The Weird Experiment that Changes When Observed

The double-slit experiment is the strangest phenomenon in physics. Try brilliant.org/Newsthink/ for FREE for 30 days, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Watch our vid on another experiment that defies logic: • The Weird Experiment T... (quantum entanglement)
Newsthink is produced and presented by Cindy Pom
/ cindypom
Grab your Newsthink merch here: newsthink.creator-spring.com
Thank you to our Patrons, including Igli Laci
Support us on Patreon: / newsthink

[@Newsthink]

*What do you think the implications of the double-slit experiment are for our understanding of reality?* Try brilliant.org/Newsthink/ for FREE for 30 days, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription

[@mrtienphysics666]

It means classical physics is actually naive.

[@_Breakdown]

*Hi Cindy - - it means that CONSCIOUSNESS affects the natural world. GREAT video - - Cheers* 😊

[@dtibor5903]

I have a theory here: electromagnetism and electric field itself is not quantized, but the effects on particles it is, that's why you can observe single photons interferencing with itself. In reality there are electomagnetic waves emitted but they are too weak to trigger any measuring device. Prove me wrong.

[@mrtienphysics666]

@@dtibor5903 electromagnetism and electric field itself is quantized - QED, QFT

[@_Breakdown]

@@dtibor5903 Dear D Tibor - - your statement needs to be refined and better articulated in order for anyone to understand what you’re trying to communicate. (i.e. - - what does “quantized” even mean? i.e. - - electromagnetic waves emitted ... by what?)

[@TheRealLaughingGravy]

I can relate. I behave differently when I'm being watched, too.

[@armando5601]

Lmfaooo 😂

[@mizukarate]

In karate when your watched your kata gets better!!!!!

[@aagaman1845]

😂😂😂

[@PrometheusRiser]

Read up on the Hawthorne Effect

[@jgunther3398]

@@PrometheusRiser it's the best counter-argument to "i don't mind, i've got nothing to hide"

[@recessiv3]

It's important to note that "observing" a particle is much more involved than what the word would imply. It's not a passive act, in order to observe a particle you have to hit it with another. In such a sense, every single particle in existence isn't "observed" until it interacts with another, so for nearly the entire life span of a particle it doesn't actually exist, it's simply a solitary wave.

[@marcusofranz1102]

Underrated comment. When they stay stuff like this they make people think that literally “looking” at it changes it’s behavior and it’s like… no hitting it with another particle to see if it’s there or not changes it’s behavior, sounds way less mysterious this way tho.

[@SplatterPatternExpert]

What if information travels spherically outward from an event, then when an observer collects that information, it appears that the information exists only at the collection point?

[@jorgealvarado7946]

@@marcusofranz1102 It’s still mysterious regardless. The act of observing, aka blasting photons to the particle so light can reflect back, changes it’s behavior for that specific time. When not blasted, the particle appears to be in two places at the same time. Still mysterious and more in the realm of quantum mechanics.

[@matok2426]

Yeah it seems just about every visual explanation of the dual behavior observed in the slit experiment depicts the observer as this passive eyeball or camera, and also uses the word "choose", as if the particle can somehow make a choice between passing through one slit or the other, or both, which is all extremely misleading.

[@adreanmarantz2103]

Great comment, I've been waiting years for someone to bring this up. At the quantum level, how can the equip we use NOT interfere with matter?

[@icevlad148]

It is impressive that these physicists managed to isolate a single photon

[@emilcioran8873]

No one has ever explained how they did it. In other words: BS!

[@YoungFlyz644]

@@emilcioran8873 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGKqkoefr8mWmJo

[@tristanmisja]

@@emilcioran8873 Yes, people have explained how they did it, you're just too lazy and/or stupid to check.

[@arlert1638]

​@emilcioran8873 just do some research, the equipment called "electron beam gun" the explained how its work

[@eyeofsauron2812]

What even is a photon?

[@Borishal]

Measurement, rather than observation. This is very important. Changes the idea of consciousness being involved.

[@steelersgoingfor7706]

Does it? What is a measurement without a result? How does a result become defined? It all leads back to a conscious observation.

[@NATHANSREBELLION-zx4mn]

@@steelersgoingfor7706 Correct. I wonder why that's so hard for people to understand. You can't have one without the other.

[@steelersgoingfor7706]

@@NATHANSREBELLION-zx4mn because people, whether aware or not, try to shape questions and answers in a way that at least leaves a possibility for understanding. Human fallacy.

[@anonymitious]

Albert Einstein saying "God does not play dice" was not for the double slit experiment. It was actually for another Quantum phenomenon which he termed "Spooky action at a distance" (Quantum Entanglement).

[@aaronjennings8385]

Spooky action at a distance describes acausality. That means things happen for no reason. Einstein didn't like that entanglement was described as an acausal quantum effect. He preferred to describe it accurately with the Einstein-Rosen bridge. In this way, entanglement isn't supernatural magic.

[@jgunther3398]

@@aaronjennings8385 to the frame of reference of something moving at the speed of light there is no such thing as distance

[@aaronjennings8385]

@@jgunther3398 not sure what this is related to.

[@pauls3075]

Indeed, it seems like 'Newsthink' just used chatgpt to write this article and as usual chatgpt got it wrong.

[@aaronjennings8385]

@Edmond White ask Leonard Susskind

[@jumanji4037]

This sounds exactly like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, in which a particle’s momentum and location in space cannot be determined at the same time, leading it to have multiple positions at once until observed. The same can be said about Schrödinger’s cat. In this thought experiment, a cat is in a black box with some poison. Next to the poison is a radioactive source. When the source reaches a certain count rate, the poison is released; the thing is the decay of the radioactive source is unpredictable, so cat at any point in time is both dead and alive until observed. Another analogy is if a tree falls and no one was there to hear or see it fall, did it really fall? Both theories have been used to question the possibility of a multiverse where every possible outcome generates a new universe. The idea of life being a “computer” program is logical, as almost all aspects of nature have mathematical attributes that are perfectly related to one another. Every possibility follows certain “coded” rules/axioms to carry out. In that case mathematics and physics is just the study of reverse engineering the program of the simulation. But when you reverse engineer a program and come across something that shouldn’t run, like photons arranging themselves when observed, you question whether this is intentional or an undefined natural error. It breaks the algorithm that we have documented for centuries.

[@Hexnilium]

The Heisenberg principle and Schrodinger's cat are derivations of this precise phenomenon.

[@maskon1724]

Is math something created or discovered, either by the simulator or simulated?

[@191.]

We should be glad it hasn't been programmed by Microsoft or EA. HAHAHA

[@renomtv]

Interesting tying this all together, schrodinger's cat makes sense in this context, used to think it was a logic thought experiment (rather than trying to understand a physical phenomena)

[@robertwilliamson922]

Yes, the tree fell. But did it make a sound if there was no one there to hear it?

