there’s a movie from 2004 called What the Bleep Do We Know!? Check it out, I just found it. It solidifies the concept with the doors I was talking about. See I know I wasn’t talk no BS, I knew somebody had to clarify it. Lol
Here's why: Observation of the photon is a direct interaction. In other words, the photon has to strike something - an atom or an electron - for it to register in the devlce,. Once the interaction occurs, that photon no longer exists, and a new photon is created due to the excitation of the atom or electron it hit. The new photon starts its journey without the double slit, so there is no interference pattern
@adama.4622 it's a tautological setup. There is no actual retrocausality. Instead, we are actually just seeing individual subsets of all interference patterns made available by the paths of entangled photons. Nothing actually changes along the path.
That's not the full explanation. You can directly interact with quantum particles to some extend without collapsing the wave function, but if you check what happens it collapses immediately.
Idk why everyone says no one knows why particles change when observed. We do. Observing something in science involves physically interacting with it which changes it. For instance using spectograohy changes molecules because photons can charge electrons, changing the result.
This is answered in Star talk with Neil De Grasse Tyson, he gives the answer simply as, these are light particles; photons are so tiny that the object used to observe them is also projecting its own light particles in order for the observation to even take place therefore disrupting how the wave patterb would naturally occur causing the photons to behave how they do, when not observed they go back to the natural wave pattern because there are no other photons to disrupt the natural behaviour
WOW, I never heard this explanation before!! Thank you so much! I had a slight intuition that the actual explanation would be somehow like this and not the mainstream and kinda romanticised view of "the presence of an observer changes the nature of the particle/wave ♡". Even if I am a very open-minded scientist, (well, still a student xd) and actually applaud and appreciate that there's being changes in mainstream science when it comes to issues such as materialism, determinism, quantum physics and also the nature of consciousness, I never liked the woo-woo explanation of "your consciousness/the observer changes the behaviour of the photon". This explanation you gave makes so much more sense, I think, so thank you.
Wheeler's delayed-choice experiments demonstrate that extracting "which path" information after a particle passes through the slits can seem to retroactively alter its previous behavior at the slits. it isnt just photons interacting with other photons
No one mentions how the sensing device operated. Was it passive or active? Was it simply a camera or did it project out something that needed to be reflected back? If it used a light source then it would interact with the incoming waves and a new interference pattern would be created. Also, was this experiment ever done in a vacuum chamber? Is it possible that light was interacting with the air molecules it was passing through corrupting the results?
Theyre measuring photons which are incredibly small so you need an incredible amount of energy to measure something so small. The device wasn't passive and the only reason this idea is popular is because people intentionally leave this info out to sensationalize this bs
One possible way to understand reality from this experiment could be; 1- Observation creates our reality. 2- Reality is one possibility that we bring into existence from waves of all possibilities. 3- All possibilities exist but our action bring one into existence to form our reality. Just guessing!
We'll done! best explanation on here, to me. No disrespect to any other responses 🧘🏽♂️ Do not try and bend the spoon-that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.” Neo: “What truth?” Young Monk: “There is no spoon. …
We in fact know exactly why observing a particle causes it to change. It takes light to observe or measure something. Atoms are so small and dense that when light interacts with them they move/change. We’re dealing with something so small that light has the strength to push or move it. Atoms are less dense than the light acting on it and less dense than the space it takes up.
This is ridiculous, that is not a proof at all. 1) The universe does not seem to be rendering things as we deal with them, like in a game. We can observe the spectra of atoms billions of light years away, which were emitted long before we existed, in all directions, and by the spectra of that light, we conclude that the electrons were, billions of years ago, acting like standing waves around the nucleus and emitting the photons like so. 2) What does it mean to observe something? The wave nature of particles is not something we can't even write equations about, we literally have a wave function which describes exactly how the 3d waves propagate in space and time, and how the electron waves oscillate around the nucleus of atoms. 3) The "two points / slits" that we observe when we detect particles do not mean "particle", it means we are less precise about one of the conjugate variables, like Heisenberg taught us. Simply because of the nature of waves, and that we are using waves to detect other waves. 4) This is a problem in the logic of science. The universe can be a simulation created by aliens, if you would like to follow this hypothesis, but the "Measurement Problem" in quantum mechanics is just not good evidence for it. Logically, the Cosmic Event Horizon would be better evidence for this hypothesis, for example, but even though better, would still be bad.
