Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 05:10:41 UTC No. 16491317

The way you've dumbed this down makes it sound hokey when it's actually pretty straightforward.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 07:26:05 UTC No. 16491382

>>16491218
Dear degenerate,

Consider following, that experiment cost less to do, than you pay for bullshit reading about it, do it on your own.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:43:19 UTC No. 16491673

>>16491317
>it's actually pretty straightforward.
What's straightforward? Photons having sentience? Sounds like magical thinking bullshit to me.

>>16491382
>do it on your own
Follow your own advice.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:13:37 UTC No. 16491694

>>16491218
It is very simple, Photons just are. They see everything. They see you peeking at the slit before you've even decided if you are going to peek at the slit or not. Photons laugh at us massies as we slog through the Higgs.
You peeked!

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:54:06 UTC No. 16491735

>>16491218
Because photons go forward and backward in time so they already know. We just have monkey brains that only operate in one direction

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:31:34 UTC No. 16491775

>>16491735
>>16491694
>>16491382
The experiment is fake and can't be replicated.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:43:44 UTC No. 16491782

>>16491775
You and a friend can literally do it at home and get immediate results. I did.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:13:27 UTC No. 16491824

I don't buy any of academia.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:25:01 UTC No. 16492032

My wife and I and our girlfriend replicate the double-slit experiment whenever we meet up.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:46:37 UTC No. 16492105

>>16491782
>File: 1718549535478.png (235 KB, 440x440)

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:48:02 UTC No. 16492108

>>16492105
>Too rich for my phone.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:48:39 UTC No. 16492109

>>16491782
Why are you a lying piece of shit?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:53:20 UTC No. 16492114

>>16492108
Uh-huh.....right...

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:05:11 UTC No. 16492211

>>16492109
I'm not. The experiment is easy to do. Get your friend to help you.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:11:26 UTC No. 16492219

>>16491218
.......

The photons interfere and create an inrerference pattern regardless.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:23:38 UTC No. 16492237

>>16491824
You still pay for it though

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:52:02 UTC No. 16492286

>>16492211
>double slit experiment
>shoots a laser at a CD
>lots of random shit edited onto the photo
>"this means that photons are sentient"

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:53:51 UTC No. 16492289

>>16492219
Doesn't happen.

>>16492237
How do you know that there is a wave interference pattern in the top image? That's right, because you OBSERVE it. The experiment is complete fiction.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:58:05 UTC No. 16492294

>>16491218
Any physical interaction significant enough to identify which slit an individual photon passes through is significant enough to radically alter the behavior of the photon after the measurement.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:09:05 UTC No. 16492305

>>16492294
According to your bullshit textbook that probably also tells you that 94% of the universe is made up of "dark matter" and "dark energy," for which there is no empirical evidence.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:10:52 UTC No. 16492308

>>16492294
>>16492219
How do you know?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:20:39 UTC No. 16492315

>>16491673
By the totalitarian principle the amplitude of the photon has contributions from both slits. Because the superposition principle implies amplitudes are complexified and linear, and because the components of this amplitude are not orthogonal, the probability density at the screen shows interference minima and maxima. When the experiment is modified to introduce a which-slit information detector, the amplitude now must include mutually orthogonal states of the detector and the interference pattern subsequently disappears. The full description is given by the Englert–Greenberger–Yasin duality relation. No reference to the "sentience" of the photons is required, they are treated as objects, only the contents of the first one or two lectures of freshman undergrad quantum mechanics. A "sentient" subject is still needed to look at the objects of the system for probabilities to be calculated or any outcomes to be registered since quantum mechanics is manifestly observer-dependent.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:24:03 UTC No. 16492320

>>16492315

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:49:28 UTC No. 16492350

>>16492308
Science says so.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 03:01:36 UTC No. 16492358

>>16492350
Damn, why didn't I think of that?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 03:05:02 UTC No. 16492360

>>16492286
Photon, photon,
Let's get our goat on.
I'll put my coat on,
If we're a going for a photon.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 05:16:48 UTC No. 16492478

>>16491218
huygens principle explains everything

you just have to understand that the quantum state doesnt represent one particle it represents infinite particles that behave randomly as they move on continuous trajectories.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 05:56:58 UTC No. 16492501

>>16492478
You actually believe the double slit experiment is real?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 06:32:33 UTC No. 16492530

>>16492501
It is use analogously with how sociapaths structure society such that observing what they do to you becomes observed as a black and white either or this or that situation whereas when you do not observe what the yare doing to you, there are many more horrible and amazing and different things that are happening.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 06:57:50 UTC No. 16492552