[@pslanez]

If physical reality manifests out of consciousness rather than the other way around then this makes complete sense. Everything is in a state of infinite possibility until the light of awareness shines on it at which point it manifests into existence

[@charlespancamo9771]

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Also on that note everything is one and therefore we're all gods in a way as we can manifest whatever because all is us and vice versa anyway. Religion was made to take away our power and god was firmly placed outside of us to achieve that end. K byeeee

[@owaisshaikh3067]

No Refuses to elaborate*

[@SerenityCorner]

@@charlespancamo9771 💯

[@chrisbarbz9238]

I think this is it. Using a graphics engine as an illustration, this experiment shows how the assets are rendered rather than show that we live in a simulation.

[@PsychologicalApparition]

whose awareness, though? All organisms? or only humans?

[@terrykeggereis2953]

This actually makes sense if the particle is in a different dimension than us, and when we measure it we are taking a slice of that dimension and basically assigning only that slice to the particle.

[@kaseyboles30]

This is sorta-kinda like many worlds.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

What effect does the "measuring device" have on the photon? 1:29 What has been demonstrated is that this measurement device affects the photons, not that the photon knows it is being observed.

[@tomich20]

I think there is another exp were measurement got delayed and the system behaved like particles. So is not the measurement device, but the fact that it will eventually get measured, that make it behave like that 🤯

[@kravlone7612]

@@tomich20 yeah, before being measured it showed interference characteristics but after delay when it got measured, the characteristics instantaneously changed to photon

[@danielrodrigues4903]

Yep iirc this is one of the main hypotheses put forward as an explanation for this phenomenon.

[@sin3rgy]

I agree her definitions and loose use of words is a not describing the effects accurately.

[@BennyNegroFromQueens]

Wrong

[@Blackwingk]

I recently spent some time with a certain tribal, farming, backwoods community in India. Lovely, friendly people. And at a communal dinner one evening, I explained the double-slit experiment to the tribal elders. I was astonished at how quickly they grasped and understood the physics and the nature of the experiment and the baffling question that scientists faced. And these were people who had never attended school nor knew the English language. And within an hour, they were discussing among themselves the dual wave and particle properties of photons. They were drawing the diagrams in the dirt! Since that day, I've had a deeper respect for the remote, isolated tribal people of the world.

[@dipanjanghosal1662]

This sounds fake

[@brandongonsalves3615]

Humans are smart. Without school trying to turn us into factory workers, we could be smarter. The key is education. These tribal people were educated and without schools command of obedience, they started thinking. I often run into this wall with religious people when discussing history. School blinds the mind like a religion. Kids are always asking why until we break them of the habit.

[@nomadexplorer6682]

@ Blackwingk... Surely you have met a community of aliens lost in spacetime who were figuring out how to escape from the bondage of simulation into.....?

[@firedplay]

Why? Because they knew intuitively what someone had to teach you? Lol.

[@KinoNoTabi-gj6tm]

Hindus were the first to go to space to shit on the space

[@V.II.]

we are living in a simulation. the properties are built into the building blocks of our simulation. so when we start observing, it loads in like how we load in the rendered assets in a video game

[@DecemberNames]

I just wanted to take a moment to say how amazing your video was! I was really impressed with the quality of the footage, the editing, and the overall presentation. You did a great job of explaining the topic in a clear and concise way, and I learned a lot from watching your video. I also really appreciated the way you made the video engaging and entertaining. You kept my attention throughout the entire video, and I never felt bored or lost. I would definitely recommend your video to anyone who is interested in learning more about the video. Thanks again for making such a great video! I look forward to watching more of your content in the future. PS: I outsourced this feedback to AI.

[@Newsthink]

Thanks! Really appreciate it

[@deathcore420]

so what does observing/watching actually mean? to see something you need a photon to reflect from a thing you want to observe and land on the observing device (i.e. eye) so when you are watching photons, you are hitting the observed photons with another photons - and that just changes the observable photons directions

[@straighttalk2069]

No

[@quantisedspace7047]

@@straighttalk2069 'No' ? That's it ? That's your answer. Kindly explain if you want to be taken seriously

[@Natethesandman1]

Yes, for most interactions, but photons do not directly interact. To observe which way, special crystals that split the photon in two can be used so that if the photon travels through one side, one photon can hit the screen and the other can hit a detector. All of these interactions still impart momentum which affect the outcome. MIT OpenCourseware has a great lecture series on this that actually gets into the math but also explain it clearly.

[@Hitchpster]

Yours is the first comment I see in this video that challenges the asenine solipsistic rubbish this channel is pushing. Bravo

[@christopherclewlow6634]

I dont understand why awareness is ignored by science

[@MarcusAgrippa390]

When Einstein said his famous quote that "God does not play dice with the universe" Bohr replied by telling Einstein "Stop telling God what to do" This on the surface, may seem to have somewhat supernatural undertones but I think it shows just how perplexing quantum mechanics really is even to two of the most brilliant and influential minds that humanity has ever produced, and we have produced many over the years. Sadly, I'm not one of them... Not even close...

[@danielrodrigues4903]

Well, when AI reaches and surpasses human-level, then we'll need to redefine whom the most brilliant minds that could ever be produced are. Can't wait to see what it makes of the universe!

[@yuukoito_]

​@@danielrodrigues4903 that'd be far into the future. and i hope it's not just the AI that improves but also humans. we could possibly alter our genome and improve ourselves on the cellular level. making ourselves as good or even better than computers. if that time came, we'd have far more people and instruments capable of understanding the universe

[@piman9280]

I would say that I am *happily* not one of them - therefore I don't drive myself crazy.

[@ivaerz4977]

I'm not one of them yes but I have 200 wins in Cod warzone which they don't.

[@fjb4932]

MarcusAgrippa, To say "Be happy in who you are" is useless. It's up to You to learn that. Having known a very smart man, i'd say the less one knows ( within limits ) the happier one is. The smarter one is, the more one finds themselves surrounded by infantiles and morons on an intellectual level. Imagine dealing with 5 year olds continually. Always passing on knowledge and wisdom, seeing it ignored, and never learning anything from them. Strictly one way knowledge. Maddening . . . ☆

[@asianmanfromasia]

What if the universe doesn’t exist unless consciousness exists? Like how in a video game, nothing exists until you, the character you’re playing, observe the environment around you. Our brains are processors. Without a processor, a video game can’t exist. It’s just a bunch of information waiting to be interpreted

[@kwesiferinioferiniokwesi8722]

Was thinking the same thing, like rendering a videogame. Edit: So wait a minute... Rendering a video right? So that means you can think of the future just the way you want it to be, and feeling it. Our senses dont know the difference anyway. Does this mean we can control our future in real time ?

[@radicalaim]

kind of relates to the old question "If a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound?

[@kwesiferinioferiniokwesi8722]

@@radicalaim love the theory

[@ypxgenuine]

Our brain is only to express our thoughts. Let’s us express our energy and give form to our thoughts. We’re all one. Experiencing and re-experiencing. We are immortal. This is just the material dimension. Read up on it. This just gives me even more reason to not fear death.

[@kwesiferinioferiniokwesi8722]

@@ypxgenuine thanks for the explanation

[@jonathandawson3091]

Very nice and concise video on the subject, with clear explanations and just enough mystery left for viewers to be curious. I've been exploring this and related phenomenon for over a decade, and still your presentation captures my interest - makes me remember how I felt when I knew about it the first time. I might follow.