@@lawrencefrost9063 Thanks, Lawrence Frost, for having some time to have a conversation about this and for answering me. I appreciate it a lot! And I would like to clarify some arguments against it. 1) The universe does not seem to be rendering things as we deal with them, like in a game. We can observe the spectra of atoms billions of light years away, which were emitted long before we existed, in all directions, and by the spectra of that light, we conclude that the electrons were, billions of years ago, acting like standing waves around the nucleus and emitting the photons like so. 2) What does it mean to observe something? The wave nature of particles is not something we can't even write equations about, we literally have a wave function which describes exactly how the 3d waves propagate in space and time, and how the electron waves oscillate around the nucleus of atoms. 3) The "two points / slits" that we observe when we detect particles do not mean "particle", it means we are less precise about one of the conjugate variables, like Heisenberg taught us. Simply because of the nature of waves, and that we are using waves to detect other waves. 4) This is a problem in the logic of science. The universe can be a simulation created by aliens, if you would like to follow this hypothesis, but the "Measurement Problem" in quantum mechanics is just not good evidence for it. Logically, the Cosmic Event Horizon would be better evidence for this hypothesis, for example, but even though better, would still be bad.
@@cai0_o The thing is, what you think that you're always observing is an illusion, as long as you're looking at it with the telescope it exists but as soon as you shut it down, you basically don't see them and therefore don't exist. And as soon as you look at them again, the image you see has just been made with all of its proprities such as age and etc. The space as i look at it with the naked eye is just pixels ( the stars are small and everything looks smaller), but if I use a telescope i see more and therefore more gets rendered in the same way in a game, you're in a road and you see a big sight right at the horizon and doesn't look more that just few pixels but as soon as you get closer to the city the game reders more frames and it becomes more detailled. The Simulator (or i like to call him god) won't have to make the whole universe at once, the same way the Game doesn't load the whole game up at the same time. However, this Double Slit Experience isn't considered as the biggest piece of proof to me, there is much more evidence to prove that we are likely in a simulation than this such as the golden ration and the indeniable intellegence design of the universe and how everthing seems to be made with equal vallues.
“…No one knows why observing a particle causes its behavior to change.” Yes we do, it’s apparent that whatever device was used to observe which slit the photon/particle passed through -disturbed, interfered with, and scattered the waveform leaving only two lines. The experiment was faulty and we need a non invasive way to observe which slit the photon/particle goes through. In the end when observed uninvasively, we will still see a waveform interference pattern and still know which slit each photon/particle went through. The measurement device blocked the waveform and only allowed the photon/particle through.
almost correct, except that it always was just a wave, never a particle, and because a wave has an area of infuence, it can only ever pass through both at once if they are close enough. you cannot measure were it went through because its a wave and particles are not real, but trying to determine one side results in one side triggering first and interacting with it, disturbing it in the process, which results in the disturbed part not contributing to any interference because it got scattered
I mostly agree with this, it’s that we interfere with it that causes it to be this way not kuz we are watching it with out eyes. That’s dumb to think that particles have brain lol
I'm no physics major, but the instrument which is used to observe the photons interacts with the photons( since observing photons is not a simple task, we have to project some sort of a ray towards the protons and then the reflection of the ray is what we observe). anyone well versed in this topic please elaborate and enlighten!
@@dipdip907it is the “greatest proof” doesn’t mean it’s hardcore proof, but this experiment is the greatest experiment that backs simulation theory When observed photons change the way they travel and don’t travel like waves. This is very similar to a video game, when you “render” something in and the game behaves differently because your player is there to observe whatever is occurring. In Minecraft you load chunks around you based on your players location. In this experiment, the method at which photons travel changes if the traveling is observed, aka if you player is there to watch these photons travel they will not behave as they would if you weren’t there trying to observe. The photons are seemingly conscious of being observed aka ‘when they are being rendered’ I am not bsing you, this experiment is that mind blowing, go do more research
Photons are to small to see, we dont have the technology to create a camera that can capture atoms movements. So what is this detector they always mention, its just a screen made up of small atomic numbers, and when photons are shot through, it absorbs its light so the wave we see is canceled out and only shows the stronger light. Goes from cylindrical properties to spherical. And thus creating the theory that observing (measuring) the atom changes it behavior. Not true, since we measure the atom which means to interact with it instead of actually observing, we are given false data. Hopefully one day we can actually observe rather then measure
Everything here depends on the definition of "measuring device." Why isn't the setup producing the wave pattern considered to be a measuring device? Perhaps she means a particle detection device.
The only real proof we will ever have about the simulation hypothesis is when we ourselves create hyper-realistic worlds with sentient agents inside computer simulations. It needs to have nearly all the same capabilities and laws of physics and level of detail as our current world. When that happens, we can be quite sure this is a simulation as well. Because it proves it is possible, and if it is possible, it is unlikely we are the very first one to do it, the so called base-reality. If we find out it's impossible to create these kinds of universes in this reality, it will not prove that we are not in a simulation but it will give us a strong indication about the nature of our reality (likely not a simulation)
Us Being in a simulation is no more far fetched than saying space/universe never ends. Or that we were created God. Or were created by some alien life form. Or that life on earth was created by amino acids & other things that hitched a ride on comets & ☄ meteors that hit earth, planspermia I think it's called. All sound kinda crazy but are also very possible because we had to of came from somewhere.
