Thread 16812918

If you believe it a priori, you're an NPC.
If you do the experiment yourself, you know its fake.

Days without a double slit experiment thread being posted on /sci/ while not showing the experimental setup:
0

>>16812919
>ctrl+f "double slit"
>1 result
>oldest thread on /sci/ is a week old
Why must you turn this board intto a house of lies?

>>16812918 (OP)
The universe is a simulation kid, just give up. The universe existing by chance is no more true than God existing by chance.

>>16812925
lol God doesn't exist by chance. It was a certainty that Jesus would come by the time the Old Testament was written. Proof is in the pudding.

>>16812918 (OP)
I mean the problem is that for some unholy reason we use the terminology "observe" instead of "measure"

>>16812918 (OP)
How can i test it in my home lab? I see the Inference, now how do i get to only seeing two slits?

>>16813029
>for some unholy reason we use the terminology "observe" instead of "measure"
The reason is that "measuring" doesn't do anything. You just end up with with a measuring device in a superposition. "Observation", on the other hand, implies an observer who can rule this out.

>>16812918 (OP)
>"it changes when you measure it!!"
the thing used to measure it:

>>16812918 (OP)
You're only learning this now?

>>16812918 (OP)
The double slit "experiment" is the ultimate filler because simply mentioning it or any "result"/ "conclusion" of it automatically red flags you as an illiterate, unscientific moron given that it literally has never been performed. It is a thought experiment dreamt up by a quantum quack, who himself stated it was purely thought experiment that could never have been performed. You are an extra disingenuous nigger if after you've been alluded to these facts you still double down on it and claim that somehow this non experiment imagination then somehow got a non imaginary analogous example to "prove the results" of which were never actually empirical. This on top of the fact that the "example" literally does fucking nothing to explain how light functions or how it does this magical unicorn fairy tale bullshit should have clued you in to what a waste of time talking about it is.
It's like non trolls who mention Schrödinger's cat, yes please explain how you can perform this thought experiment which was solely invented just to highlight your deluded thought process when it comes to atomist horseshit.

>>16813186
They say Feynman liked to perform experiments on more than one slit at a time, often involving the wives of other physicists.

>>16813197
Yeah he was the guy in the corner beating the bongos setting the pace.

>>16812918 (OP)
>If you do the experiment yourself, you know its fake.
>implying you did it
>>16813186
It has been performed by some Italians, or was that version not good enough? Regardless the Stern-Gerlach experiment is a much better demonstration of quantum mechanics.

>>16813277
>It has been performed
>that version
>actually no it doesn't matter there's another experiment here (mentioned for some reason)

A better thought experiment? Was it familiar with thinking more?

>>16813512
Whatever, retard.

>>16812918 (OP)
But I have done the experiment myself, during my undergrad. Can confirm, not fake.

>>16813519
You think you did but you didn't.

>>16813538
I could do with a laugh. What makes you think that?

>>16813516
Gave up already, what a shame. Thanks for playing!

>>16813540
It's not particularly funny. You probably did a double slit experiment with light, which is a fine experiment. It has nothing to do with OP's maymay however, since you can't "observe" light going through one slit without destroying it i.e. blocking the slit. There is no "double slit with observer/measurement on one slit" experiment using light. You can do it with electrons, to an extent, although it's a tricky experiment and has only been done in a handful of labs.

>>16813541
Gave up on what? You have nothing to say. The Stern-Gerlach is not a thought experiment btw.

>>16813542
> There is no "double slit with observer/measurement on one slit" experiment using light
Not true. Turn down the intensity of a laser until it becomes a single photon source and use a CCD detector. Which is exactly what I did.

>>16813546
You still can't do a "measure one slit" experiment.

>>16813547
What does that even mean?

>>16813551
What I mean is that you can't place a detector at one slit that measures and hence collapses the wavefunction (under the CI) of the passing photons, even if they are from a single photon source. Any measurement of the photon requires its absorption/destruction. In other words, you can't test the "observer effect" with a double-slit photon experiment. You can do that with electrons, in principle at least (I believe something close to that experiment has been done but I forget the details). This stackexchange has more explanation.
>https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270982/how-does-the-light-source-fire-a-single-photon-in-the-double-slit-experiment

>>16813552
> you can't place a detector at one slit that measures and hence collapses the wavefunction of the passing photons
Yes you can, very easily. It's obvious when you do because it destroys the interference pattern.

I'm still not getting what the problem is. What precisely are you meaning by the "observer effect"?

>>16813561
Ehh, read the stack exchange and google it if you want.

>>16813562
I did, it's still clear as mud. They were also wrong about why the first experiments were done with electrons, and why they are easier to perform the experiment with. It comes down to the de Broglie wavelength of electrons compared to photons, it makes the experiments easier to manufacture and was the only option in the past.