[@Dregun]

My theory: There's a good chance that we haven't discovered an unknown energy that is Emmitted from every partical and so does from a camera sensor and from electrons So the camera tries to observe Electrons and camera sensor's energy entangle and lead the electrons to behave like a partical

[@krippaxxuseredarlordofthes9940]

This makes more sense to me

[@user-ht6ql1rn3w]

This is the greatest theory of all time for someone who spelled particle wrong

[@kakhaval]

Dark energy, dark matter, gray energy, grayish matter etc. already along the same escapism

[@Dregun]

@@krippaxxuseredarlordofthes9940 thanks man! That means a lot

[@Dregun]

@@user-ht6ql1rn3w lol! Thanks I was sleepy when I wrote that comment

[@Mike-lh1rq]

Thanks Cindy for always doing very interesting subjects that include a mixture of scientific theories explained in a easy-to-understand way. It's a great Channel keep it up!

[@kennybraverman9719]

read some of the replies as they make point on criticism.

[@Viki-zo1bc]

A non-living photon changing behaviour when observed is more horrifying than horror movies.

[@devon1267]

A photon being "observed" in this experiment means being detected/measured by a device, which must interact with the photon to "observe"/detect it. A detection device interacting with the photon is what causes it to behave differently, not someone "looking at it" or "consciousness"

[@Ice.muffin]

@@devon1267 *Slow clap* Nobel prize for you... Why don't you go get it?

[@devon1267]

@@Ice.muffin You're too kind, but mistaken. This has been common knowledge for decades, so they won't award a nobel for it.

[@Ice.muffin]

@@devon1267 Funny, since that's not the version the world is talking about. Something's not right in your equation, oops.

[@MaggieTheCat01]

@@devon1267 If a detector interferes with the trajectory of the particles, I’m amazed that it manages to marshall them into two relatively neat lines.

[@wolf222555]

Interesting....thanks for this. There is also the water experiment which consistently shows an interaction between the water molecules and the mind of the observer.

[@snowkracker]

The thing that gets me is how the photons create an interference pattern even when shot one at a time.

[@tabby73]

They're like little magicians 😀

[@JayDeeShorts]

Because they are in whats called a superposition which they are acting like a wave and particle both at once so the particle could be anywhere within said wave

[@ArcWelder588]

Was hoping for a bit more in-depth explanation; Does the method of observation interfere with the light photons? How was the picture taken? Does the slits themselves have an effect on the photons? AT what frequency is the photons fired? What was that about time having an effect on the experiment ? I'm no physicist, but I think by now we should have more experiments where the variables are changed to have a better understanding.

[@danielrodrigues4903]

There are a ton actually, and the method of observation affecting things is one of the main explanations. After all, observing the universe at that miniscule scale requires special devices and techniques, so the act of observing them itself may introduce external interference from the observer.

[@sagarjamwal6182]

Yes, the detector or measuring device used in the double slit experiment interacts with the photon and alters its behavior, causing it to act like a particle. This is because the act of measurement or observation involves the exchange of energy and information between the photon and the measuring device, which disturbs the photon's wavefunction and collapses it. The type of detector used in the experiment is important. For example, a photon passing through a slit may be absorbed and re-emitted by a detector, which can cause a change in the photon's energy and momentum. This disturbance can alter the photon's path and cause it to behave as a particle, rather than a wave that undergoes interference. Additionally, the act of measurement introduces uncertainty into the system, which can further disturb the photon's behavior. The position of the photon is uncertain until it is measured, and this uncertainty can propagate through the system and disrupt the interference pattern. In summary, the presence of a detector or measuring device in the double slit experiment interferes with the photon by altering its wavefunction and introducing uncertainty into the system. These effects cause the photon to behave like a particle rather than a wave, and the interference pattern disappears.

[@DarkSpice84]

@@sagarjamwal6182I have been intrigued in this topic for years and ironically a guy in a KZbin comment section describes it in the best way I’ve heard. So in reality, what does the destruction of this wave function mean? Does it really mean that un-observed objects appear differently?

[@franciscobrunodias7526]

@@DarkSpice84 The wave function of a particle (or more generally a system) contains all the information about the state of that particle. It can be used, for example, to calculate the probability of the particle being in a particular position. Let’s say you want to know which slit a electron went through without interfering with its current state (that is, you want to make a measurement and not change the wave function, so it keeps the cool wave pattern, as if it was not measured). Measuring some quantum state of a particle is basically applying a transformation to its wave function and reading the output, so you can’t directly measure something out of a particle and expect it to behave like you did nothing. So the best approach here would be to copy the wave function, perform a measurement on the copy and the original keeps unchanged. Sadly, we can’t do that (search for no-cloning theorem for further clarification). In short, you have a wave function 𝛙 upon which you can take measurements by applying some transformations to it, but whenever you do so, it changes to another wave function 𝛙’. You may try to clone this wave function, but the best you may get are imperfect copies. I hope this sums it up, cheers.

[@bloodymary__]

@@sagarjamwal6182this was AI generated, but good response.

[@ajspice]

Can you imagine how confused they were trying to figure this out?

[@DonEskil]

Hi! For a long time I have wondered what exactly we mean by saying "when the photons are observed" and I encountered this video when I tried to look it up. I'm a chemist and have learned from analytical chemistry that we can't measure anything without it interacting with the material of the detector. I was of course curious in how we exactly can "observe" something halfway through an experiment without fundamentally changing the experiment and therefore likely the result. So when I heard that "scientists used a measuring device to observe the slit that each photon passed through" it obviously peaked my interest. From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong or misinterprets the experiment, the so-called measuring device or slit-detector is actually polarizing filters which do not perform any kind of measurement or detection themselves. By only filtrating forth polarized light from each slit (which I think are perpendicular to each other), it would presumably be possible to identify which photons passed through each slit later on. If this is the case, I think it is an extreme stretch of the definition detector or measuring device if no observations, measurements or analysis were performed by this so-called device. I realise that this is likely an extreme simplification made in order to illustrate other points, and while it is false (at least from my interpretation of what a measuring device is), there might be a valid argument that "we might as well view it as a detector for the sake of simplicity". So there is no magical detector. Darn it, another childhood dream squashed. I still have some issues with general statements I've encountered such as "the photons change their behaviour because we observe them", which likely are simplifications of "in an experiment in which we tried to observe the path of the photons, they behaved like particles instead of waves". While I don't think either statements are necessarily false, they both seems a bit misleading if left on their own. From my perspective, the experiment when using the filters is, at least to some degree, fundamentally different from the one without filters. We can observe "that perpendicular polarized light behaves like particles instead of waves when passing through the slits", and don't get me wrong, it is definitely a interesting and wierd result that clearly illustrates the wave-partical duality of photons. However, to draw the conclusion/interpretation that "they behave differently **because** we try to observe their paths" sounds rather backwards to me. While it is true that we set up the experiment in order to determine their path, a less misleading way to express the result could be "they behave differently because we fundamentally changed the experimental conditions, i.e. we removed all photons that didn't exhibit certain properties (i.e. a certain polarization)". While this might be obvious for physicists and chemists alike (that we can't measure anything without interacting with it), I don't think it is as obvious to people with other backgrounds. The slit-detector is often breezed over in explanations of the experiment and is therefore more or less implied to be a passive observer. A reasonable explanation for this is that we can't explain everything in a 6 minute video. We would need to explain what polarized light is and why that is significant. Easily understood explanations are without a doubt important, and can be justified even if they oversimplify things (such as the slit-detector). However, when doing an over-simplification and just saying "we just observe the photons" it would be easy, and I think very reasonable, to add a large shining caveat saying "the detector is not a passive observer and that it by its very nature may influence the outcome of the experiment". While this likely would result in some confusion, it would more importantly raise questions which are the bread-and-butter of curiosity. I genuinely think that Newsthink and physicists in general only have the best intentions in mind, but I find this sort of explanation (without any caveats) unnecessarily misleading nonetheless. While interpretations such as "photons change their behaviours/properties **because** we observe them" are alright to make, I personally find them missing the mark of what the actual experiment was about and what the results really showed (i.e. if I understand things correctly). Is it possible that the photons behaviour changed **because** we tried to observe their path? Yes anything is possible, but I find it rather speculative (to put it mildly) if this is the only data that they base it on. In general, while it is easy to say "You should stay sceptical even when experts explain something" or "Of course the experiment is more complex than it seems, we're talking about physics and the video is 6 minutes long", I don't think that's something we should expect people from outside the scientific community to always take into consideration. And that is why i wrote this post (also because I wanted to know if I've misunderstood something). I would also be very interested for any information regarding other real experiments (i.e. not thought experiments) that deal with "whether photons behave differently if "observed"". Have a nice day!