Option 1: the interaction with the quantum particle and the measurement makes it break coherence Option 2: there’s an overarching function of probabilities that we haven’t discovered Option 1000000001: we’re in a simulation man! 🤪
Observation with the naked eye doesn't interfere with the behaor of the particle so the particle could be physiologically manipulated by the physiologicl makeup of the measuring tool
It doesn’t require simulation to explain, which is a deus ex machina approach. We expect that the universe operates in higher than 4 dimensions, and this is probably an example of how a change on spatial perspective can bias your perception of higher dimensional behavior. Describing that in a way that agrees with our limited capacity for experimental observations is proving tricky is all.
Isn't it common knowledge than light behaves in two natures. Particle and wave. How then did you come to this misleading title that this suggests our universe is a simulation?
I can the reason is you're using a A measuring device that also has waves that interfere or even intersect the wave. So it's gonna cause the particles and the waves to act differently
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser However, what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that, unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler was not made until 8 ns after the position of the signal photon had already been measured by D0. wrong it is something fundament to do with quantum physics "Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]."
nah we know. the measurer had to receive information (light) to be able to measure these photons, meaning that the very act of measurement on these photons implies that another photon MUST interact with them to be observed. the problem is, when the two photons interact, you LOSE the position on the one you were tryna observe!!!!
It has nothing to do with the act of "observation". It's the interaction with the measuring device which "forces the photon" to "make a choice". You're implying that it's the presence of a concious being that matters somehow, which is simply not the case.
They need to do the experiment without the red light or whatever on the measuring device. The light from that also emits protons that may change how the light partials and waves are observed.
Im discussing the interference of light waves and the potential impact of the measuring device's emitted protons on readings. The idea is that removing the light protons emitted by the device might yield more accurate results in observing the behavior of the light waves. Essentially, it revolves around the interaction of light with light and the attempt to isolate the phenomenon being observed from external influences. Does this make any sense yet?
@tausenrico126 When I refer to "light vs. light," I am describing the interaction of light waves. Light behaves both as particles (photons) and waves. When two light waves encounter each other, they can interfere constructively (amplifying each other) or destructively (canceling each other out). This phenomenon is based on the superposition principle in wave physics. In constructive interference, the peaks of two waves align, resulting in a stronger, amplified wave. In destructive interference, the peak of one wave aligns with the trough of another, causing cancellation and a weaker overall wave. Think of how water crashing against itself reflects the concept of interference, where wave patterns change based on their interaction. In the context of my comment, the emitted light protons from a measuring device may interfere with the light waves being observed, potentially affecting the accuracy of measurements or observations. Hopefully this clears up any confusions you or anyone else may have by what I said.
there is no real experiment video i can find in internet about that measure device that change that pattern, only the first pattern video exist. its all about that measure device react with that lights.
This means that we are limited by our own abilities due to the way that we develop our brains to believe in … when nobody is around I understand that I have many different versions of myself I can tap into but when I am being watched by an unknown interference that doesn’t follow the same rules as I do my light will focus and become one
No it’s pretty obvious why observing it causes its behaviour to change. To observe a particle you have to excite it with energy to a known state then it decay to another known state. The difference in energy between those states is released as a photon. That photon is what you are observing. So to make an observation you have to force it to a state, that’s just how it works. There’s no other way to observe a particle. They are all invisible, only photons are visible. And that’s why quantum physics is described by probability functions, because in order to describe the whole system we would need all the starting conditions. But it’s impossible to know all starting conditions as any observation made on the particle will destroy some information about it, while gaining some other information. You can’t measure everything at the same time, the particles energy levels are quantised into specific levels so you can only measure one change at a time, only one piece of useful information.
Funfact it's a quantum particle And quantum mechanics has proberibilites not exact and when we measure it we get an result measuring different way effects the Quantum proberibilites Hence when you measure it the photoms PROBERIBILITES might be changed And it's not uncommon also it's well known fact not unknown!
There is no objective observation in this universe. You are the universe looking at itself. You’re looking at you. Scopes can get as powerful as we want them and we’ll never get to the bottom or top of it- how small or how big things can be. It will be infinite and we’ll be looking forever finding even smaller things and things further away in infinite space, simply because we are looking at ourselves. Everything escapes and recedes from us quite naturally. It’s like trying to bite your own teeth, hear your ears, taste your tongue, etc.
Much of the mysteriousness of the double slit experiment disappears once you understand that 'particle' and 'wave' are just analogies. Light is its 'own' thing - its just it is a bit wave-like and a bit particle-like in certain conditions... this is only 'mysterious' if you somehow expected the fundamental 'stuff' of the universe to behave like larger objects do at the human scale. It is hard to understand the mathematics but no truly 'spooky' stuff is happening.
@@lawrencefrost9063 In the context of the sub-atomic world; Observation is Interaction... and Interaction results in Change. Its just that we don't have an analogy (like billiard balls or ocean waves) for what the fundamental 'stuff' should behave like when Changed... but we do have a detailed mathematical description; Schrodinger's equation... and while it's weird it isn't 'spooky'.