>>16492289
the wave pattern is

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:56:57 UTC No. 16492793

>>16492289
>How do you know that there is a wave interference pattern in the top image?
By looking at the screen?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 14:06:58 UTC No. 16492806

>physically interact with photon to measure it
>this alters the photon
>hurr durr sentience observation
When did this "observer" meme start

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 14:16:05 UTC No. 16492816

>>16492806
Guess it comes from lessons using ambiguous phrasing, and midwits repeating it to the general public without understanding the meaning

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 15:57:29 UTC No. 16492903

>>16492305
>>16492308
”Detection” of any kind necessarily requires interaction. There is no interaction you could perform to stop, scatter, or otherwise tag light to indicate which slit the light is passing through without fundamentally altering the original behavior of the light. If you physically block one slit, you necessarily absorb the photons rather than allowing them through, filtering or polarizing the slits runs into the same problem, even photon-photon interactions don’t work because any photon with a short enough wavelength to resolve which slit another photon passed through has enough energy to alter the trajectory of the photon leaving the slit.

Detection on the classical scale doesn’t run into this problem because you have lower energy particles doing the interaction. Light reflecting off atoms in a ball can be used to detect the ball’s location without altering its macroscopic trajectory, for example. But at the quantum scale you don’t have anything with lower energies to interact with that could yield information without fundamentally altering the behavior of the system you’re trying to measure. It’d be like trying to track the ball’s by hitting it with other balls.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:05:31 UTC No. 16492925

>>16492501
what's not to real?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:07:15 UTC No. 16492927

>>16492816
how not to understand?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:08:24 UTC No. 16492928

>>16492806
Not to need the observation. film can do will.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:19:43 UTC No. 16492941

Is this the phuton thread?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:22:31 UTC No. 16492945

>>16492941
Spastic.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:25:48 UTC No. 16492948

>>16492945
>Spastic
My mistake, I didn't realize it was that kind of thread.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:30:17 UTC No. 16492955

>>16492941
I wanted an ultraviolet phuton.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:45:48 UTC No. 16492978

>>16492955
>I wanted an ultraviolet phuton.
Be careful what you wish for

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:55:41 UTC No. 16492993

>>16492978
Oh my god! They’re dissociating her! And then they’re gonna dissociate me!! Oh my gooooood!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:18:56 UTC No. 16493018

>>16492993

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 18:51:17 UTC No. 16493111

>>16492925
>what's not to real?
That's not real. I do not grasp why the obvious lie of that experiment must be defended. Project total confusion or just academic greed?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 18:52:50 UTC No. 16493115

>>16492928
That's simulation too.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:19:20 UTC No. 16493136

>>16492941
>phuton
pho wanton, m8T. i luvs me sum.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:23:44 UTC No. 16493142

>>16492955
>ultraviolet phuton
ugo gnuton?
maybe on pluton,
?¡with yo spacesuit on!¿

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:26:37 UTC No. 16493150

>>16493111
>>16493115
>Source: i have seen a lot of pixels, man.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:51:07 UTC No. 16493178

>>16492793
>By looking at the screen?
>the screen
It's a doodle in MSPaint.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:53:10 UTC No. 16493182

>>16492925
>>16492927
>>16492928
>CGI graphics

Yes, very real. You've convinced me for sure.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:57:11 UTC No. 16493192

>>16493178
I was referring to the double slit setup when the experiment is actually being carried out.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:59:02 UTC No. 16493196

>>16493192
The experiment isn't real, bro.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:34:58 UTC No. 16493243

>>16493196
Then how do you call Schrödinger fucking both his wife and his mistresses

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:56:17 UTC No. 16493267

>>16493243
Schrödinger's dick so small he have to keep checking on the pussybox to see if it ded.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:57:05 UTC No. 16493270

>>16491218
what do you need to buy? it's been tested

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:59:30 UTC No. 16493278

Lol cause someone is going to experience life's one great painer. Only one in existence.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:59:46 UTC No. 16493279

>>16493192
#MeToo

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 01:20:14 UTC No. 16493563

>>16493270
>it's been tested
Just like the COVID vax.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:06:32 UTC No. 16493606

>>16491218
Hey OP, your mom booty called me last night and asked me to do the Double Slit Experiment w/ her
hehhhehehhhehhhh