>>16813543
>Yet another electromagnetic wall outlet device out there "proving" particle quackery along with the halbach arrays at CERN "proving" the existence of other "2 fundamental forces".
Isn't it funny how no matter what delusion a quantum retard peddles it's always backed up by good ol' archaic hertzian waveforms? Why is that? Why do they always use this one fundamental force in an effort to make some grand unified theory proving/ figuring out how the other 3 potentially exist? The irony is more layered than the very field lines they keep finding names for. How many "particles" are we up to now by the way? 56? 57? How many more will it take?
Why you brought this up and what it has to do with Feynman's thought experiment I still don't understand. Are the silver atoms used in it somehow analogous to the imaginary "photon particles" of which you still have no empirical evidence of? Well whatever, I'm sure it's extremely useful for making yet another tokamak knowing full well it won't work like the last one.

>>16813585
Forget about all that shit. Learn about Stern-Gerlach like I said and maybe you'll stop being a larping faggot.

>>16813585
>Why you brought this up and what it has to do with Feynman's thought experiment I still don't understand. Are the silver atoms used in it somehow analogous to the imaginary "photon particles" of which you still have no empirical evidence of?

This is a double slit thread, here we talk about imaginary experiments that never happened. If you want to talk about your shit then go make another thread or post in a more relevant one.

>BUT MUH EXPERIMENT SHOWED MAGNETS HAVE POLES, THAT ELECTRIC THINGS ARE AFFECTED BY MAGNETISM
Which any bum on the street could have told me. Without an experiment no less.

>>16813607
forgot to quote
>>16813597
Also before you abandon your unrelated experiment name dropping, how exactly is it " a much better demonstration of quantum mechanics' when it actually is a much better demonstration of electromagnetism?

>>16813038
I'm very curious. If you put no one in the room with the experiment and use a board that is fluorescent with the appropriete source or some sensor after you have turned off the light source like a thermal sensor to see where the light source has heated the board you would surely see the same pattern. Is the board itself the observer? Or is there some undescribed mechanism to keep whatever information is required to produce the result on the board up until such time where it is ""observed""? What keeps the board itself from being the observer? This just seems like semantics.

>>16813917
>you would surely see the same pattern.
How do you get from:
>something something thermal sensor ...
To:
>... you would surely see ...
Without involving an actual observer? My point is that as far as the raw math itself is concerned, you CAN say the sensor just becomes entangled with the system it's measuring, making it subject to quantum woo. The intuitive way out of this endless regress is that at some point, there's an experimenter actually observing the readings of any measurements made and being in a superposition is logically incoherent from his perspective.

>>16813957
>you CAN say the sensor just becomes entangled with the system it's measuring
You can also say that if the "sensor" is an "actual observer". There is no basis for claiming that actual observers can't be in superpositions but sensors can.

>>16813917
>What keeps the board itself from being the observer? This just seems like semantics
You are in fact, correct. That poster has no idea what he's talking about. There is a simple, rigorous way within quantum mechanics of determining when a "measurement" has happened and it is called decoherence. The woo-pushers will continue to insist for incoherent reasons that there is still some deep mystery related to "observers" or whatever despite this.

>>16813973
>You can also say that if the "sensor" is an "actual observer".
Are all your superpositions in the room with us right now?

>>16813978
>There is a simple, rigorous way within quantum mechanics of determining when a "measurement" has happened and it is called decoherence.
No, it isn't. It's just another so-called "interpretation" which doesn't refute or contradict taking the math at face value and dragging everything into the quantum woo.

>>16813992
>>16813994
Worthless trash. There's no point in conversing with these things. They only need to be shamed and humiliated in public.

>>16813997
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
>Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides a framework for apparent wave-function collapse, as the components of a quantum system entangle with other quantum systems within the same environment. That is, components of the wave function are decoupled from a coherent system and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue.

>>16813998
What does this random quote your broken pattern matching software found in a wiki article have to do with what I said? Retarded trash.

>the article about quantum decoherence specifically mentions how it doesn't solve the issue of everything apparently getting dragged into quantum woo
>it's a cope that leaves you stuck in Shrodinger's Universe
>"its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue"
>brown redditor starts to lose its mind with rage over it
Good thing you have "objective measurements". Too bad they don't actually determine any particular outcome.

^
It's always this braindead retard posting the most retarded takes on topics he learnt through his chatbot. Lmao, so pathetic.

Can you faggots shut the fuck up? I'm tired of mathtards infesting physics and acting all tough and shit bro you are paraphrasing probability theory, nobody fucking cares, we knew to measure 10 times and only cut on 11th without any of this shit. FUCKING KILL YOURSELF.

>>16813998
>A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level)
umm, sweaty? we don't do globalism on this board. out of sight, out of mind

The public humiliation will continue until morale improves.

>>16814023
>out of mind
Yes, but rigorously so.

>>16813973
>There is no basis for claiming that actual observers can't be in superpositions
That sounds like something a mentally sound individual would claim.

The shit you retards post here makes me believe in superpositions, especially in ragebait threads where astroturfers change their argument based on what you post.

