I think a tree falling is a little different from the double slit experiment, because the outcome of a tree falling will always be the same. That question is a little more philosophical about whether the pressurized air waves a falling tree makes are actually “sound” or whether it’s the interpretation of those waves done by our ears and brains that actually counts as “a sound”

The double slit experiment actually has two different outcomes, and that’s just some of that freaky quantum voodoo shit.

Kind of, but I think that’s an altogether different question. The tree question is a philosophical one, basically asking whether sound is an objective element of reality or a subjective perception. The observer question is a scientific one, asking what conditions cause the interference pattern to collapse into two lines.

Not because there’s someone, but because it fell and caused the air to vibrate aka sound. Has nothing to do with “observing”.

I’m honestly sick of this rhetoric. “observing” for us humans requires a sense to be triggered, which most commonly would by our eyes and for that we need light. In quantum physics, that’s a problem, largely because even that tiny bit of light is a fucking nuke in this context. By the time it comes back to be picked up by the sensor, it has done its deed and changed everything. Similar issues with non light related ways of measuring.

This video has a lot more info, but she briefly mentions the experiment to further build on another popular myth. It’s such a refreshing channel to watch after all the quick pop science videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

Yes

Basically the sensor is interacting with the quantum particle by measuring where it is before the slit. This collapses the wave function of the particle, causing it to appear at one point in space. Since the particle is collapsed to a point before the slit, it travels through only one of the slits and impacts the screen. Since it is just a single point particle now, there is no wave to interfere with the particle and create multi-line wave pattern, so we just see two straight lines on the screen that match up with the slits.

The sensor performing the measurement is the observer in this case. No living creature is needed to observe the particle to make it collapse. It’s simply just, quantum particles are just wave functions up until the point that they have to collapse to a particle because it has interacted with something (a screen or a sensor or anything). That is about the limit of my understanding at least

I’m not a physicist, so I’m unfamiliar with the particulars of how the detectors used work, but as I understand it, possible explanations like the one you suggest were initially considered as more likely than what was actually documented, but that’s where replicability helps out — if one research group observes something baffling that flies in the face of what is understood to be true, then maybe that’s an equipment or experimenter error. Not so much when a particular result has been demonstrated in countless different ways by many researchers, and when theories built to explain the weird stuff have predictive power for other, related phenomena.

Speaking of stuff that quantum mechanics helps us to understand, there are a few really cool examples of where quantum phenomena is relevant in my field of science (biochemistry), I’ll have a look to see if I can find the thing I’m thinking of.

Yes, that’s exactly what happens. Nobody has to check what it actually measured.

That’s what they did with the same experiment in a closed box where they just increased the temperature. In that case air molecules just acted as the “sensor” and collapsed the wave.