Sorry, if I haven’t asked anything in 6 months, it’s not because I wasn’t interested, but because I have a life, right?
Anyway, this conversation is by far the most informative and interesting. This week, I remembered it and found it interesting to continue.
Wow, this is a lot of pressure.
According to what you have said before, the probabilities of finding a particle in QM do not follow a classical model. This experiment also shows that we can’t measure X and Z momentum simultaneously, which, for me, with total honesty, means that the amount of information you can have about the system is limited.
This video also says that when you measure the system, you change its state, although it does not specify why. Do we have to assume that this is because there is a physical interaction?
Anyway, a measurement changes the state of the system, and a measurement adds information. We can say that the physical interaction between silver atoms and the measurement process is changing it, and this interaction follows a different logic than classical mechanics. But this different logic of QM can be interpreted in many ways, and some of them specifically focus on the idea of information.
Why am I dishonest for saying that the presence of information seems to be altering the system? I mean, this is a valid interpretation… I will change my mind if I can understand how you see it, but at the moment, I don’t see where it is wrong or dishonest.