>>16814034
quantum decoherence syndrome

>>16813957

How do you get from:
>something something thermal sensor ...
To:
>... you would surely see ...

I was saying that if you did the double slit experiment but did not directly observe the pattern and turned off the light source if you brought the board out of the room after and looked at it with a thermal sensor you would see the same heating pattern as the banded pattern the light proruced when observed. So in this case does the heating pattern only exist when you the human observe it? Do you specifically need to see the pattern on some sensor that actually allows your human brain and eyes to see the infrared light or is simply being glanced at by a human being sufficient? The board seems to be observing the light and forcing it to take a value not a human.

>My point is that as far as the raw math itself is concerned, you CAN say the sensor just becomes entangled with the system it's measuring, making it subject to quantum woo.

I see. This was the second part of my question then. If the board is simply a sensor then is it required there be some mechanism to keep whatever information is present but not observed on or inside the board to construct the pattern you would see when observed? What counts as an observation? If you just do more and more abstract levels of sensing does it only become an observation when a human being looks at a number on a screen? This feels entirely like semantics and where you put the onus of observation. Why can the universe simply not observe itself? Humans are not remotely special.

@16814041
>replying to posts made by the resident braindead schizo when his handlers were away
Lmao

>>16814041
>Do you specifically need to see the pattern on some sensor that actually allows your human brain and eyes to see the infrared light or is simply being glanced at by a human being sufficient? The board seems to be observing the light and forcing it to take a value not a human.
You're kinda missing the point here. The question isn't whether or not the pattern "exists". The question is: what the fuck does it mean for "the universe" to "exist" when you start analyzing some quantum phenomenon but end up with a global wave function that fails to nail down anything being in any particular state? The normal copouts are:

1. Arbitrarily stop somewhere and say "ok, this is close enough to Classical for my tastes"
2. Invent some "wave function collapse" and "observers" that somehow cause it, but then fail to explain why those "observers" would do such a thing, when they're fundamentally no different from whatever is being "observed"
3. Make up infinite universes (which also somehow interfere with each other in the Double Slit experiment)
4. Speculate about global hidden variables

Or you can take the word "observer" to mean what it implies, which is as unfalsifiable as every other option, but neatly ties that loose end conceptually, in a slightly less schizophrenic way than options 2-4 while avoiding the mindlessness of option 1.

>>16814109
>what the fuck does it mean for "the universe" to "exist"
New brainshart just arrived

Low-IQ posters like >>16814119 don't understand how being forced to abandon local realism undermined the normal notion physicists had about what it means for the universe to exist.

>>16814109
Ok I see I would have to think about the first part of what you said for a bit but when you say
>Or you can take the word "observer" to mean what it implies, which is as unfalsifiable as every other option
you strictly mean sapient living being snd not any other object or construct? This also seems like a cop out at the highest level but I can see what you mean for 2-4.

For the pattern thing the presence of the pattern generated in the double slit requires an observer, no? Maybe I misunderstand but my whole question is that if you could assemble some rube goldberg machine of sensors to distinguish if there was a pattern or not ie the output would be 1 or 0 where is the observation ultimately done? Is it the human seeing 0 or 1? Or is it somewhere in the sensor chain that mathematically are in super position? If I am not formulating my question properly then so be it but I would at least appreciate an answer as to why the question itself is incorrect or not

>>16814157
Midwit grade post.

>>16814132
>you strictly mean sapient living being snd not any other object or construct? This also seems like a cop out at the highest level
I mean something capable of knowing that it, itself, is in a definite state, a part of which reflects (presumably) the observed measurements of some external world.

>For the pattern thing the presence of the pattern generated in the double slit requires an observer, no?
The point of the experiment is that you shoot one particle at a time towards the slits. It could go through either one. Unless you measure (using some kind of sensor) there is no single, definite outcome. Instead, it's described by a wave function. The funny interference pattern arises when you DO measure, over and over, and the pattern that emerges reflects that wave function. So it's not really even about the pattern (which is the cumulative result of many measurements) but what's going on even with the first particle you shoot: where does your device register that first dot if no one ever looks at it? Is there a definite answer to this at all? If you believe the sensor is somehow special and "collapses the wave" function or something similar, you can say 'yes'. Otherwise, you can imagine all the possible outcomes with the sensor figured into it, having that dot at different spots. Are you starting to see the problem?

>>16814182
the consensus afaik is that the sensor measures it even if no one's looking

>>16814185
>the consensus afaik is that the sensor measures it
>measures it
No one disputes that it "measures it". The problem is that a completely neutral interpretation of "measurement" just propagates the issue to a higher level.

>>16814191
i mean, it measures it and collapses the wave function. i haven't heard any serious scientist to suggest that the superposition can propagate to macro level and an actual human/animal/whatever is needed to collapse it. that's just quantum woo
how big the sensor can be is the subject of the measurement problem. the mechanism of wave function collapse is unclear in base quantum mechanics, it's just a postulate. some people claim that decoherence can explain it, but as far as i understand these claims are premature, and the fundamental problem persists

>>16814207
>it measures it and collapses the wave function
This is your head canon, not an integral part of QM itself.