@@StuartDesign how is observation an interaction? if you're just looking with your eyes, how do you interactc with something while there is no single particle emmited from your eye towards the photons?
@@Pirroli Think about what it means to 'see' a thing. You cannot 'see' a photon without that photon entering your eye and stimulating your retina (a physical interaction). Likewise how would you detect a photon without interacting with it in some capacity (it hitting a screen, being absorbed, etc). Now, Quantum Mechanics is weird in that Light can be 'distributed' - meaning it's not in one definite place, until something interacts with it... but that's just how it is. Nothing on the human scale works exactly that way, hence why it feels 'wrong'...but we should never have expected it to in the first place.
@@StuartDesign Thank you for clarifying this to me. You seem to be very knowlegable about this quantum stuff. but i need to clarify something else : let's say we god rid of the human eye, and instead we put a device to see what's happening, do we get the same results ? ( i mean, do photons end up as mutiple lines if the device ( camera for example) is off and get 2 lines if the camera was on ), i do think the think the camera works like the eye in general. What do you think?
*What are the implications of the double-slit experiment for our understanding of reality?*
Negative-result or “interaction-free”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment
WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?????????????????????????
??????????????
????????????
?????????
??????????
?????????
?????????
?????????
Because introducing the measuring device 'matters'
I have use to card bode pieces to do this but it is only showing 2 strips
It's behavior changed because they hit the particle to observe made it change
When you "die" you're asked how convincing the simulation was
don’t tell them about this video, it’s gonna get patched
@@criddan9602😂😂😂
I give it 9 out of 10.
@@criddan9602😅💀
best shit I've ever seen
Greatest proof we don't understand our own world quite well
Shy waves dress up as particles when in public 😊
@Higher Lander does this photon make me look fat? 😁
Who cares?
😂😂😂
there’s a movie from 2004 called What the Bleep Do We Know!? Check it out, I just found it. It solidifies the concept with the doors I was talking about. See I know I wasn’t talk no BS, I knew somebody had to clarify it. Lol
@@RealMTBAddict Grow up
Here's why: Observation of the photon is a direct interaction. In other words, the photon has to strike something - an atom or an electron - for it to register in the devlce,. Once the interaction occurs, that photon no longer exists, and a new photon is created due to the excitation of the atom or electron it hit. The new photon starts its journey without the double slit, so there is no interference pattern
what about the delayed choice version?
@adama.4622 it's a tautological setup. There is no actual retrocausality. Instead, we are actually just seeing individual subsets of all interference patterns made available by the paths of entangled photons. Nothing actually changes along the path.
The second part of the explanation was the missing key in my understanding
That's not the full explanation. You can directly interact with quantum particles to some extend without collapsing the wave function, but if you check what happens it collapses immediately.
So much false info on these stupid experiments. You cannot trust any experiment at this scale
In short, photons get stage fright in an experiment situation 😂
The measuring device is interfering with the wave pattern somehow, causing the waves to collapse.
Idk why everyone says no one knows why particles change when observed. We do. Observing something in science involves physically interacting with it which changes it. For instance using spectograohy changes molecules because photons can charge electrons, changing the result.
When you ever have the feeling that you are being watched, now you know why you get that sensation.
CPU optimisation right here
Love me some pointy LOD models...
Yep your right, You live in a simulation and the rest of us are all ai
Actually you don’t get two lines. You get a single slit diffraction pattern
This is answered in Star talk with Neil De Grasse Tyson, he gives the answer simply as, these are light particles; photons are so tiny that the object used to observe them is also projecting its own light particles in order for the observation to even take place therefore disrupting how the wave patterb would naturally occur causing the photons to behave how they do, when not observed they go back to the natural wave pattern because there are no other photons to disrupt the natural behaviour
WOW, I never heard this explanation before!! Thank you so much!
I had a slight intuition that the actual explanation would be somehow like this and not the mainstream and kinda romanticised view of "the presence of an observer changes the nature of the particle/wave ♡". Even if I am a very open-minded scientist, (well, still a student xd) and actually applaud and appreciate that there's being changes in mainstream science when it comes to issues such as materialism, determinism, quantum physics and also the nature of consciousness, I never liked the woo-woo explanation of "your consciousness/the observer changes the behaviour of the photon". This explanation you gave makes so much more sense, I think, so thank you.
@@minsungderstandingsthe “observation” is the waves the detector emits. Particle physics doesn’t measure particles as much as it measures interactions
That's the same theory I also had about why. Cool.
A theory for which there is no proof.
Wheeler's delayed-choice experiments demonstrate that extracting "which path" information after a particle passes through the slits can seem to retroactively alter its previous behavior at the slits.
it isnt just photons interacting with other photons
No one mentions how the sensing device operated. Was it passive or active? Was it simply a camera or did it project out something that needed to be reflected back? If it used a light source then it would interact with the incoming waves and a new interference pattern would be created.