[@infamouszephon]

Wow

[@SpencerfromEarth]

You're correct about the polarizing filters. Each filter blocks out a certain direction of the wave, x y or z. By combining two different polarizing filters you should be able to block out the x and y directions of the wave, for example, leaving only the z direction. It's true that these filters aren't "measuring" or "observing" anything in the more common way that we understand those words, but I think they do "observe" the light in a more quantum/abstract way than we probably understand. I'm a biologist though so definitely not my field of study.

[@DonEskil]

@@SpencerfromEarth hi, thanks for your response. It’s good to have confirmation about the filter blocks, so thanks again! After I wrote this comment, I spoke to a physicist friend of mine and thought a bit more about the experiments. Most of my criticism stands about how the concept was described in the video but today I wouldn’t have added the comment about that “I find it very speculative to say that the photons behavior changed because we tried to observe them”. I still find it misleading and very easy to make far-drawn conclusions from it, but I was also a bit too focused on the experiment where many photons were sent in and not the experiment where one photon was sent at a time. There is, as you say, clearly a quantum mechanical phenomenon happening at the filters as shown by the latter experiment. So it’s very likely that it also happened in the first mentioned experiment (where many photons were sent), so it’s not only that polarized light interacts differently than unpolarized light which effected the result. It’s therefore really a question of semantics, and while it could be interesting to delve into a deep philosophical discussion about what “observing” really is, I don’t really think it’s worth it. As I’ve mentioned, I personally don’t like the word *observing* to describe the phenomenon, but I don’t really expect people to care much about my stickler tendencies. Hope you have a nice day!

[@johnteki]

wow, I had GPT to make it simpler for me to understand :p

[@asdfg19923]

I agree. In fact it's so misleading that you get people coming on the comment section talking about how this proves the universe is conscious... People love a good fairy tale.

[@danielhenrique3642]

Undestand that the term "observe" in this video means "interfer". To "observe" the eletron they must use a photon. Thats why its change from waves to particles

[@paryanindoeur]

First time I've heard a source mention the similarity to zone-loading in video games explicitly. I've long thought of that when considering this subject. It's a good analogy, with so many gamers out there these days.

[@TheGothGaming]

That was my first thought too when I heard this experiment the first time. I dont know if we are living in a simulation or not, but the more I read about quantum physics the more Im convinced our universe behaves like a computer (im a software engineer myself).

[@daviderossi9597]

​@@TheGothGaming same

[@seandidsomething]

You a fed bro 🤨

[@slackamacgaming6721]

👍

[@darlenesmith5690]

@@TheGothGaming Computers follow the programming rules and do not deviate. Any issue is caused by a mistake in programming (shy of a hardware or firmware glitch). The universe follows the rules of physics and to our knowledge, does not deviate. Hence the similarity. We just do not yet understand all of the rules of physics. The problem with the "simulation theory" is that the creators of the simulation created a massive number of rules, and also had massive amounts of energy. For what purpose? To observe? To have billionaire avatars? The stage is too big for the play.

[@annalarose5392]

Our world is amazing! The concept that the particles could change when being observed seems like a small change in variables but the consciousness awareness effects it in such a way that had plenty of people stunned! Even to this day people are amazed by this experiment!

[@chetsenior7253]

It’s asinine. We don’t know what I observed ones do, because….

[@annalarose5392]

@@chetsenior7253 let's pretend your English was grammatical; are you saying it's asinine because you yourself was not present for the demonstration of the experiment and therefore how can you know for sure? Or that you can't trust what you seen?! And what's with (...) Are you planning on adding to your thought process or are you using ellipses for some sort of effect? Honestly you may want to revise your comment😪😂💁

[@MyName-vg8yu]

How are we still proliferating this misconception? The behavior of particles change when we "observe" them because "observing" something so small means we have to bump something else into it (like the way electron microscopes work). The trippy part is the superposition of particles (which allows for the photons to interact with themselves).

[@CutleryChips]

What do you expect of a video that is claiming we are living in a simulation? Might as well title as “Proof that super advanced aliens exist that collapse electron wave function”

[@explicitreverberation9826]

​@gp I can see you don't know much about your cosmic history or neighbors and yet here you are fumbling quantum topics?

[@CutleryChips]

@@explicitreverberation9826 so I am supposed to fully accept that everything behind my head disappears to save simulation computing power?

[@explicitreverberation9826]

@gp you tell me. It's a carbon copy of a rick and morty episode for God sakes. Though....."they live" and marvels "secret wars" are both documentaries, who knows at this point. Forgive me. 🙄😪 you may be as right as rain

[@LiteShaper1]

How do you explain the version of the experiment where they scrambled the results of which way knowledge after the light hit the detector with the “observing mechanism” (polarized filters) operating and in place - and the wave function reestablished every time the scrambler was turned on? The only variable appears to be knowledge in the mind of the observer.

[@VoidraMusic]

Server admin: oooh they are observing, yo zuckerberg, change the code!

[@sarenmohil396]

Very informative and makes us curious about physics

[@jokerlucifer4904]

True bro

[@dj-rocketman8545]

As the Scriptures say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”

[@roberttorres4893]

I have a theory that this is what Stanly Kubrick was basing his movie on Space Odyssey 2001. The light sequence at the very end as being observed by the pilot (Boman i think) traveling through space after entering a monolith which looks exactly like a slit. The slit is solid black but after he enters he then observes a light show of colors that couldnt have been seen before. Also , everyone knows how perfect kubrick directed his movie shots are, theres never an error meaning the continuation of the story is never out of sequence, except for 1 time i noticed and this could refer to the delay and observation of a particle correcting itself. The jacket appearing on a chair then disappearing in the next shot was thought to be an error which is unlikely, theres a lost and found alert is being said in the following screenshots, meaning that it corrected itself after the viewers observation. A majority of the movie is presented with black and white backgrounds (duality) for example the ceiling is made of white light in the U.S. Spaceship just as the floor in Bowmans room is lit up in white light. We see this again in the meeting room ,black ceilings and corners with white light walls. The white light is also in the center of the ship thats rotating with Hal. Im suggesting theres an inside world and an outside world that exist simultaneously but not observable , its seperated by the light. The absense of light is the the monolith, solid black darkness and going through it brings you to the other side. Bowman went through it twice. 1st time as a pilot and 2nd time at his death bed where he becomes a star child made of light. I cant explain all of it here but i think you can see where im going with this, im very interested to here what you guys think of this.