>>16814207
>i haven't heard any serious scientist to suggest that the superposition can propagate to macro level
And the reason for that is because of decoherence which simply means it's effectively impossible to isolate any object from the environment. Even putting it in a perfect vacuum doesn't remove things like thermal radiation, cosmic rays, the CMB, etc. A single random particle interaction will break the entire superposition and the larger the object the faster that will happen. That is why we don't see quantum effects in our everyday lives. Our macroscopic worlds is merely the statistical average of all those quantum events.

>>16812918 (OP)
What kind of person wakes up and decides they're going to put the effort into posting this

>>16814225
>because of decoherence ... it's effectively impossible to isolate any object from the environment
Doesn't help your case any. Now you just end up with one big wave function that includes literally everything and nothing to explain why only one outcome is actually observed, beyond the logical nonsequitur of "the others are too unlikely".

>>16814236
What? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

>>16814238
I'm not "trying" to say anything. I'm telling you, simply and directly, that quantum decoherence only reaffirms the idea of a global wave function for the entire universe. It just does so in a matter that the more things you draw into it, the more it favors some particular outcomes. But this is purely probabilistic. It doesn't actually establish one necessary state for the universe.

>>16814246
in a manner*

>>16814246
You don't need quantum decoherence for that, only the linear nature of the axioms of QM. All a global wave function is is the sum of all the individual wavefunctions. It doesn't really change anything.

>>16814254
>You don't need quantum decoherence for that
Quote the part of my post where I said you need quantum decoherence for that.

>It doesn't really change anything.
Exactly. So why did you erroneously invoke it as a solution to the problem of drawing all of existence into the quantum woo?

>>16813546
bro how does a CCD detector detect a photon

>>16814255
> Quote the part of my post where I said you need quantum decoherence for that.
er, okay

>>16814236
>quantum decoherence only reaffirms the idea of a global wave function for the entire universe

@16814258
Holy shit. Brownest and dumbest board on the site besides /pol/. Imagine not knowing what the word "reaffirms" means but still feeling a burning urge to shart out some gotchas about a post that uses it.

>>16814257
What's your point?

>>16813609
I'm name-dropping it because you're obviously a larping pseud who knows jack shit about quantum mechanics. I'm offering you the opportunity to educate yourself. Start with the Stern-Gerlach.

>>16813037
https://www.nasa.gov/stem-content/double-slit-experiment-9-12/

>>16813037
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAm7iVdAvTA

>>16813542
>You can't "observe" light going through one slit without destroying it i.e. blocking the slit
>There is no "double slit with observer/measurement on one slit" experiment using light.
>blocking the slit
Except that's exactly what's happening.
If you don't block the slit, then a single photon (or electron) is going through _both_ slits at the same time.
That's the point: the observer effect is equivalent to blocking one slit.

>>16812918 (OP)
how do you know it changed if you're not looking at it?

>>16815803
Umm no sweetie. The point of the quantum double slit thought experiment (as opposed to a regular double slit experiment about interference of classical waves) is that the "observer" watches which slit the electrons go through, without stopping them. This should remove the interference pattern i.e. make the electrons behave like particles loosely speaking, because it causes the wavefunction to collapse at the point of passing through the slits.

>>16813064
kek
He can observe sound though, so perhaps he collapsed the wave function of sounds?

>>16815806
The phrase "which-way information" in papers is fundamentally the same thing as covering up a hole.
If you don't cover up a hole, then a single electron goes through _both_ holes. You can't observe which-way information unless you make it a zero probability that the electron went through the other hole, in other words, you blocked the hole.

>>16815864
Where are you getting this shit? Why are you larping as a physicist?

>>16815806
>"observer" watches which slit the electrons go through, without stopping them. This should remove the interference pattern i.e. make the electrons behave like particles loosely speaking, because it causes the wavefunction to collapse at the point of passing through the slits.

>>16815806
>"observer" watches which slit the electrons go through, without stopping them. This should remove the interference pattern i.e. make the electrons behave like particles loosely speaking, because it causes the wavefunction to collapse at the point of passing through the slits.
You can find a bunch of videos of the experiment online and see that the interference pattern doesn't go away.

>>16815864
>a single electron goes through _both_ holes.
This is the kind of madness that ensures when you trust quantum woo and take it literally. It's impossible to observe it going through both holes at one therefore it doesn't do that.

>>16815889
>You can find a bunch of videos of the experiment online and see that the interference pattern doesn't go away.
Link me one then.

>>16815891
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqS8Jjkk1HI
This is also the expected result according to QM. What's the dispute supposed to be about?

>>16815897
I'm talking about an experiment where the slits are "observed" causing collapse and removing the interference pattern. Such an experiment can be done but it's not easy to find a video. You and all the other physics fans in the thread can read about it here in Feyman's own words, if you want to know what I mean:
>https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html

>>16815899
Ok. My bad. So what's your bottom line? That the "classic" experiment doesn't actually show any particles going through two slits at once and if you try to forcibly resolve which slit they go through, you get a different experiment with a different result? If so, I agree.

