dunno
>>16959846Not only does god play dice, the dice are loaded.
Maybe fractions from outside places.
It’s a joke about two chicks at once probably. The aliens the one always posting it, he must’ve posted the double slit experiment like millions of times and I never saw one good reply to it.
>>16959891the only people posting in double slit threads are those wanting to shitpost
>>16959846he says he doesn’t.
>>16959846That is a fake experiment. There is no such thing as a "photon detector" in such an experiment. It is almost impossible to detect a photon without destroying it. Your ideas about physics are retarded slop from the internet that has little to do with physics.To answer your question, there is no conclusive evidence or theory either way. As far as quantum physics goes, god may or may not play dice. See>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanicsIs it confusing? Yes.
>>16959909You have a detector that doesn't destroy the photon though. Put a photon detector in one slit. If the photon doesn't hit the detector but makes a dot on the screen, it must've gone through the other slit. The interference pattern disappears but the detector never interacted with the photons that hit the screen.
>>16960013>You have a detector that doesn't destroy the photon though.No, you don't. Such a detector doesn't exist. The experiment has never be done with photons, by which I mean the double-slit experiment where one slit is "observed", not simply covered. It has be done with electrons, more or less.
>>16960105has been*
>>16959909>That is a fake experimentThis guy gets it. I remember trying to look up the actual physical photos of this experiment only to discover its all just cartoons and fakery.
>>16960105You are talking such bullshit. I did the double slit experiment during my undergrad with a single photon source.
>>16960542You looked at a computer screen programmed to tell you what you were supposed to see.
>>16959909>>16960540It's really no different from how atoms move inside a gas, but somehow it mystifies people.
>>16960546Stop trying so hard. It's kind of pathetic.
>>16959846The original context of Einstein’s quote (more closer to God playing cards than dice) is that Einstein for the majority of his life was a pantheist, and both an expanding universe and quantum indeterminacy were at odds with such a view, according to him. This is different from the Abrahamic God, as a matter of fact his colleague Werner Heisenberg (the guy whom the uncertainty principle is named after) told Einstein in a letter that should Einstein believe in the Abrahamic God that exists independently outside of the physical world, all of these problems vanish.For the record, Heisenberg was a devout Lutheran knowledgeable in Christian Platonist philosophy, and saw Platonist essences in the matrix mechanics and quantum formalisms that he’d developed. And Einstein became a Marxist socialist in the last several years of his life, so he must’ve been atheist at the time of his death.
>>16959846>Does god play diceIf any he issues the rules. Pic is not replicable btw.
>>16960542Was it that kind of experiment, where you did nothing but feigned adjustment and calibration, and anything else is packed into literal black boxes you know nothing about?And you've never assembled/disassembled those "detectors" and "sources", and you've never seen the source code of the software.Oh, yes, totally valid experience.
>>16960542Yes but you DID NOT do it with the "observe one slit" thing. You can't watch a photon go past without destroying it. You might as well replace the "detector" with a brick. You CAN potentially do that with electrons. Try to ACTUALLY READ WHAT I'M WRITING, OK?
>>16960741To be precise, THIS PART IS THE PROBLEM. There is no such experiment with photons where you can "watch" one slit and therefore change the pattern, except in that you could simply block one slit and turn it into a single slit experiment. This "observe one slit" idea is what Feynmann's thought experiment is about. He even talks extensively about the difficulty of "watching" one slit with electrons, saying that it would take a very bright light source or something along those lines. However I believe some people have more or less managed to do that. But you can't do it with photons!!!! NO YOU CAN'T!!!!!!
>>16959846Pilot wave theory is right and everything that came after is schizo nonsense.
>>16960741>>16960745And to clarify, by "one slit", I mean "both slits", or just one, it doesn't really matter.
Wave E
How do you even create a single photon? Wouldn't that be completely delocalized since its frequency has to be known precisely?To make a localized wave packet that you can shoot at the slits you need a superposition of many photons. Basically this experiment is dead in the water
>>16960745I have no idea what Feynann quote you are talking about. I kind find it anywhere. But the only way to "watch" a particle in this context means putting a detector in the slit, which destroys the interference pattern.
>>16960770It's probably from https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html section 1-6>We shall now try the following experiment. To our electron apparatus we add a very strong light source, placed behind the wall and between the two holes, as shown in Fig. 1–4. We know that electric charges scatter light. So when an electron passes, however it does pass, on its way to the detector, it will scatter some light to our eye, and we can see where the electron goes.
>>16960770>But the only way to "watch" a particle in this context means putting a detector in the slit, which destroys the interference pattern.Yes that's what I am saying. It doesn't simply destroy the pattern as it might with electrons, it completely blocks the slit, if we're talking about a photon detector. Because you can't "detect" them without destroying them. That's why OP's image is retarded. There is no point having detectors at the slits with photons. You might as well have bricks.
>>16960783Okay, that makes sense. It also means this anon >>16960745 has misunderstood what Feynmann was saying. Shining photons onto electrons is a measurement, in other words a detection, which collapses the wavefunction and hence destroys any interference pattern. You can't physically do the same with photons onto photons, so just stick a CCD detector in the slit.
>>16960795>has misunderstood what Feynmann was sayingNo.>You can't physically do the same with photons onto photons, so just stick a CCD detector in the slit.You might as well stick a brick in the slit, retard.
>>16960799>You might as well stick a brick in the slitCorrect, it's *exactly* the same thing. What do you think a measurement is??