[@Axol5077]

A possible reason is the way that light bounces off an object into our eyes if some sort of thing is reversed or bounces back, it could be interfering with the particle, hence changing its state this would have to be something to do with new set of physics laws, which we currently have no way to prove

[@jc-tu6pg]

The best explanation and animation of the double slit experiment that I've ever seen! Kudos!

[@kennybraverman9719]

read some of the replies as they make point on criticism.

[@seantrevathan3041]

Watch the one by PBS Spacetime Delayed Choice version. That version of the experiment is unsettling.

[@tristanmisja]

This is an okay explanation, but not a good conclusion.

[@overkillblackjack2910]

What was the rationale for conducting the double slit experiment in the first place? I mean, did someone correctly hypothesize the results of the double-slit experiment?

[@pangman77]

That's why time slows down for an observer who approaches the speed of light or is near an extremely massive object (i.e., high gravity)...the universe needs time to process all the information.

[@patrickbennett439]

We must flip on/off the observer camera like a strobe light and do it faster than the speed of light so that the light particles cannot keep up with the observer camera and be able to react fast enough, then we can see what up. However this might cause the light partical to go backwards as if time is being reveresed. We need mirrors to bounce it back the right direction as the camera is now observing light going backwards in time, i think. lol

[@deviantshade]

Do you remember mirrors reflect light?so electrons would just pass through it too.a reflection is just light bent by the mirror

[@patrickbennett439]

@tshade Electrons that make the light?. So, what now? It passes through a mirror or something. I dont know lol

[@jeljojose]

.....finally at the end of the experiment, the photon sued the creepy scientists for invasion of privacy, anxiety , mental trauma and character assassination 😄

[@BenderdickCumbersnatch]

Yeah, and then the particle changed gender.

[@adelabrouchy]

🤣🤣🤗

[@shuddupeyaface]

From how many angles can the head of a pin be observed? Then, from how many angles could our own milky way be observed? And does a mirror reflect a finite or infinate number of reflections at all times? I love this stuff.

[@fredneecher1746]

There's one reflection but an infinite number of angles from which it can be viewed. Same as with the original.

[@FredoSantana90]

They make it seem like the photons are self aware when the actual reason behind it is simple.

[@SamSam-mw7hq]

I’ve seen a lot of people saying it’s the physical interaction of the observing device that interferes with the photon, by “bumping” into the photon and causing it to change. To reiterate, if the device is turned off, the photons return to being waves. So once turned on the observing device must be emitting waves or particles that interferes with the photons and causes it to act like a particle. This makes the most logical sense to me as well. A photon behaving like it “knows” or has “consciousness” seems less likely to me. So my question is, what if we put more than one observing device in the experiment? For example, one device pointed down (eagle view), another pointed to a horizontal view, and one behind the photon machine. All devices turned on. Would this change the outcome of the pattern the photons make? Would different amount of devices and angles yield different results? I’m not sure if this experiment has been done. I’d love to do it myself but I figure it’ll be difficult to get your hands on a photon shooting machine. Thoughts?

[@rsport2053]

The quantum eraser, delayed choice experiment disproves your theory.

[@pasonveronica2370]

I’m sure they have tried that and it’s the same….. even you will act differently when observed

[@ligerwulf]

Yeah you got point but i think theyve done it with the knowledge they have compared to Us they would be dumb to release such experiment without answering a simple doubt that an ordinary people like Us could imagine.

[@Blurro]

@@ligerwulf ordinary people simply don't have access to the expensive equipment to test their questions out. Ain't make them more stupid

[@dudd4171]

agreed

[@aaronjennings8385]

Simulation is not the word. Synthesis is. If it were simulated, it would be violating physics. It doesn't. A synthesis doesn't violate physics. It's too perfect to be real, and it's highly statistically improbable, but it doesn't break laws. The double slit experiment describes the nature of consciousness as an input. As an input, it changes experimental outcomes and directs our actions. It does, in fact, suggest that there is a God.

[@A1Kira]

Simulation doesn’t mean “violating physics”… synthesis isn’t even a word to describe what’s going on here lmao. Learn what definitions mean. All this suggests is that there is a creator or creators, not necessarily a god.

[@aaronjennings8385]

@@A1Kira Simulation is the act of creating a computer or physical model that mimics real-life situations. It helps us understand and predict how complex systems behave in different scenarios. Simulations are used in many fields to study, test, and train people.

[@aaronjennings8385]

@@A1Kira Synthesis is the process of combining different elements or components to create something new or complex.

[@aaronjennings8385]

@dark-uu3fy simulations and simulated or simulants aren't real. They are artificial. Carrying only vestigial semblance of reality. Synthetics are real yet not natural. Not everything in the world around us occurred via random chance. Some things are synthetic. I.e. Synthetic vs. Simulated diamond.

[@A1Kira]

@@aaronjennings8385 noun: synthesis; plural noun: syntheses 1. the combination of ideas to form a theory or system. "the synthesis of intellect and emotion in his work" You used “synthesis” wrongly in a sentence. It’s not used to describe Simulation theory because it’s the wrong word to use. There’s a reason Musk and other geniuses use the word simulation and not synthesis theory lol.

[@igors1234]

I bet this is somehow related to the physical interaction between the observing device and the photon. As a rough example, imagine there is a bowling ball moving on the bowling path, and you throw another bowling ball that should hit the first bowling ball, bounce from it and go back to you to tell you that there was a moving bowling ball, from which your bowling ball bounced. And of course, after the hit not only your bowling ball bounced, but also the initial ball changed it's course. Something like that could be happening on a level of particles, in my assumption. The current explanation that the photons change their abilities because of some conscious spectator sounds like magical thinking, similar to that lightning is being thrown by Zeus etc.

[@dsego84]

But even still, why would firing individual photons through slits over time produce an interference pattern?

[@palkys.]

@@dsego84 you believe that part? Cause without it, the whole thing is just a very well performed ruse. Think about it.

[@dsego84]

@@palkys. why not believe experimental results? do you think this is conspiracy? I think you can do the experiment at home, there are videos on yt where people recreate it with a pointer laser.

[@venerablearcanum]

The "current explanation" as you put it is nonsense. You won't find any actual physicists explaining it that way. Your intuition is correct. There is nothing spooky going on and "observation" is a technical term that basically means "poking the thing to measure it". The "poke" affects the thing being measured. It's really that simple (well, it's not actually that simple, but that's the basic idea).