>>16815889
You call it madness, but that's just the way the universe works ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We know it goes through both holes, because a single electron never lands at the disallowed interference pattern states.

>>16816297
>that's just the way the universe works
When you're low-IQ and don't actually know any physics.

>We know
>We
Thanks for 100% affirming the above.

>>16816337
You're either nitpicking or you're another retarded larper. Which is it?

I'm pursuing more the one slit experiment

>>16816571
>nitpicking
Call me back when you directly observe the same particle in two different places at the same time.
>b-b-but what about muh interference pattern
You did not put sensors on both slits to detect it passing through both.

https://youtu.be/9V52Gb_IEv8

This too

>>16812918 (OP)
>If you do the experiment yourself, you know it’s fake.
But I did do the experiment myself and it fucking works. You can use ND filters to reduce photon absorption by a sensor down to single photon events and if you let the statistics build up you still get an interference pattern. We ran this during my modern lab class. It’s weird as fuck but it works.

>>16817140
Ah so it's both.

>>16817169
No. You did a double slit experiment about photons which has nothing to do with the "observer effect" meme in OP, which requires electrons. See Feynman >>16815899

>>16817467
Why did you revert to automatonism? Explain what test you used to observe a particle going through both slits.

>>16817504
OK faggot, I will spell it out for you. The "particle" doesn't. The wavefunction does. When physicists say it "goes through both", that's what they mean. It's just a manner of speaking. Your sperging out over it reveals that you're a larper, a pedant and an idiot.

>>16817523
>. The "particle" doesn't. The wavefunction does.
Is the wavefunction in the room with us? How did you detect it?

>>16817528
You can't detect it directly.
>https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wavefunction

>>16817531
>You can't detect it
Well, maybe that's because it's abstract and not an actual entity that moves through space and goes through both slits at once?

>>16817537
Not really. It's somewhat abstract, but it's the only complete physical description of the electrons (or whatever), it "exists" in 3D space, and it moves through both slits at once. It's just a way of talking about it. English words and phrases are usually inadequate to describe physics. That's why we use maths. Actually the words you're throwing around are not physics, they are just your dogshit word-based retard interpretation of it. Go and do the maths if you actually want to why the wavefunction is necessary and what could be criticised about it (if you really don't like it). I'm just kidding. You're never gonna do that.

>>16813541
yay, we fooled god!

>>16817548
>Not really.
Then why can't you detect it?

>>16817571
Because that's how it heckin works. Go read a textbook.

why cant retards understand the particle is a predictive tool

there is no non-locality

>>16817576
>b-b-b-because, ok???
>just because it's impossible to detect my fantasy woo doesn't mean it's not real
>read the heckin' holy book
lol

>>16817583
Yes. Read the textbook. If you don't do the maths your "understanding" is fake and you are just larping.

>>16817586
>i know heckin' wavefunctions are real and they pass through slits b-b-b-because uhhh
>read a book, ok???
>muh maths
What specific "maths" tells you that wavefunctions are real and pass through slits?

>>16817591
Why don't you read a textbook and find out? I can't explain quantum mechanics to you in a 4chen post. You seem like a contrarian so you would probably enjoy actually thinking about quantum mechanics interpretations, which have a lot of unsolved problems. Indeed what the wavefunction "is" and how "real" it is are unanswered questions. However at the moment you are just an irrelevant larper.

>>16817597
I didn't ask you to explain anything. I asked you to tell what specific "maths" shows you that wavefunctions are real and pass through slits. Notice how I correctly predicted your inability to do so. :^)

>>16817600
You sound a little butthurt... The wavefunction is quite simple mathematically, it's a complex function on real space, combined with a differential equation determining its time evolution, and some rules relating it to "measurements". You at least know some calculus and linear algebra, right? You should be able to understand why the maths of the wavefunction is necessary (to get the answers found in experiments) with a few weeks of study. Then you can worry about whether the interpretation is correct, since you will actually know why the wavefunction is useful in the first place.

>>16817602
While I wait (forever) for you to give me a specific formulate or equation or anything that proves wave functions are real things that pass through slits, here's a sample of statements you made ITT, verbatim, in chronological order:

>a single electron goes through _both_ holes
>that's just the way the universe works
>We know it goes through both holes
>The "particle" doesn't. The wavefunction does.
>It's real but you can't detect it directly.
>Read the textbook
>Indeed what the wavefunction "is" and how "real" it is are unanswered questions

>>16817606
Yes, read a textbook nigger.

>>16817608
Whatever "textbook" you read (5 minute pop-sci YT videos, probably) obviously gave you schizophrenia. You're outright incoherent. I think I'll pass.

>>16817609
Try Griffith's, I guess.