Also, was this experiment ever done in a vacuum chamber? Is it possible that light was interacting with the air molecules it was passing through corrupting the results?
ı thınk people who made this experiment wasn't soo stupid to not see that coming
You just saved me from an existential crisis😅
Theyre measuring photons which are incredibly small so you need an incredible amount of energy to measure something so small. The device wasn't passive and the only reason this idea is popular is because people intentionally leave this info out to sensationalize this bs
Thought experiment, sensationalized
@@BloodAddledTrue…
Details left out to sensualise the bs 😅
How was the observation of slit conducted ? I mean what device was used?
One possible way to understand reality from this experiment could be;
1- Observation creates our reality.
2- Reality is one possibility that we bring into existence from waves of all possibilities.
3- All possibilities exist but our action bring one into existence to form our reality.
Just guessing!
We'll done! best explanation on here, to me. No disrespect to any other responses 🧘🏽♂️
Do not try and bend the spoon-that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.” Neo: “What truth?” Young Monk: “There is no spoon. …
Carl Jung philosophies more than scientific data but. Yeh
We've seen water expiriments that are similar to this, where cursing can dirty one and blessing can clean one.
We in fact know exactly why observing a particle causes it to change. It takes light to observe or measure something. Atoms are so small and dense that when light interacts with them they move/change. We’re dealing with something so small that light has the strength to push or move it. Atoms are less dense than the light acting on it and less dense than the space it takes up.
Atoms are not less dense than light. Atoms have mass, Light has no mass.
Can you make avideo of the experiment itself, showing the moment the pattern changes.
This does not support only a simulation as the cause, as it more likely indicates that our understanding of light is simply incomplete.
To simplify, your eye balls are the slits
What measuring device to see lines?
what is that measuring device used for observation?
Light: u mad bro?
When yu die you wake up at blips and chips
Does NO ONE who knows how to google “how are photons observed” ? 😅
This is ridiculous, that is not a proof at all.
1) The universe does not seem to be rendering things as we deal with them, like in a game. We can observe the spectra of atoms billions of light years away, which were emitted long before we existed, in all directions, and by the spectra of that light, we conclude that the electrons were, billions of years ago, acting like standing waves around the nucleus and emitting the photons like so.
2) What does it mean to observe something? The wave nature of particles is not something we can't even write equations about, we literally have a wave function which describes exactly how the 3d waves propagate in space and time, and how the electron waves oscillate around the nucleus of atoms.
3) The "two points / slits" that we observe when we detect particles do not mean "particle", it means we are less precise about one of the conjugate variables, like Heisenberg taught us. Simply because of the nature of waves, and that we are using waves to detect other waves.
4) This is a problem in the logic of science. The universe can be a simulation created by aliens, if you would like to follow this hypothesis, but the "Measurement Problem" in quantum mechanics is just not good evidence for it. Logically, the Cosmic Event Horizon would be better evidence for this hypothesis, for example, but even though better, would still be bad.
It’s true
The point is that it's similar to a game rendering only what you see in-game, instead of rendering the whole game world all the time. Got it?
@@lawrencefrost9063 Thanks, Lawrence Frost, for having some time to have a conversation about this and for answering me. I appreciate it a lot! And I would like to clarify some arguments against it.
1) The universe does not seem to be rendering things as we deal with them, like in a game. We can observe the spectra of atoms billions of light years away, which were emitted long before we existed, in all directions, and by the spectra of that light, we conclude that the electrons were, billions of years ago, acting like standing waves around the nucleus and emitting the photons like so.
2) What does it mean to observe something? The wave nature of particles is not something we can't even write equations about, we literally have a wave function which describes exactly how the 3d waves propagate in space and time, and how the electron waves oscillate around the nucleus of atoms.
3) The "two points / slits" that we observe when we detect particles do not mean "particle", it means we are less precise about one of the conjugate variables, like Heisenberg taught us. Simply because of the nature of waves, and that we are using waves to detect other waves.
4) This is a problem in the logic of science. The universe can be a simulation created by aliens, if you would like to follow this hypothesis, but the "Measurement Problem" in quantum mechanics is just not good evidence for it. Logically, the Cosmic Event Horizon would be better evidence for this hypothesis, for example, but even though better, would still be bad.
They never said it was proof.
@@cai0_o The thing is, what you think that you're always observing is an illusion, as long as you're looking at it with the telescope it exists but as soon as you shut it down, you basically don't see them and therefore don't exist.
And as soon as you look at them again, the image you see has just been made with all of its proprities such as age and etc.
The space as i look at it with the naked eye is just pixels ( the stars are small and everything looks smaller), but if I use a telescope i see more and therefore more gets rendered in the same way in a game, you're in a road and you see a big sight right at the horizon and doesn't look more that just few pixels but as soon as you get closer to the city the game reders more frames and it becomes more detailled. The Simulator (or i like to call him god) won't have to make the whole universe at once, the same way the Game doesn't load the whole game up at the same time.