>>16960800You don't understand what I'm saying. You can "measure" an electron without destroying it. So you can affect the interference pattern by observing one slit. You can't do that with photons. You would just block the slit. There's no point in "detecting" the photons at the slits. The setup in OP's picture will produce NO PATTERN AT ALL, NOT EVEN A LINE, NOT A BLOB, NOT A SINGLE THING ON THE SCREEN!!! , because all the photons will be completely blocked. It's a retarded picture of a retarded experiment. That's why Feynmann used ELECTRONS for his thought experiment, NOT PHOTONS. He would laugh at OP's pic.
>>16960802>You can "measure" an electron without destroying it.Nope. That's what I meant by a fundamental misunderstanding.
>>16960804Yes, you can do that. That is what Feynmann is talking about. You could say there are THREE CASES with electrons:1. Normal 2-slit diffraction.2. Completely block one slit.3. Measure electrons passing one (or both) slits WITHOUT blocking them.The ENTIRE POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT is that CASE 3 IS DIFFERENT TO 1 AND 2. BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH PHOTONS, CASE 3 WILL JUST COMPLETELY BLOCK THEM!!!!! FAGGOT!!!!!!!!
Can you really say that it's the same electron if you fuck with it by shining light on it? The electron is defined by its state. If you change the state it's no longer the same electron. The electron isn't even an object. The only object here is the electron field
>>16960807All 3 does is collapse the wavefunction at the point you make the detection and it will then evolve from that point onwards. So yes it will look different because it's essentially the same thing as putting the source gun in a different location. It's not some fundamentally different experiment and result.
>>16960811You can call it LE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT or not (you stupid glib fucking faggot), I do not give a shit. My point is that YOU CANNOT DO IT WITH PHOTONS.
No. The "randomness" is only for us. God always knows the outcome. In fact, that is the way God intervenes in our universe.
>>16960813Why are you so hung up on the photon-photon thing? Any particle, no matter what they are, is a measurement. So shine some electrons onto the emitted photons, or even electrons onto electrons in the original configuration. Exactly the same result.
>>16960816>So shine some electrons onto the emitted photonsMy point is that such a thing is impossible to do practically, and that OP's image is wrong because there is no point doing the experiment with photon detectors blocking the slits. Are you fucking retarded? It's a very simple point.Yes, you could call anything a "measurement" if you really wanted to (you have such a way with words), but there are different types of measurements. You can feasibly measure electrons without destroying them. You can't do that with photons (feasibly).
>>16960818> there are different types of measurementsno they aren't, not from the view of quantum mechanics. the only difference is the cross section and the likelihood of an interaction. that's why photons are usually mentioned because experimentally it's easy to generate a lot of them with a strong light.> You can feasibly measure electrons without destroying themthat is impossible to say, it's also irrelevant since every electron is identical. a qed diagram for the interaction would have an input electron and an output one, but it says nothing about if they are the same. "same" or "different" is a meaningless comparison.
>>16960821>no they aren't, not from the view of quantum mechanicsYou are making such an idiotic "point". Obviously in quantum mechanics every possible thing reduces to some diagrams. The "measurement" of passing electrons that is desired for the experiment is essentially destroying the coherence of the wavefunction between the two paths. You can't do that with photons, especially not with the photoelectric detectors shown in OP's image. Do you disagree? >that is impossible to sayNo it isn't. People have done that.Look at this>https://profmattstrassler.com/2025/01/16/double-trouble-the-quantum-two-slit-experiment-1/You get a different pattern ("two blobs" instead of a two-slit interference pattern) when one slit is "observed". But you can't actually do that with photons is my point, practically speaking. That's why OP's image is WRONG AND BAD.
>>16960816>So shine some electrons onto the emitted photons>Get completely different photon even in the lowest order termYou cannot "observe" photon without destroying it. The other anon is right.
>>16960825> You cannot "observe" photon without destroying it.Why do you think that matters? Also in that diagram the horizontal line is virtual. All that is physically observed is the incoming and outgoing particles.
>>16960825>>16960827There is no reason in principle why photons couldn't be decohered at one slit with the right electron field, but that technology does not exist!!! OP's diagram is STILL FAKE AND RETARDED because the "PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS" WILL EAT THE PHOTONS RIGHT UP. You will never get the "two blobs" outcome that is possible with electrons. You will get ZERO BLOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>16960827>Why do you think that matters?Because that's how you reduce the experiment into two one-slit experiments, and get the corresponding pattern of two lines, no interferention>the horizontal line is virtualSo what? Another photon is still brand-new, reimitted
>>16960838>So what? Another photon is still brand-new, reimittedDoesn't matter. What matters is whether the interaction process is coherent. The photons are constantly interacting via QED with the very air they're passing through and being "re-emitted". HOWEVER there is no TECHNOLOGY that would allow a "PHOTON DETECTOR" that doesn't involve SLURPING THE PHOTON INTO SOME METAL I.E. PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS IN OP'S IMAGE!!! THEY WOULD EAT THE PHOTONS UP ->>>>> NO BLOBS, YOU CAN'T DO THIS FUCKING EXPERIMENT WITH PHOTONS
>>16959846Whats the medium?
>>16959846Researchers have experimentally observed that light (photons) can exhibit "negative time" when interacting with cold atoms. Photons appear to exit a material before entering it, a phenomenon known as negative group delay. This does not mean time travel or reversed causality, but rather a quantum mechanical effect where interaction times become negative.There's a force getting through space then.