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:23:53 UTC No. 16493615

>>16492315
I'm very low IQ and lack any background in science. Are you trying to say that the instruments we measure QM with inherently have to interfere with the interactions themselves because of how small-scale they are? And why are the outcomes of QM even observer-dependent/random? How can things happening at the small scale be indeterminate yet at a classical physics level with stuff like me throwing a ball things seem pretty consistent? Is there some definite line where things go from random to consistent? This all seems so unintuitive.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:00:58 UTC No. 16493686

>>16491218
You are missing a lot of pieces in that retarded intake, the key here is the pathway in the slits that is being "observed", if you try to figure out which slit the photon went through and then predict where it’ll land it farts out and acts like a particle, but if you ignore that and stop checking which slits it goes through it vaporizes and autistically becomes a wave like thing, observation doesn’t mean some dude watching it, it’s any kind of interaction with the photon at the slits be it on purpose or not, like other particles, waves, or anything else messing with it as it passes through, so in short:
scenario 1
>look the photon went through slit1/2
>holyshit it's a particle
scenario 2
>neither I nor the universe knows which slit it went through
>holyshit it's a wave

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:16:34 UTC No. 16493706

>>16491218
>which we know because we...erm...observed it
You are talking about a messy jumble of a pattern there, observing that still doesn’t tell you which path or slit the photon actually took.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:25:55 UTC No. 16494849

>>16491218
>>16491218
good pic

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 07:49:54 UTC No. 16494957

>>16492315
Sure, but the issue is the concept of a measurement in QM is poorly defined and taken as something outside of QM when we know observers are made of matter and would be described by QM itself. This is the root of the problem. I watched an interview with Susskind recently and he stated something similar to what I've figured seems like the only reasonable resolution to the problem: that observation/wave function collapse is the entanglement of the observer with the system.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:51:55 UTC No. 16495027

>>16492806
When Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, et al. established QM. An interaction between objects is a unitary process described by e.g. some term in the Hamiltonian. An interaction between an object and the agency of measurement is a non-unitary projection of the state onto a subspace describing the subjective event called observation.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:03:25 UTC No. 16495034

>>16493615
1/3
>Are you trying to say that the instruments we measure QM with inherently have to interfere with the interactions themselves because of how small-scale they are?
All mathematically non-forbidden potentia must be summed over when obtaining the probability density, regardless of scale. This was first made explicit by Dirac and later expanded upon by Feynman. The degree of contribution for any particular component depends on the setup. In the variant of the double slit experiment which includes, as part of the initial state, an instrument sensitive to the slit the particle comes in, the contribution is very significant. Specifically, the wave-like interference pattern obtained when the instrument was not included is eliminated. The calculation isn't complicated. An introductory account is provided here
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:04:44 UTC No. 16495036

>>16493615
2/3
>And why are the outcomes of QM even observer-dependent/random?
Randomness is a consequence of the noncommutative algebra governing observables. Spin observables are the simplest example. Suppose an electron is prepared spin up with respect to some axis, so [math]\lvert\psi\rangle=\lvert\uparrow\rangle[/math] and [math]\textrm{Prob}\left(\lvert\uparrow\right\rangle)=1[/math]. Now if a perpendicular axis is to be measured, this becomes [math]\lvert\psi\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\lvert\uparrow\rangle-\lvert\downarrow\rangle\right)[/math] and [math]\textrm{Prob}\left(\lvert\uparrow\right\rangle)=\textrm{Prob}\left(\lvert\downarrow\right\rangle)=0.5[/math]. More generally, outcomes are probabilistic, i.e. lie in the closed interval [math]\left[0,1\right][/math], with "non-randomness" (0 and 1) as special cases. This system is isomorphic to the Bloch sphere, which you can find many textbook chapters, tutorials, lecture notes, etc of all over the internet.
Observer-dependence follows from the structure of the space quantum states live in. Hilbert spaces do not come equipped with a preferred measurement basis, much like Minkowski space does not come equipped with a preferred inertial frame. The choice of measurement basis is (provided it preserves superselection sectors) a free choice of the observer and Turing undecidable. Like the simultaneity of Minkowskian events, when and where measurement occurs is not absolute. Unlike classical mechanics over a Minkowskian background, there is no analogue of the Lorentz transform between inertial frames to relate the perspectives of two generic observers to some objective substratum. Additionally, the set of all observers is not as elementary as the set of all inertial frames: the separation of the observer and the observed, Heisenberg's "schnitt" of the measurement chain, is arbitrary. An analysis of Wigner's friend is perhaps the simplest example of all this.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:06:27 UTC No. 16495038