>>16817606
ok, and? we know that the electron goes through both ones but also that it doesn't, by which i mean that the wave function does, as you'd know if you read the textbook, which says we don't know how real it is. literally just read about shreddingers's cat, ok? and some linear algebra while you're at it, you LARPer

>>16817602
>>16817612
While I wait (forever) for you to give me a specific formulate or equation or anything that proves wave functions are real things that pass through slits, here's a sample of statements you made ITT, verbatim, in chronological order:

>a single electron goes through _both_ holes
>that's just the way the universe works
>We know it goes through both holes
>The "particle" doesn't. The wavefunction does.
>It's real but you can't detect it directly.
>Read the textbook
>Indeed what the wavefunction "is" and how "real" it is are unanswered questions

>>16817618
>While I wait (forever) for you to give me a specific formulate or equation or anything that proves wave functions are real things that pass through slits
It's all available in textbooks, if you want to know about it.

>>16817619
Which of your multiple contradictory statements is "available in textbooks"?

>>16817620
All of them. You will see that the "contradictions" stem from your own lack of understanding. Hypothetically speaking, since we all know you'll never actually read a physics textbook.

>X goes through both holes
>X doesn't go through both holes
>we know Y is real
>the "maths" said so
>no, i can't show you the "maths" that said so
>ok, we don't know how real Y is
imagine endlessly arguing with mentally ill people

>>16817625
Textbook. Now.

>>16817625
Hey, now. I was just trying to learn some new "maths". I didn't know he was off his meds.

>>16812918 (OP)
>Double Slit is the ultimate filter
Agreed, anyone who can't into simple mathematics and logic or spend ~100$ on the experimental equipment and successfully set it up is a brainlet.

>>16817635
not rly, you can't do a true "observer effect" experiment with electrons for $100
you can just do a classical light double slit experiment, nothing about quantum mechanics in it though

>>16813197
kek

>>16815806
>watches which slit the electrons go through, without stopping them
you cannot "watch" a fucking photon lmao
anyway, it's about your ability to extract that information from the system. if you can extract it, it shits itself. if you cannot extract it, it goes through both.

>>16817718
>you cannot "watch" a fucking photon lmao
Yes, that's exactly my point. You can't do it with photons because you can't "watch" a phton. Why don't you read the fucking words before replying?

>>16817664
>observer effect
that is not a fucking thing. stop saying this shit, it doesn't exist. it's not about le soul watching it.

>>16817721
That's why I put it in quotes, you stupid fucking faggot.

>>16817720
>You can't do it with photons because you can't "watch" a phton
you cannot watch a photon because it would be absorbed by your eye, obviously, so it doesn't go anywhere else.
but you can use it in an arrangement of splitters and detectors to see what the fuck it does.
if you can find out what it does, as in extract the information from the system, it doesn't behave weird. if you cannot extract the information of what it did, it acts "weird".

>>16817723
but measurement does fuck it up. it is a real phenomenon, it's just not about ze observer, consciousness, or soul. it's about the measurement

>>16817730
>>16817734
Yes, I know. My point was/is that you can't do an "observer effect" double slit experiment with photons. What you're describing is a different (although physically very similar) experiment.
>>16817734
I'm aware. "Observer effect" is simply a term for what you're talking about. It's not the greatest term, but that's normal for physics.

>>16817736
but that's the measurement problem tho. why are you calling it "observer effect"?

>>16817739
Yeah, that is a better name, I guess.

>>16817739
>>16817741
On second thought, that's not really a better name. The "observer effect" tends to refer to a measurement collapsing the wavefunction in a specific context, like a double slit experiment. The measurement problem is a more general problem than that.

>>16817746
no, it's only the measurement problem. everything would decohere probabilistically with or without humans or dogs or cthulhu "observing" it.
you can program a random "artificial observer" that chooses at random to "observe" or not and when information is extracted from the system that system will collapse ze wavez

>>16817763
You really haven't understood what I said at all. I never said it's someone "observing". The "observer effect" is just a handwavey physics terms that constantly confuses normies and pseudophysicists. Wavefunction collapse is not the same as decoherence.

>>16817767
>Wavefunction collapse is not the same as decoherence.
Or more accurately, it's still a contentious point whether they are (or could be) the same.

>>16813029
>>16813038
The most appropriate terminology is, "get interacted on, by" Then there's no "observer" or "measurer", just the interactee.

>>16813186
I love when retards out themselves as people who didn't take AP physics in highschool, and didn't take physics in college, if they even went to college. How's the wageslave life treating you, faggot?

>>16817770
I don't understand why they wouldn't. Honest ask, can you explain the difference, as you see it? Legit curious.

>>16817781
>Honest ask, can you explain the difference, as you see it?
Lol, you're asking me to teach you intro quantum physics in a single post on 4chan? NGMI. You "don't understand why they wouldn't" because you're obviously a pseud who gets all his QM knowledge from pop-sci YouTube videos. Go read a textbook before you embarrass yourself further with your cargo cult "honest asks."

