Is everything truly random? Or are we missing something?
>>16996028There is no randomness, everything happens simultaneously. we only believe we observe one specific outcome because memory is fallible and consciousness is an illusion
>>16996028what a garbage image
>>16996028Isn't this a thought experiment?
>>16996031yeah this is probably it
>>16996284Quantum erasure double slit? No, it's empirical. It's just not as typically described. You still get the overlapping wave pattern when the detector's running. The distribution just changes. And you're not really detecting the particle as it passes through the slit, but an entangled partner split off from it.
>>16996028I thought that "experiment" was concocted by a pop-culture non-scientist, similar to the Shrodinger's cat one?
Pilot wave contradicts special relativity. Just pseudoscience garbage
>>16996028There are various QM interpretations without randomness. It's most well-known as a feature of the Copenhagen "interpretation", which is really a non-interpretation since it doesn't specify how wavefunction collapse proceeds microscopically. It's reasonable to say we are missing something, or at least that there are many unanswered questions regarding QM interpretations.I would also like to say that the picture you've provided is unrealistic. You can't "observe" the slit with photoelectric detectors without destroying the photons. It would make more sense to illustrate the thought experiment with electrons.
>>16996293>>16996335>>16996284Where did this bullshit come from? This experiment was literally done in a physical lab and is replicated routinely. The pop-sci description is just oversimplified.See >>16996288I genuinely want to know where you guys heard that this is a "thought experiment" from.
>>16996354Hmm yes quite, but that's not what I said.
>>16996358I'm not sure which one you are but all three of those implied, or directly asked if, this experiment never actually happened.