[@matthewtilley7175]

​@@dsego84exactly

[@betsydonato6817]

Evolution of the Eye Ball begins in the translucent environment , before it discovered the transparent environment. Atmosphere obviously plays on light density and refraction. The slits are shown on a flat stencil against a flat wall representing a stop in space time continuum. I think results would be different if the stencil was curved against an opposite curved wall . Using black paper against black paper is different from using transparent or translucent emulsion against a solid wall .

[@ChrisContin]

One explanation for ordinary light and lightspeed is that light is prismed from a higher dimension. This means where light is can only be measured using probability, explaining why it never follows patterns like a hard, precise object yet is one.

[@Electric_Wizard999]

This test needs to be conducted with several animal observers. If this effect is only observed whether or not a person views it, or whether a person has the potential to view it via a camera. This would prove that humanity is of a higher priority in existence and would suggest that there is a deeper meaning behind this experiment.

[@wj9494]

What is the device used to "see" which slit the electron passed through? It seems that device is what is interfering with the interference pattern - not us, as implied by this clip.

[@johnnastrom9400]

This has been explained and debunked in other comments.

[@8alakai8]

for me this is proof we live in a symulation as a gamer its just like a game engine

[@RayMak]

When we observe, the observing machine interferes

[@KEW-pd1jn]

Isn’t a simulation considered to be a designed creation? (: The Developer really knocked it out of the park with the whole perfect ratio and the Higgs Boson.

[@infernalsorcery7923]

Some people believe that the universe we live in has many more dimensions to space, and as the universe has cooled, these dimensions curled tightly around each other. Now to 3D observers, we are convinced there is no more dimensions than 4 to our universe. 3 of space, 1 of time. The ratio these dimensions curled around each other is the golden ratio.

[@infernalsorcery7923]

And the Higgs field. Which is an active massive universal field, which all other energies permutate within. The Higgs boson is an exotic particle that was theorized to exist toward the beginning of this universe and which split off into and collapsed into everything else.

[@alexrandall8557]

This is ridiculous. It's not the "mere act of observation" that causes the superposition of a quantum particle to collapse. You cannot "merely" observe a quantum particle. You can't just whip out a microscope and have a look. To observe a quantum particle, it must interact with another particle, and it is the interaction, not the observation, that causes the collapse of quantum superpositions.

[@kayakexcursions5570]

Exactly. She doesn't know anything about videogames either. They are not related in any way, a game is predetermined from the start, bound by rules even if its random. It culls objects out of view because its a waste of time drawing them, but they are there. The wave function algorithim itself follows rules based off the input. You cannot predict where a photon will hit, only the probability.

[@jkturtle]

Nope. Based on experiments, even if the observation is done AFTER the photon has passed either of the slits, the photons will still behave as particles. With no observation, the photon will behave as a wave.

[@josemonge4604]

@@jkturtle So the observation retroactively changes the photon from wave to particle, so it's time traveling?

[@wiggles666]

​@@josemonge4604 yes. And it's wild.

[@blacktigershearthstoneadve6905]

You are wrong. Clever people managed to do it without direct interaction long ago.

[@shahilgupta1690]

By far the best explanation on Double Slit Experiment ❤

[@venerablearcanum]

No, it isn't. It's bullshit.

[@acarpentersson8271]

Why wouldn't it be the case that spacetime is oscillating, or twitching back and forth while the photon is traveling a more straight path, and it's the location of the slit and the capturing surface that are moving, causing it to appear as if light acts like a wave?

[@zidang4143]

This truly is one of the experiments of all time.

[@user-zf8ev5ej2f]

This isn't proof that we're in a simulation. This is proof of consciousness and that it is far more important than what we think we know.

[@archentity]

In that picture, Leonardo's gears would've turned both the front set and rear set of wheels inwards towards each other or both sets of wheels outward away from each other causing the tank to remain motionless. Edit: I swear I didn't see the explanation before writing this.

[@roodick85]

It would be so crazy to find theyre actually sentient beings

[@MrDogonjon]

Then energy is consciousness?... E=mc2?... c= consciousness= wrong. c is a number.

[@grokwhy]

How do you, or a detector, 'observe' a tiny particle without some way interacting with it, and impacting its behavior. In our macro world, we can see a baseball without interfering with it. But when you are trying to detect a single photon or electron, how do you do that without interfering with it in some way?

[@yanke3s1]

I think it's more obvious that there's an error in their equipment than there is in a reality

[@benjamindees]

That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, it's been proven wrong.

[@mrslake7096]

1. no achievement pop ups 2. no background music 3. no physics glitches, no falling through the ground, no invisible walls 4. no repetitive NPCs 5. no fetch 100 rats quests life is definitely not a simulation

[@stimberry]

5. exists in new york

[@666lucanator]

One of the best explanations of this ive seen, great visuals

[@briannolan7818]

So, if you did the experiment with 3 slits, would the outer 2 slits cancel the inner slit and make just 2 bright bands? The wave pattern should cancel the inner line.

[@johnmay9699]

The real mystery is left out: if the observation is made AFTER the light passed through the slits, ie if observed in the future, the future event changes the behavior of the particles as they go through the slit in the past. Thus, a future event becomes the cause of the past.

[@carlosvasquez1545]

That's probably why you can always tell when someone is looking at you

[@SlndrBoi99]

HELP ! There's something I can't get my head around this experiment. How do we know how photons behave when they are not being observed?

[@AKpilations]

This confirms that the universe is against me

[@fiddlestickzmuzik]

I am absolutely sure there are some weird invisible ( to our eyes ) beings all around us laughing at us and causing endless misery for their enjoyment. Everything being recorded as if in some alternate reality. Well maybe not that basic, it's hard to express in words, but I get the impression that most humans get a feeling at one time or another/ or many times, that you are being watched by something unknown. One time when in Europe I accidentally took a large amount of a unknown psychedelic ( long story ) it keep me up for 4 days and I had thought I went mad. During this time a weird world revealed itself to me, there were these red balls like eyes everywhere constantly watching and monitoring every movements we humans make, you know the red eyes in the matrix sentinels, well I was seeing those things literally everywhere all around us, you moved and it followed your movements like a lens in a camera. There were millions of these things everywhere I looked. I hadn't seen the Matrix film back then as this was in 1993 and the Matrix wasn't released until 1999. You have no idea how terrified I was when I saw the film for the first time and those red eyed sentinels were in the film. Its not a coincidence that most people feel weird when looking into camera and asked questions or told to say something..

[@JJsWithJesus]

Those weird invisible beings you speak of are demons. Psychedelics cause humans to see into the spiritual realm. The truth is that demons do watch us, but so do god and his angels. If you believe in Jesus, demons secrets are revealed and they no longer pose a threat.

[@___Sevak___]

i dont think they watch us to cause misery, if that is then the whole purpose of universe is defeated

[@3b0d1999]

What is there to even laugh at? we repeat our mistakes repeatedly. If anything, it calls for disappointment. Our actions are very predictable even for us, let alone to our god.

