, She will be here even after BREXIT. Absolutely nothing to fear, if i have an opportunity to meet with the prince, i'll share my blueprints. Nothing to fear, the EU is a fluke

shaybebaby:
Today is the day we vote on whether to stay in the EU or leave and to say it has caused more than a disturbance in the UK political scene is an understatement not to mention the murder of a labour MP last week.
So Nigerians resident in the UK, are you voting and which way are you casting your vote?
I started initially thinking leave, now I'm largely remain but still not resolute. It may seem fairly simple but the issues here are immigration, trade, the supremacy of EU legislation over UK laws, social security, employment, agriculture, investment etc
Anyone care to share their views and why they are casting a particular vote?
Will be heading out in a few hours to have my say..not sure what it will be yet.

Mindfulness:


You were even considering voting leave? Oh my!

shaybebaby:
I know, I know, for the life of me, I can't imagine why..

Mindfulness:


I hope not for the 350 millions for the NHS.

shaybebaby:

, certainly not. Boris didn't have me. I think it was borne more out being frustrated with the current government. Wanted to thumb up my nose at them.

But then I actually did move past the childish impulse.

Mindfulness:


I knew I can count on you.

shaybebaby:

High praise indeed coming from you.
Same here and even if not, I'm sure to feel the sting of cold hard truth from you.

Mindfulness:


I am gentle with people I like and you I likey a lot a lot.

shaybebaby:

Phew! I've seen others suffer for their careless I'll thought words.
I like you too sister, very much.

shaybebaby:
AgentofAllah.. Psst!! Over here..(whispers)
Where have you been lurking, haven't seen you around in a while until I saw you in the feminist thread.

Question: This is about your wave particle thingies which I watched, existing in many states but collapsing into one state with observation.

What happens if you have more than observer(or ways of measurement at the same time), will the observed state be the same one or different?

Hope this makes sense.

AgentOfAllah:

Hey you! Had a work related snafu...still having it, but more under control now


Interesting choice of subject to bring up under a conversation about Brexit. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to revive the alternate reality in which Brexit didn't happen!

Let's attempt to answer your question which is plenty sensible. Apologies for the length of my answer though. Quantum mechanics is never an easy subject to explain, mostly because no one really understands it. You will know why as you read on.

Let's start from the macroworld, and work our way down to the quantum.

Picture a thermometer. At any given time, it has its own local temperature, right? Nevertheless, when you use it to measure your body temperature, its reading changes to reflect your body's temperature...or does it? Well, not really!

The temperature your thermometer displays at any given time is a combination of a lot of things; for instance, we have the ambient temperature, humans also emit infrared heat, so the thermal reading would also depend on the number of humans in the room in which the measurement is being taken. In fact, every single material object in the universe emits heat, so your thermometer reading will also be affected by the number of things in and possibly outside the room. It doesn't end there: The material your thermometer is made of also has local variations in its temperature, and these variations will reflect in the reading too. However, compared to the heat emitted by the human body with which this thermometer is in contact, all these contributions are infinitesimal, so we can be fairly confident that the temperature value displayed is accurate to an acceptable degree of certainty. Also, a thermometer works by stealing heat from your body, right? This means, your body temperature would have dropped ever so slightly after the measurement, so that if you instantaneously bring another thermometer with exact initial state as the previous one, it will record a slightly lower temperature than the previous. Like I said though, you might not even notice this change because it will be infinitesimal.

Now, let's reduce the size of our thermometer to the smallest matter possible. For simplicity, let's say an atom. In fact, let our thermometer be a hydrogen atom. Let us now try to measure the temperature of an adjacent helium atom...ah...here, things begin to get interesting. Now, the thermometer (measuring device) is comparable in size with the object of interest (a helium atom), and we can't get it to be smaller because it's the smallest object (note that there are smaller objects than hydrogen, but I use hydrogen for simplicity and familiarity). What happens when this hydrogen thermometer comes in contact with, or close enough to the helium atom? Well, First, you must know that temperature is basically a measure of the kinetic energy of particles. The faster, the hotter; the slower, the cooler. Okay, so these two particles immediately collide and exchange energy with each other. If you could measure the speed of your hydrogen thermometer after contact, you could, in principle, tell the temperature of the helium before contact. However, after collision, the helium would have lost a significant amount of energy (to the hydrogen thermometer), so you would agree that it is practically impossible to measure it again and tell its temperature from the previous state.

I cheated above because what I've described are both classical experiments, not quantum ones. Yet, there are still important takeaways from them: Firstly, you will note that even in classical systems, the measurement device is not independent of system being measured, and will always affect the result during and after the experiment. The second take away is that the effect of the measurement device on the object of interest becomes more and more significant as both objects become comparable in physical properties such as size.