>>16817781
This much you might know already: decoherence is a consequence of normal unitary evolution of the wavefunction. Collapse is a kind of ad-hoc addition to QM which bypasses Schrodinger's equation and describes/predicts physical measurements. As far as I know there is no accepted dynamical theory of collapse, the wavefunction just jumps from one state to another.

An interesting question is then whether decoherence (or other unitary evolution) could be the mechanism of collapse, and it just happens very quickly, or something like that. There are obvious problems with this, such as collapse seemingly being strictly non-unitary, but maybe that information actually gets shoved into the environment somehow. I'm not an expert on this, you would have to dive into some papers.

>>16817784
Stay butthurt, retard.

>>16817784
>I'd embarrass myself if I tried to
best if you didn't reply instead of projecting

>>16817786
>everything that costs me another diaper is projection

>>16817787
You should take your own advice >>16817784

>>16817785
yeah I found something on wiki
>Quantum decoherence explains why a system interacting with an environment transitions from being a pure state, exhibiting superpositions, to a mixed state, an incoherent combination of classical alternatives.[14] This transition is fundamentally reversible, as the combined state of system and environment is still pure, but for all practical purposes irreversible in the same sense as in the second law of thermodynamics: the environment is a very large and complex quantum system, and it is not feasible to reverse their interaction. Decoherence is thus very important for explaining the classical limit of quantum mechanics, but cannot explain wave function collapse, as all classical alternatives are still present in the mixed state, and wave function collapse selects only one of them.
>The form of decoherence known as environment-induced superselection proposes that when a quantum system interacts with the environment, the superpositions apparently reduce to mixtures of classical alternatives. The combined wave function of the system and environment continue to obey the Schrödinger equation throughout this apparent collapse.[17] More importantly, this is not enough to explain actual wave function collapse, as decoherence does not reduce it to a single eigenstate.
so decoherence is more about breaking superpositions to a mix of classical states, while collapse selects only one of them.

>>16817790
Yeah, something like that. Technically decoherence is unitary and doesn't project onto classical states, but if you approximate a system by integrating out the environment then the subsystem appears that way. You kinda have to do the maths to appreciate it.

>>16817788
It's quite telling that you immediately resorted to echoing my own words rather than providing any substantive refutation. Your facile understanding of QM, clearly derived from superficial summaries, is transparent. Perhaps consult (again) an actual textbook before attempting to engage on a topic that evidently exceeds your grasp.

>>16817797
Which textbook would you recommend, good sir?

>>16817799
>she doesn't know what a sticky is
Also,
>good sir
So you're a psued _and_ a Redditor? Why aren't I surprised?

>>16817801
lul
A quick reminder: YWNBAP

>>16817774
The best part: we don't know what a interaction is either, lmao

>>16817801
what a pseud you are lmao

>>16817802
P for 'pseud', sweetie. You're ngmi if you can't even grok the context of your own recycled /r9k/ meme, let alone (for instance) the unitary dynamics of environment-induced superselection. Seethe moar.

>>16817825
>grok
indeed

>>16817826
>indeed
>You [meaning I] Will Never Be A Psued indeed
I surmised I wasn't exactly dealing with Peter Higgs, but can't you at least parse a pronoun through two posts?

>>16817827
I think the pronoun thing was him calling you a tranny, anon.

>>16817827
The "P" was for "physicist", sweetie..

Guys, no reason to get so mad over quantum mechanics. It's just bullshit nature does, we haven't agreed on most of the important interpretations yet.

It's funny that A-friends complain about momentum when A doesn't even conserve momentum if the portals point in different directions.

>>16812918 (OP)
Damn nigga, they just made a video where even a brownoid manages to do the experiment at home. Looks like you god BTFOd
https://youtu.be/sc7FlWUAnzA

>>16817774
>"get interacted on, by"
that sounds a lot like euphemism for "get fucked"

Yes I'm sure you were able to fire individual electrons/photons and then measure them with your homemade detector. Get the fuck out of here

>>16819028
fo' shizzle my nizzle. That's that straight from the heart scientific talk: peace among homies

>>16819429
I QUOTED the WRONG POST!!!11
FUCKCKKC

>>16819432
It's over for you. You will be the laughing stock of the faculty on Monday.

>>16812918 (OP)
for a bunch of nazi retards that got conned into voting for the most pro-israel president in existance, and then defend his dumbass trade policy that's obviously random and being used to enrich his family, you 4chan niggers sure do love posting about how everyone else is an NPC

>>16819772
Do you want your smartphone to destroy your face?
It can do it both literally and figuratively.

>>16819772
Take your meds, schizo.

>>16813542
>since you can't "observe" light going through one slit without destroying it i.e. blocking the slit.
Light creates/is an electromagnetic field, EM fields can induce current nearby conductors. Shouldn't the photon be able to pass through the unobstructed slit/sensor, while the EM field is detected through induction?

Obviously the effects of a single photon wouldn't be measurable by any instrument, but theoretically speaking.