[@___Sevak___]

@@3b0d1999 its written in Bhagwad Gita when a devotee asks God why he observes when we commit wrong acts why doesnt he interfere? God says "first pay attention to your words if u know i am observing why wil u commit wrong acts & second free will is to be provided that is God's Dharma/duty"

[@cecilebraillie4471]

you shouldn't watch videos like this, it obviously messes with your head

[@thundershadow]

I've been aware of the double slit experiment for some time but I have not studied it in depth. So, I'm unsure if it was variated between pre and post slit observation. I wonder if that makes a difference?

[@jgunther3398]

interesting interpretation, who knows, could be the right one. my analogy was always the path of a spitball comprises all possible paths until it hits the blackboard...

[@the.haque.family]

Bro!!! 😮😮😮 I'm loving Physics.

[@ralfp8844]

The problem begins with thinking of particles.

[@energydriver46]

That’s interesting, are you loosely suggesting that, since we humans have theorized and done the math to believe they are particles, that’s what the wave ultimately displays…? Because it is a wave of probability after all.. I have thought about this before as well. I wonder if there’s another intelligent specie on another planet who went through a similar process as us, but instead of them theorizing about particles they theorized and did the math for something completely different, and what if that’s what they detect when measuring their versions of “particles”. idk, hope I made enough sense for you to understand me lol.

[@ralfp8844]

@@energydriver46 I wanted to say, that if you go into a theory with preconceptions that are too strong, you always will miss some important traits. So if you are tuned to see particles, you will see particles. It's like looking at clouds with pictures of animals in your head. But the same thing will happen, if you look at the former particles with an idea of probability waves. Both are concepts, that work quite well under certain circumstances. And both will fail under others. Most people think, physics is about finding out how exactly reality looks like. But the first hard lesson is, that you can't. But you can find out, how reality behaves. The models and theories are made to understand that good enough to make smart predictions. And the analogies, like "photons behave like particles" (IF observed in certain conditions!), are made to get familiar with that stuff. Let me mention one last point, if you're still sticking to a it"s one or the other idea. Ask yourself, what a real particle would be like. A solid orb? Made out of what? Which diameter? Homogenious or not? And how the heck would a complex probability function look like in reality? Etherial Numbers floating in space and time with real and imaginary parts? So don't ask, what it is, but how it could be described best to make the maths consistent with the measurements. Sorry to say that, but studying somehow demystifies the whole stuff, and i could have known.

[@kalismols606]

Aliens: guys they're onto us Alien overloads: KNOCK DOWN SOME TREES RIGHT NOW

[@Bootmahoy88]

Wait, they’re saying they performed this experiment ‘one photon’ at a time? Besides it being physically impossible to isolate a single photon, there’s something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[@josy28xo]

no matter how often i watch this experiment i will always be stunned be the result. this is so awesome. also it shows that all choices that we make is one out of endless possibilities.

[@christianlewis7055]

What I'm yet to understand is how the experiment measures the interference pattern without counting as 'observing' it.

[@energydriver46]

Literally lol

[@dsego84]

But you are not observing through which slit the particle is moving. If you don't observe, you get an interference pattern, even though they're firing individual photons through one or the other slit. It's like without observing, the photon/electron doesn't have to give you the information about the slit, sort of like lazy loading in games.

[@victorfernandes83]

@@dsego84but how do you not observe it? How would you know? If you do not observe it you can’t know. My point is. Whatever is used to observe it is affecting the photon.

[@curtisrodriguez938]

Thank you for this excellent presentation. The double slit experiment seems to echo Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

[@ujayet]

Yes it’s almost like the particle knew it was being watched and went back in time to change its behavior. The observer doesn’t recognize this because he is stuck in the flow of time photon particles isn’t.

[@clownworld33]

The bigger question is if there was no person or thing in the forest to see or hear the tree fall did it fall?

[@MichaelHickey2003]

Yes

[@energydriver46]

We’ll never know lol

[@gavinjames8749]

If a tree fell in a forest with no-one around except a blind,deaf man,directly under the tree,would he be killed by the tree that may or may not have fell after all?

[@gavinjames8749]

If a tree fell in a forest with no-one around except a blind,deaf man,directly under the tree,would he be killed by the tree that may or may not have fell after all?

[@StonegaardForge]

Particles change their behavior when observed because of consciousness. When the consciousness of an observer connects to the consciousness of a particle there is an energetic and magnetic-like reaction. Much like blowing wind on a leaf, although that is still more random. Many of the big brains out there still have a problem with grasping the concept of consciousness related impact.

[@kingdoge69]

I’m gonna need a source on this one bud

[@StonegaardForge]

@@kingdoge69 I did my homework. You can do yours.

[@devon1267]

Totally wrong. A photon being "observed" in this experiment means being detected/measured by a device, which MUST interact with the photon in order to detect/measure it. A detection/measurement device interacting with a photon is what triggers the change, not someone "looking at it" or "consciousness". This has been understood, you're just spreading misinformation.

[@StonegaardForge]

@@devon1267 or information of which you are just simply unaware. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not true.

[@devon1267]

@@StonegaardForge This video is about the double slit experiment, and the photons involved. In the experiment, the photons react to a measurement/detection device, not conciousness, it's what the word "observer" refers to as defined by the experiment/those who set it up. It's not a matter of "belief", it's what the description of the experiment refers to, so you either know what the experiment is describing or you don't. You don't. Consciousness/a human directly "observing" the photons doesn't play a role in the experiment, regardless of what you believe. The only reason to think that it does is if you misunderstood what the term "observer" as used in the experiment is referring to. The experiment shows that light appears to act like a wave and a particle, and it's open to interpretation whether it's both a wave and particle, or if it's still really always a wave, or always a particle.

[@SethiozProject]

I don't think we live in "simulation", but i do think that universe we live in, works similar to a computer program. it's a FACT that by observing something, you are altering it. or to say it in a different form "you can't observe something without altering it". It's very simple concept, in order to observe something, you must interfere. for example if you are looking at something, then particles interact with your eyes, which is interference. same happens with cameras. if camera sensor is able to see whatever it is looking at, then that object is also able to detect presence of the camera sensor. more fascinating thing for me, is fabric of space. we know it exists, because that's what causes gravity. gravity is 4-dimensional. when on earth (or other planets), if you drop something, it will fall towards the core, but in space, if you place something on fabric of space, it will bend inwards, making a 4-dimensaionl "bowl" and things will fall into it. if you'd be able to get in center of a planet, you'd be in 0g. so if fabric of space exists, then it means that fabric of space MUST have shape and size. what is that shape and size? I think it's a cube, because that would make most logical sense and also refers to the theory that it's all a big "simulation". another interesting thing, is that there MUST be tiniest particles that cannot be destroyed, which act as 1s and 0s, as in binary. if particle exists, it's a 1, if no particle, it's a 0. which means that everything in universe is basically just data, that can be created, copied and/or deleted. another thing about fabric of space, if it exists (which it does), then it must have particles, but what does it consist of? normal matter don't collide with it, is that what scientists call "dark matter"? but yes, i too think that universe is more like a computer than "natural".

[@andrewjason3166]

This has been answered years ago. Pilot wave theory explains why the particles, including electrons , act the way they do until they are "observed." By observed, they mean detected. After all, we cant see electrons, we use visible light photons to see. Electrons are WAY smaller than photons. We cant observe these particles with our vision. When these particles are sent through a detector to "observe" their position, the pilot wave is induced off and the particles can move in a straight path because they are no longer influenced by their own precursor wave. Lots lf lead scientists dont like this explanation because it removes the mystique of particle physics and proves the motion is deterministic. It's a lot less sexy and hard to sell when the mysticism is explained.