Now, let's examine a quantum system: In the videos I shared, it was established that matter exists in a sort of particle-wave duality. To understand exactly how this might be, we may as well imagine a particle, with a wavelike nature as in the simplified figure below.



You will see that before measurement, there is a probability that this particle is in position x1, x2, x3, x4 and x5 simultaneously. This probability is given by P_x1 = P_x2 =P_x3...and so on. This means by the true nature of this particle, you can never know its exact position.

Should you wish to know the precise momentum of this particle, you will need, according to the equations at the top, its wavelength, λ. To know its wavelength, the particle's wave has to be intact, in which case, you will never be able to know if the particle is actually in position x1 or x2 or x3 etc.

On the other hand, if you wish to know its position, your measuring device isn't actually measuring its exact position, no! Instead, your device is forcing the particle to assume a particular location by introducing new waves (the orange part of the figure). Recall that in our classical experiment, the measurement device always affects the object being measured, yes? Now, in our quantum experiment, this measurement device is also made of particles which have their own individual wave functions. So, what you have in fact, is a complex convolution of many other waves which add to and subtract from the position probabilities of your particle, eventually forcing the particle to occupy one single location by reducing the probabilities of the other locations. The more waves are added (i.e. the more precise the measuring device), the less the contributions from the other position probabilities. In this case, we confined it to position x3 in the image. In theory, you can confine your particle to a precise location in the order of an infinitesimally small length called the Planck's length so that you get a precise location. However, by eliminating the other peaks of your location probability, you also lose information on the wavelength. Therefore, you can never get the precise momentum of your particle at that instant.

You asked whether one could get all that information at the same time should they carry out multiple measurements simultaneously? Simply put, the answer is no!

If you tried, you'd just end up getting a result that is neither its original momentum nor its position. This limiting factor is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The animation below does a great job of explaining the wavefunction collapse. The two slit experiment actually treated the electrons as waves, thus was capturing the full information of their momenta, hence the interference patter. Notice, however, how the electrons became particles again when the physicists tried to measure their position! That measurement device basically forced the electrons to occupy a single position by introducing its own waves.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

If you've read this far, then wow! I duff my hat! I also hope you are now sufficiently confused. If you're not, then I haven't properly introduced you to the world of quantum mechanics.

shaybebaby:

Love the video, a lot more intuitive than the first one. Or maybe I like cartoons.

So based on the measurement device forcing the electrons to occupy a single position, my question is about having more than one device measuring the same thing, either position or momentum not both.
Would the observation change because of the greater number of observers simultaneously(will their waves interfere enough or not)?
Will the state it collapses to differ? Will the information be consistent?

I don't know if you have already answered it, still ruminating so bear with me.

Work issue? A particle gone rogue?

AgentOfAllah:
I agree with you, animations area the best! But I also have this obsession with providing the full picture, hence the other videos.


This is a really good question. Let's recall the thermometer example for a moment. Remember that a thermometer works by absorbing part of the heat emitted by the target object. So I guess your question is: If I use two thermometers would I get the same result as using one?
You know what else absorbs heat? Ice cubes in a glass of ice tea. So if you put two ice cubes in ice tea, the resulting coolness is unlikely to be comparable to when you put one (I know I prefer my ice tea with two or more ice cubes). Similarly, when you increase the number of observers, you'll most likely get a different result than with one.


Good. Then you're beginning to get the picture


More like a rogue reviewer of my last paper. To be fair, the person asked some legit questions, but boy are those questions difficult!

shaybebaby:

I like the thought of you sweating whilst trying to come up with answers. The great agent stumped momentarily? Someone get me a glass of vino and beef jerky

I'm beginning to form a fuzzy pic in my mind, we not done yet. I'll be back with more questions.

AgentOfAllah:

Hahaha...then brace yourself for a salty flood!

Great..also, don't forget your life jacket

shaybebaby:

Hahaha, I'm really trying here, it's largely gobbledygook

AgentOfAllah:

Believe me when I say I feel your pain. Everybody who's ever dabbled into the subject does! It would have been discarded as gobbledygook woo woo were it not so effective at explaining quantum observations.

shaybebaby:

Should I just give up then?

Why on earth is this your choice?

AgentOfAllah:

No, of course not! On the contrary, you should ask more questions. You may yet develop a new conceptual perspective that is unbiased by the debilitating curse of experience!


But where's the fun in trying to understand something that is easily understood?

shaybebaby:

Okay, I'll keep at it, it is fascinating enough.

@your question, where is the fun in pain? My brain hurts.