When the experiment is done with electrons or other charged particles with mass, isn't that how the sensor detects them without blocking the path?

>>16815792
This poojeeta is dumb and didn't demonstrate, let alone prove, what she was narrating.

At the slits she used cheap polarized filters crudely oriented by hand. Light from both slits still had both vertical and horizontal components, which still interfered with each other. The interference never went away after "being marked", it was just drowned out by the preponderance of vertically and horizontally polarized light.

The 45 degree filter just made the interference pattern more visible by filtering out the non-interfering signal.

>>16815897
I was expecting a video showing the methodology and setup of the experiment and a demonstration of the results. This is just a computer rendition of pixels lighting up. It doesn't tell me anything.

>>16820564
The paper it relates to is in the video description, thoughbeit. It should answer your questions and confirm you're seeing what I said you're seeing.

>>16820681
>thoughbeit
Seeing as you're incapable of synthesizing the references you cite, the least you could do is feed them into ChatGPT and copy paste the response.

>>16820686
Whomstever told you it's my responsibility to "synthesize" references for you, was lying, thoughbeit.

>>16820712
That is you. You look like that and you say that.

>>16820714
Your understanding of physics is based on what poojeeta youtubers were able to digest and shit out for you to consume. It's very loose.

>>16820721
I like how quickly you're devolving into incoherent psychosis. I showed you a video showing the outcome of an experiment with the relevant paper in the description. It contains no jeets or anything besides the interference pattern forming.

>>16820723
Chill out, there were lots of worthless youtube responses and your pixel simulation vid got mixed up with the poojeeta quantum eraser vid>>16815792 . Same shit, different pile. No big deal.

>>16820747
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018
>An electron beam with energy of 600 eV, which corresponds to a de Broglie wavelength of 50 pm, was generated with a thermionic tungsten filament and several electrostatic lenses. The beam was collimated with a slit of 2 μm width and 10 μm height placed at 16.5 cm. The double-slit was located 30.5 cm from the collimation slit. The resulting patterns were magnified by an electrostatic quadrupole lens and imaged on a two-dimensional microchannel plate and phosphorus screen, then recorded with a charge-coupled device camera.
So this is not a "simulation", it's the actual result of the experimental setup described in the paper.

>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018/data
The YT clip is "Movie 2" which demonstrates the above.

>>16820760
You said "You can find a bunch of videos of the experiment online" and replied with the dot video.
That's a shit example of a video showing the experiment.

Might as well have posted a vid of someone opening an excel spreadsheet and saying "voila".

>>16820712
Lmao. What a retarded way to die

>>16820773
>That's a shit example of a video showing the experiment.
What would be a good example? You can deny the reality of any other example in the same way. If it focuses on the actual screen, it's a "pixel simulation". If it shows off some fancy machinery (as some pop-sci material does), that's just a fake prop and the screen is a trick. You can go with that if you like, so long as you don't assert Trump was shot in the ear and Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck based on videos. :^)

>>16817777
You trying to tell me you did all of that to learn about a thought experiment? I hope they didn't charge you too much for that "physics" class in college because there's nothing physical about the "experiment" that never took place.

>>16815298
>a larping pseud who knows jack shit about quantum mechanics
No, I was quoting one not larping as one. Imagine being a poor Stalinist who believes quantity has "mechanics" or qualia to speak of.

>>16821241
Stern-Gerlach. Now.

>>16820694
>Whomstever told you it's my responsibility to "synthesize" references for you, was lying
So then stop backing up and posting your little paper penis then you moron. You do it no good either, getting all the way up to this point and then limp dicking the conversation along, shilling it like a poo shills me a Microsoft security package over the phone. "Oh look at ze paper", "Buy my book". How about "summarize it for me you fucking bum or no quarter"?

>>16815902
The "classic" experiment is a fucking thought experiment. Does observing it as a real experiment change the path of the electric pixies?

>>16821244
You know they didn't disprove the Aether, but that didn't stop purple robbed beggar from "explaining" the null results of the Michelson Morley "experiment" and conjuring a bunch of jabberwocky about light being both "wave and particle" ("waves" of what lol) that the dual slit thought experiment entertains. And no I'm not just being liberal with the quotes.

>Stern-Gerlach. Now.
Book of Mormon. Now.

>>16821254
>And no I'm not just being liberal with the quotes.
You most certainly are. Retard.

>>16821254
I'm not reading any of that shit. Sorry. No one cares what mentally ill people have to say.

>>16815562
>https://www.nasa.gov/stem-content/double-slit-experiment-9-12/
Over here it links to a model sheet about wave particle duality. Sure you shills will waste the times of others (as you do in that idiotic youtube clip) and shift away from your primitive stupid propaganda lies. But why expose your utterly blind idiotism instead just to shut up?

>>16821254
>the null results of the Michelson Morley "experiment
Another idiotism. It will always give a null result caused by experiment arrangement. Academica is dumb beyond believe and can not find design flaws in 100years ++ .