Quick question

So,
if we are to collapse wave function, is a flashlight equivalent to a human as an observer in our future theoretical discussion of how we collapsed it?

The question is retarded.

An 'observer' doesn't have to be a human, it doesn't have to even be concious, anything that 'measures' a wave particle will collase the wave function and put it too a definite point.

This in no way resembles a coherant question.

>>2
well look, you say that observer must be
>anything that 'measures'
but isn't it too much?
maybe observer shouldn't even measure, it should just throw particles in the object, receiving them back isnt necessary.
Or in other words, we dont need observer to collapse it, we need much less than an observer
Right? Or we need an observer?

Theres a reason for the quotation mark, the english language isn't equipped to deal with quantum mechanics, how could it? When english was being fucked around with in europe sub-atomic particles were the last thing on anyones mind.

Anything can 'measure' a wave-particle, it can collapse from interacting with another particle, a electromagnetic field or a peice of cardboard with a slit just big enough to fit you shivled pin dick.

If a wave-particle collapses because of an observer, can it sue that observer for punitive damage?

In the case of Wade vs. Schrödinger the courts ruled that the wave is responsible for any and all particle-like behaviors however should an observer take part during wave-like behaviors in an act that can be shown to be both malicious and/or intentional towards collapse of said wave then the observer holds any and all liabilities et. al.

However that was after the results of the hearing were released to the public, there is currently an appeal on the grounds that all punitive damages are both the sole liability of the particle-wave AND the observer at the same time until a court ruling is made.

Beware the Ding-a-Ling of March.