However, this Double Slit Experience isn't considered as the biggest piece of proof to me, there is much more evidence to prove that we are likely in a simulation than this such as the golden ration and the indeniable intellegence design of the universe and how everthing seems to be made with equal vallues.
I feel like it's a bit presumptuous to go from "oh we don't understand how this phenomena in our reality works... THEREFORE SIMULATION THEORY TRUE!"
“…No one knows why observing a particle causes its behavior to change.”
Yes we do, it’s apparent that whatever device was used to observe which slit the photon/particle passed through -disturbed, interfered with, and scattered the waveform leaving only two lines.
The experiment was faulty and we need a non invasive way to observe which slit the photon/particle goes through. In the end when observed uninvasively, we will still see a waveform interference pattern and still know which slit each photon/particle went through.
The measurement device blocked the waveform and only allowed the photon/particle through.
why was this experiment never done?
We already did with the Negative-result test.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment
almost correct, except that it always was just a wave, never a particle, and because a wave has an area of infuence, it can only ever pass through both at once if they are close enough. you cannot measure were it went through because its a wave and particles are not real, but trying to determine one side results in one side triggering first and interacting with it, disturbing it in the process, which results in the disturbed part not contributing to any interference because it got scattered
But we have tested if it was the measurement device which it was not.
It's called the quantum eraser expirement
I mostly agree with this, it’s that we interfere with it that causes it to be this way not kuz we are watching it with out eyes. That’s dumb to think that particles have brain lol
If you don’t see a tree fall in a forest, does it make a noise? Hhahhhahahah
Does a bear deficate in the woods if you aren't there to step in it?
I'm no physics major, but the instrument which is used to observe the photons interacts with the photons( since observing photons is not a simple task, we have to project some sort of a ray towards the protons and then the reflection of the ray is what we observe).
anyone well versed in this topic please elaborate and enlighten!
Best proof how we registered photons
I'd much prefer an honest title. No one appreciates click bait.
Bro stfu it’s not hurting anyone who cares if it’s clickbait.
It's literally not a click bait.
It isn't clickbait
@@TrueStory369it's not proof that we live in a simulation. So yes. It's clickbait
@@dipdip907it is the “greatest proof” doesn’t mean it’s hardcore proof, but this experiment is the greatest experiment that backs simulation theory
When observed photons change the way they travel and don’t travel like waves. This is very similar to a video game, when you “render” something in and the game behaves differently because your player is there to observe whatever is occurring. In Minecraft you load chunks around you based on your players location. In this experiment, the method at which photons travel changes if the traveling is observed, aka if you player is there to watch these photons travel they will not behave as they would if you weren’t there trying to observe. The photons are seemingly conscious of being observed aka ‘when they are being rendered’
I am not bsing you, this experiment is that mind blowing, go do more research
Photons are to small to see, we dont have the technology to create a camera that can capture atoms movements. So what is this detector they always mention, its just a screen made up of small atomic numbers, and when photons are shot through, it absorbs its light so the wave we see is canceled out and only shows the stronger light. Goes from cylindrical properties to spherical. And thus creating the theory that observing (measuring) the atom changes it behavior. Not true, since we measure the atom which means to interact with it instead of actually observing, we are given false data. Hopefully one day we can actually observe rather then measure
The more screens you put, the less and less light is able to pass so youll be left with a dot instead of singile line pattern
Everything here depends on the definition of "measuring device." Why isn't the setup producing the wave pattern considered to be a measuring device?
Perhaps she means a particle detection device.
So how did we know the photons were dispersed without seeing it ? In both instances they had to be measured right ?
Reality is a set of probabilities until it's observed.
The only real proof we will ever have about the simulation hypothesis is when we ourselves create hyper-realistic worlds with sentient agents inside computer simulations. It needs to have nearly all the same capabilities and laws of physics and level of detail as our current world. When that happens, we can be quite sure this is a simulation as well. Because it proves it is possible, and if it is possible, it is unlikely we are the very first one to do it, the so called base-reality. If we find out it's impossible to create these kinds of universes in this reality, it will not prove that we are not in a simulation but it will give us a strong indication about the nature of our reality (likely not a simulation)
Us Being in a simulation is no more far fetched than saying space/universe never ends. Or that we were created God. Or were created by some alien life form. Or that life on earth was created by amino acids & other things that hitched a ride on comets & ☄ meteors that hit earth, planspermia I think it's called. All sound kinda crazy but are also very possible because we had to of came from somewhere.
Yoo I've thought that as well
Do not try and bend the spoon-that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.” Neo: “What truth?” Young Monk: “There is no spoon. …🧘🏽♂️
Not allowed or perhaps unable to perceive what may be already understood in a hypothetical 4th dimension.
It's well known as Observer effect.
