so if you have photographic film as a screen can it change the already existing pattern?
>>16811992I don't know anything about QM but I can tell you with 100% certainty it won't change anything that has actually been observed. This kind of thing is always some abstract mathematical woo that requires a different notion of "exists" if you want to attribute any of its theoretical (and never directly osbervable) implications to reality. Trust me. I know this because I'm smarter than most quantum physicists. Anyone with a properly working intuition is smarter than quantum physicists.
The eraser has been debunked multiple times. It was a wrong interpretation by the experimentalists that first performed the experiment. But of course that doesn't stop pseuds and pop-sci spreading the misinformation.
>>16812023>it wasn't a real scientism>it's the heckin' journalists' fault>real scientism has never been tried
>>16811992Honestly this guy >>16812019 is right, as someone who knows QM. There is no retrocausality here, just morons who don't understand basic scientific principles.
>>16811992Wheeler, J. A. (1978). The “past” and the “delayed-choice” double-slit experiment>Let the reasoning be passed in review that leads to this at first sight strange inversion of the normal order of time. Then let the general lesson of this apparent time inversion be drawn: “No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” In other words, it is not a paradox that we choose what shall have happened after “it has already happened.” It has not really happened, it is not a phenomenon, until it is an observed phenomenon.