>>16493615
3/3
>How can things happening at the small scale be indeterminate yet
Decoherence and the relatively small value of Planck's constant (just look at uncertainty relations in SI units) imply that the interference effects and uncertainties resulting from a full quantum treatment of ball-throwing trajectories do not play a significant role in the coarse-grained measurements you make in daily life. The attached pdf provides some introductory material. This isn't qualitatively different from non-relativistic mechanics being approximately valid for the small velocities and gravitational forces ordinarily encountered, electrostatics approximating electrodynamics when charges are slow, macroscopic thermodynamics approximating statistical mechanics when particle number is large (among other conditions), the organic chemist who approximates atomic nuclei as fully stable, the Earth appearing approximately flat for small surface areas, etc. These approximations all fail at some point and inadequately describe nature at the fundamental level. There are many "classical physics level" phenomena that classical physics mispredicts, too. For example, due to low specific heat capacity, it doesn't take very long for a microwave to raise the temperature of a cup of tea enough to burn your hand. Ab initio, classical physics is unable to explain this because it says water should have many more degrees of freedom than it actually does.

>Is there some definite line
If only commuting observables are ever measured, then only the initial state is random, analogous to classical physics. Otherwise, no.

>This all seems so unintuitive.
That is indeed true
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hWTbtXgqYMo?start=1564&end=1647&autoplay=1
But it isn't that surprising to find it so, when you also consider that evolution maximizes Darwinian fitness and not accurate portrayal of the world. We can still study things rationally, avoiding invocation of intuition and other cognitive biases.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:11:56 UTC No. 16495039

>>16494957
Measurement is made completely well-defined by the axioms of QM
https://web.mit.edu/8.05/handouts/jaffe1.pdf#page=5
It's "outside" just as 0 is "outside" of Peano arithmetic, which for all sane definitions of "outside" is clearly not true in either case. Entangling some degrees of freedom cannot collapse anything, this directly follows from the no-deleting theorem. The so-called "problem" is nothing but a psychological/sociological one.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:41:42 UTC No. 16495128

So, ~200 years ago, they somehow knew the mass of individual atoms. How did they do that?
>Well, know a 'mol' of a certain substance has ~6.023x10^23 atoms, so if we then weigh that mol, we can take the weight, and divide by 6.023x10^23, which informs us how much each individual atom of that element weighs!
Ok, so how did they figure out that a mol contains 6.023x10^23 atoms?
>Oh, that 6.023 number is just arbitrary, you could make a mol represent any amount you'd like. But anyway, since they knew how much a mol of a substance weighed, and they knew how much each individual atom weighed, then they just divided the mol's weight by the weight of a single atom, which let them know there are 6.023x10^23 atoms in a mol!
But... how did they know how much an individual atom weighed?
>Well, once you know how many atoms are in a mol, then-
Ok, but that's what I'm trying to find out. How were they able to calculate how much each individual atom weighed, so they could then divide the mol's weight by the atom's weight, which would then give them the necessary information that allows them to calculate how many atoms are in a mol?
>Right, so another weigh to determine an atom's weight, is to measure how much the protons/neutrons weigh-


On a scale of planck-length to avogadro's number, how dumb am I for not understanding this.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:57:47 UTC No. 16495144

>>16495128
Homie needs to review Dalton

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:46:36 UTC No. 16495173

>believing photons are even real.

Light is just the excitation of the aether.

> b-but Einstein PROVED the aether doesn’t exist with his magical genius powers. Special and general relativity aren’t riddled with absurdities and contradictions I promise.

Why should I believe anything a Jew has to say.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:54:47 UTC No. 16495181

I know this is probably a big ask for this thread/board/website, but does anyone have any resources in regards to 'esoteric schizo' knowledge on electronics manufacturing, which happen to borrow subject matter from other fields that aren't typically associated with building advanced technology? I'm specifically interested in certain topics that are officially branded as being downstream under the *Hard Science* umbrella that is known as 'Life Sciences/Biology'.

I'm more than considerably skeptical towards many, many of their claims.
And it's kinda interesting, because sometimes I tend to feel like I'm witnessing a strange "subtle' phenomena, where the greater the affinity-towards-evading-testing-methods + the more tantalizingly-complex an alleged claim appears to be, there's this funny -^- I don't want to say 'pattern', because there's a good chance my mind is using some selective statistics to trick me into seeing these almost fractal like reoccurrences -^-, but I wanna say there's this potential to sometimes believe you're noticing peculiar relationships when you look at just the right angle. Where the more mind-blowingly-impressive that arises when you are learning about certain topics, the more likely that topic's literature is bound to have greater confidence in how accurately precise 'our' knowledge is on that topic.