Option 1: the interaction with the quantum particle and the measurement makes it break coherence
Option 2: there’s an overarching function of probabilities that we haven’t discovered
Option 1000000001: we’re in a simulation man! 🤪
doctor kusanagi knows why
This is probably the best example to suggest we’re either living in a simulation
The photons are shy. They dance like nobody’s watching until you watch them.
We know why they change, they interact with the measuring tools and light.
Observation with the naked eye doesn't interfere with the behaor of the particle so the particle could be physiologically manipulated by the physiologicl makeup of the measuring tool
"Wrong!"
--A. Einstein
This is basic quantum physics not a simulation…it’s in a superposition until it’s observed…there is a lot we still don’t understand
It doesn’t require simulation to explain, which is a deus ex machina approach. We expect that the universe operates in higher than 4 dimensions, and this is probably an example of how a change on spatial perspective can bias your perception of higher dimensional behavior. Describing that in a way that agrees with our limited capacity for experimental observations is proving tricky is all.
We live in a simulation.
Greatest proof we don't understand light
How did we observe the first proton particle pattern without interfering with it?
I m imaginig the same🧐🧐
Maybe the simple answer is the right one. When you measure it, the measuring device interfere with the light wave and collapses it.
Isn't it common knowledge than light behaves in two natures. Particle and wave. How then did you come to this misleading title that this suggests our universe is a simulation?
Yes it is but she is not aware of that haha. This channel has only such misleading and false informations always. Waste channel
Simulation? I think you mean intelligent design.
Isnt the part where "we see a pattern of light and dark bands" already considered an observation?
Thanks for proving that I am being simulated. Oh, wait, it’s not me who’s typing, I think the devs just made me write this comment
I can the reason is you're using a A measuring device that also has waves that interfere or even intersect the wave. So it's gonna cause the particles and the waves to act differently
Wrong
@chriscassidy9678so if electromagnetism doesn't effect light then what is your "theory"?
Yep, absorption and reemission create collapse and recreation of the lights wave function.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
However, what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that, unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler was not made until 8 ns after the position of the signal photon had already been measured by D0.
wrong it is something fundament to do with quantum physics
"Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]."
Name of the experiment??
nah we know. the measurer had to receive information (light) to be able to measure these photons, meaning that the very act of measurement on these photons implies that another photon MUST interact with them to be observed. the problem is, when the two photons interact, you LOSE the position on the one you were tryna observe!!!!
ITS ALREADY DEBUNKED
They're just shy.
Finds proof of intelligent design, “iTs A siMuLatIon! DeRP!”
How in the world is this proof for either intelligent design or the simulation hypothesis?
It has nothing to do with the act of "observation". It's the interaction with the measuring device which "forces the photon" to "make a choice". You're implying that it's the presence of a concious being that matters somehow, which is simply not the case.
this is why we can't record real spirits and ghosts in cameras.. photons.
They need to do the experiment without the red light or whatever on the measuring device. The light from that also emits protons that may change how the light partials and waves are observed.
I hope you understand that ANY measuring device is going to affect the particle somehow, just think it through.
@tausenrico126 that's literally what they said in the video. Thanks for reminding me ig? Lol
@@CallMe6 why did you comment "they need to remove the light..."
If you understand the concept?
Im discussing the interference of light waves and the potential impact of the measuring device's emitted protons on readings. The idea is that removing the light protons emitted by the device might yield more accurate results in observing the behavior of the light waves. Essentially, it revolves around the interaction of light with light and the attempt to isolate the phenomenon being observed from external influences. Does this make any sense yet?
@tausenrico126 When I refer to "light vs. light," I am describing the interaction of light waves. Light behaves both as particles (photons) and waves. When two light waves encounter each other, they can interfere constructively (amplifying each other) or destructively (canceling each other out). This phenomenon is based on the superposition principle in wave physics.
In constructive interference, the peaks of two waves align, resulting in a stronger, amplified wave. In destructive interference, the peak of one wave aligns with the trough of another, causing cancellation and a weaker overall wave.
Think of how water crashing against itself reflects the concept of interference, where wave patterns change based on their interaction. In the context of my comment, the emitted light protons from a measuring device may interfere with the light waves being observed, potentially affecting the accuracy of measurements or observations. Hopefully this clears up any confusions you or anyone else may have by what I said.
How can I observe those photons at home? Do I need to use a camera
How's the observation being conducted?
Because of the Quantum Decoherence...when you put the observer (which creates disturbance on a particle of the light source)
I don’t think it’s just observing, I think it’s the act of trying measure or record it causes interfere.
Same thing
They did same experiment with electron! Same result!
@@GreysOrbitshow do you know the result without observing/measure it? I'm confused
me too
@@unknownuser4816
me too@@unknownuser4816
there is no real experiment video i can find in internet about that measure device that change that pattern, only the first pattern video exist. its all about that measure device react with that lights.
Your intention modifies future probabilities
This means that we are limited by our own abilities due to the way that we develop our brains to believe in … when nobody is around I understand that I have many different versions of myself I can tap into but when I am being watched by an unknown interference that doesn’t follow the same rules as I do my light will focus and become one
What if there's a quantum visual field? So when something is observed it's causes changes..
Performance anxiety
Maybe it is just the camera causing that different output?
Performance improvements on the simulation 😂
Because our intentions have effects on everything.
Greatest proof God exists
That’s easy. It’s because it gets Shy
Even an electron has to maintain both. Deep inner true self and a social image. 😀
It is a simulation , GODS SIMULATION.
LIGHT ITSELF IS CONSIOUS.
It got shy
as an 3d artist yup i mistakenly made this problem in simulation but i hope some one patch this
No it’s pretty obvious why observing it causes its behaviour to change. To observe a particle you have to excite it with energy to a known state then it decay to another known state. The difference in energy between those states is released as a photon. That photon is what you are observing.
So to make an observation you have to force it to a state, that’s just how it works. There’s no other way to observe a particle. They are all invisible, only photons are visible.
And that’s why quantum physics is described by probability functions, because in order to describe the whole system we would need all the starting conditions. But it’s impossible to know all starting conditions as any observation made on the particle will destroy some information about it, while gaining some other information. You can’t measure everything at the same time, the particles energy levels are quantised into specific levels so you can only measure one change at a time, only one piece of useful information.
Could it be perhaps that the instrument used to record the photons itself does something that changes the behavior of the photons?
Funfact it's a quantum particle
And quantum mechanics has proberibilites not exact and when we measure it we get an result measuring different way effects the Quantum proberibilites
Hence when you measure it the photoms PROBERIBILITES might be changed
And it's not uncommon also it's well known fact not unknown!
Reality is rendering when someone is there to check.
It's like a videogame that only renders what's in screenspace.
How do we know what it does when it’s not observed if we are observing it to see what happens when it’s not observed?😅
That's what companies do nowadays. Hire 2 to do the work of 6 and ask them to show proper work life balance when observed.
Yea electrons have any chance of being anywhere before you look at it and after you look at it one posibility of where the electron is is true.
Or maybe the photons are hitting the internal wall gaps sides... 🤔
There is no objective observation in this universe. You are the universe looking at itself. You’re looking at you. Scopes can get as powerful as we want them and we’ll never get to the bottom or top of it- how small or how big things can be. It will be infinite and we’ll be looking forever finding even smaller things and things further away in infinite space, simply because we are looking at ourselves. Everything escapes and recedes from us quite naturally. It’s like trying to bite your own teeth, hear your ears, taste your tongue, etc.
This effect has been known for about a century and no one called ot proof for a simulation until now, so...
Photons dont like the smell of Van Der Waals Casmir, so they scatter without waving good-bye.
Much of the mysteriousness of the double slit experiment disappears once you understand that 'particle' and 'wave' are just analogies. Light is its 'own' thing - its just it is a bit wave-like and a bit particle-like in certain conditions... this is only 'mysterious' if you somehow expected the fundamental 'stuff' of the universe to behave like larger objects do at the human scale. It is hard to understand the mathematics but no truly 'spooky' stuff is happening.
That doesn't explain the part about observing changing the result.
@@lawrencefrost9063 In the context of the sub-atomic world; Observation is Interaction... and Interaction results in Change. Its just that we don't have an analogy (like billiard balls or ocean waves) for what the fundamental 'stuff' should behave like when Changed... but we do have a detailed mathematical description; Schrodinger's equation... and while it's weird it isn't 'spooky'.
@@StuartDesign how is observation an interaction? if you're just looking with your eyes, how do you interactc with something while there is no single particle emmited from your eye towards the photons?
@@Pirroli Think about what it means to 'see' a thing. You cannot 'see' a photon without that photon entering your eye and stimulating your retina (a physical interaction). Likewise how would you detect a photon without interacting with it in some capacity (it hitting a screen, being absorbed, etc). Now, Quantum Mechanics is weird in that Light can be 'distributed' - meaning it's not in one definite place, until something interacts with it... but that's just how it is. Nothing on the human scale works exactly that way, hence why it feels 'wrong'...but we should never have expected it to in the first place.
@@StuartDesign Thank you for clarifying this to me. You seem to be very knowlegable about this quantum stuff. but i need to clarify something else :
let's say we god rid of the human eye, and instead we put a device to see what's happening, do we get the same results ? ( i mean, do photons end up as mutiple lines if the device ( camera for example) is off and get 2 lines if the camera was on ), i do think the think the camera works like the eye in general. What do you think?
Light is by that logic in a superposition right?
Peeping at a proton reaction if it path were blocked. And you only see the 2 blasted area. While the surrounding also ablaze.
no.
She says when u observe the light it changes but how did they know it is in fragments if they aren’t looking at the first experiment
If it can't be observed, then how is it observed
It can't be observed in a sense of which slit does it passed through to form a wave like interference
To detect a photon you must absorb it