I mean, mankind has un/knowingly devoted a rather large amount of resources, as well as quite a bit of suffering from both un/willing participants hoping to advance our knowledge for various areas in Biology. I don't want to seem ungrateful and disrespectful by just dismissing all the progress which do happen to be important achievements in our understanding of biology. But then also there are times where my noggin has trouble corroborating some of the 'scientific consensus' with reality.

bodhi at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:47:23 UTC No. 16495285

>>16493018
the magic hour is my twitch handle

bodhi at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:48:24 UTC No. 16495288

>>16493136
there are no wantons in that soup bitch stop using false advertising

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:55:53 UTC No. 16495293

>>16495288
>Oh faker, those be dumplings.
They are obviously wonton.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 18:40:24 UTC No. 16496416

>>16491218
>but the photons didn't notice us observing them
photons are so easy to trick
low IQ retards lol

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 04:44:27 UTC No. 16497895

>>16495027
The stereotypical handwringing tortured talmudic logic of a parasitic tribe member

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 14:36:11 UTC No. 16498217

>>16497895
Oh noes, not the Jewish meth mites. Are they in the room with us right now? How many have you collected in your matchbox so far?

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 14:48:17 UTC No. 16498226

>>16495173
einstein never done any experiments, hes industry plant that stole work of others while he was working at the patent office, jewish nepotism at its finest

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 22:55:19 UTC No. 16499651

>>16493182
just have faith bro

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:43:15 UTC No. 16501514

lul

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:47:19 UTC No. 16501517

lul

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:50:20 UTC No. 16501521

[math]\unicode{x1F61C}[/math]

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:01:11 UTC No. 16501669

>>16495034
>>16495036
>>16495038
Thanks a bunch for this, it was really cool. I can't honestly say I really understood most of it but appreciated nonetheless.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:43:41 UTC No. 16501694

>>16492315
based poltard filter

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 01:17:28 UTC No. 16503044

>>16495128
>for not understanding this.
It's a circular argument, science voodoo babble, a sane person cannot understand it.

>>16501669
It's academic fraud. That babbling misguide you from the simple fact that the double slit is not replicable.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 03:34:46 UTC No. 16504485

Is it possible that nazi uberscience somehow made use of the twin slit phenomenon to miraculously dispose of six million dead jews in a manner that was otherwise inconceivable for western science in the 1940s?

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 21:39:20 UTC No. 16505209

>>16492925
Muh photons

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 22:47:38 UTC No. 16505249

>>16505209
See those photons over there?
>No.
Then you are blind.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 01:55:22 UTC No. 16505384

>>16491218
>Anyone else not buying this?

Does he not know the "double slit experiment" is a thought experiment conjured up by a lunatic? Of course we don't buy it, it never could have happened in the first place.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:30:03 UTC No. 16505412

The confusion here comes from asshole physicists using layman terminology with a completely different definition and tik tok watching trash that got a C in calc pretending they're smart and regurgitating things they don't understand in a stupid way.

In the case of the double slit experiment you cant actually observe without interfering.

imagine someone throwing tennis balls in a dark room.
In order to observe them directly you would have to touch them or brush them as they flew past. of course toughing the tennis balls even slightly is going to change how they behave and that happens in double slit experiment.

to observe them we need to hit them with something, ie a shit ton of photons or a sheet of something. when we do this it changes their behavior.

the particles dont have sentience and cant tell if youre watching or not lol

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:30:54 UTC No. 16505413

>>16491218
>He doesn't buy the double slit experiment
Buddy, it's almost the end of your freshman semester. You should have gotten laid by now. There was orientation week, rush week, Halloween,... Need I go on? College is all about opening your mind, which you clearly haven't done. I'll dumb it down for you.
>Physics is about modelling reality in a way that is predictive, descriptive, consistent, and simple
Flat earth is not technically incorrect, it's simply a useless model, unless you can prove that there must be an inconsistency. Thinking about reality as (locally) euclidean space occupied by little spheres that have inherent properties which govern their interactions is very useful for most chemists and engineers.
>In coming up with a model, the physicist only aims to be consistent with all previous results. There will almost certainly be an experiment that breaks the model's consistency, a result that could not be correctly predicted by the model, a scenario that the model describes in an overly complex fashion, or a scenario that the model is not robust enough to describe
Hence the double slit experiment. The question: "Are they particles or waves?" The answer: "Both" Was the contradiction worth it? You be the judge.