[@280zjammer]

The double slit experiment doesn't say as much about light as it does about consciousness being a physical thing.

[@devon1267]

No. A photon being "observed" in this experiment means being detected/measured by a device, which MUST interact with the photon in order to detect/measure it. A detection/measurement device interacting with a photon is what triggers the change, not someone "looking at it" or "consciousness".

[@Gyfrctgtdbhf]

Could the speed of light limit be the result of the “clock speed” of the simulation for updating the position of particles in addition to determining their observed state?

[@Rollmops94]

I am a programmer and I thought about the idea, that the world might be programmed a lot. From this perspective the idea, that light behaves like a function whenever not observed closely seems like a typical optimisation. Why simulate a myriad of photons, when you really only need a macroscopic light/shadow texture. I have many ideas about time, but it is very hard to order them. Time goes slower in proximity to large masses and obviously where there is a large mass there is a lot of matter and where there is a lot of matter a lot is happening and where a lot is happening a lot has to be computed - so it makes sense that the program needs a lot of time to calculate each frame in these regions and therefore time in these regions runs slower. This is obviously not a commonly used programming strategy since in basically all programs time is a global variable and not depending on space or anything else. Time also goes slower when moving very fast and this makes sense since an object that moves very fast potentially experiences a lot of different things in a very short time, which again is computationally expensive. In the end I really can't wrap my head around all this though. It is an intriguing idea at the least and I'd really like to explore these topics deeper and gain a real understanding of it all.

[@Rollmops94]

I don't really understand how you want to connect the clock speed and the speed of light though?! It could definitely have something to do with it, but why would these two things be dependent?

[@andreizelchenko934]

​@@Rollmops94So, dark matter and dark energy are remote servers then. And what we see is the interface 😊. But! Characters inside SIMs game will never understand and feel real world and creators, even if you give them some feeling properties and concience.

[@Rollmops94]

@@andreizelchenko934 How do you want to know, what characters in a game can and what not? There is not a single experiment to truly test consciousness. Ultimately you can‘t know wether I or anyone else is a conscious being or not.

[@aranchilingar9086]

True, that is a hypothesis that it could mean. Something is observing us in controlling the trajectory, or it could mean that we are emanating ionic force with our eyes, and with our concentration, and that we can change the direction of ionic movement with a thought think about that.

[@alansaucedo6416]

Read about jacobo grinberg syntergic theory. He was a mexican neurophysicist that studied both science and mystic world of tibetan yoguis and shamans, and came to develop a theory which included all áreas of knowledge to humans. But short answer the human brain conscience affects directly reality

[@radinelaj3932]

I think if that experiment would be replaced with a canon sand( not laser canon) would happen the same thing. It means : the experiment doesn't show anything because sand is particle, that( same thing ) would happen with all things as : sugar grain,salt grain, sand grain etc...

[@xbxb]

This is why I think a person won't take much computing energy if we are in a simulation, because I don't think everything, I don't know everything, we have little range of eyes to observe things.

[@jennyxie5382]

I think Arvin explained it perfectly in one video.

[@tebogo743]

You know Arvin Ash 🔥🔥🔥

[@dianamorgan9668]

He is good

[@localmartian9047]

Arvin is best

[@jennyxie5382]

Yes, he make exactly the same video as this but explain it way better, and make it less spooky. It just that he make too many video I forgot the title. Or else I will link it here.

[@sharingan1490]

@@jennyxie5382 here you go...kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmiYdXqFaKylfJY

[@cidnewman8032]

We’ve known this for awhile, and while interesting on its own, it brings up an even more interesting thought: “Does the observer not only cause the collapse, but also have an affect on the final state?”

[@haroldnowak2042]

The observer is irrelevant. An interaction collapses the wave and that interaction can be by a detector. The observer may or may not look at the detector, it does not matter. From the final state, it is often possible to tell where the wave was detected.

[@cidnewman8032]

@@haroldnowak2042 - Prove it. I've seen no evidence to suggest that the collapsed result would be identical, regardless of observer.

[@haroldnowak2042]

​@@cidnewman8032 Remember, the observer must interact with the system via a detector to be an observer. The double slit experiment can have 4 possible outcomes depending on where the interaction (or detector) takes place: Well before the slits, near the slits on the source side, near the slits on the screen side, near the screen. The observer can leave the room but as long as the interaction or detection takes place at those locations you get identical outcomes in general. Similarly, if you move the screen toward the slits the pattern changes from a double slit interference pattern to 2 single slit interference patterns but never to 2 single slit patterns with no interference like when the detector is on the screen side of the double slits. The observer needs the detector to interact with the system and the observer observes the detector. The observer does not have to observe the detector, the system will still do fine without the observer.

[@peterevans8194]

Instead of observing (and interacting with ) the particles as they move through the slits, let them impact the screen and observe the strike pattern...That will give the true result...It obvious that when trying to observe the particles we interfer with them in ways we don't yet under stand....

[@johnhardy3430]

I thought electrons were fired at the double slit (or crystals that accomplish the same diffraction phenomenon) and what was crazy was that the electrons (which were particles) actually created the interference pattern. And furthermore, firing one electron at a time, instead of one photon at a time, still created the interference pattern. An illustration of this was done awhile back with a cartoon character named Dr. Quantum: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKfdhH94rteqarM. I might be totally wrong here, but I thought the it was electrons that went back to behaving like particles when they were being observed, not photons. Regardless, this video is great for visualizing the interference pattern created by waves and particles. I enjoy Cindy Pom's Newsthink videos!

[@jeramym9506]

They have now observed wave-particle duality at the scale of multiple atoms. All matter has this property apparently. Insane to think about.

[@andrewg3196]

Everything is waves. Classical Newtonian physics is just happening at a scale where the boundaries of those waves are very well defined relative to their scale so they can just be thought of as masses.

[@meetontheledge1380]

When I was at university (back in the Stone Age!) the experiment was presented as done with electrons. I recall this, because (I guess I was a bit behind the other students), I first had to have the nature of a ''gun'' that shoots SINGLE electrons explained to me. The set up was as beyond my understanding as the incredible results of the experiment. To answer your question, the results of the Double Slit experiment have been replicated with photons, electrons, neutrons, atoms and even large molecules! Incredible.

[@omnikevlar2338]

This is the first time I’m hearing about this experiment. And my mind is literally thinking this has to be a conspiracy. But how do you explain the electrons behaving that way!? 😂

[@robertwilliamson922]

Like she stated, no one can explain electrons or photons behaving that way. It’s a mystery. Quantum Entanglement is another great mystery. Look it up.

[@azeemuddinkhan923]

The apparatus to detect which slit the particle went through, was flawed.

[@tristanmisja]

@@robertwilliamson922 Sure, it's a mystery in the same way "why does gravity work" or "why do virtual particles exist". Those phenomena sort've just exist. There's a property of the universe. There isn't a reason, it just sort've does.

[@victorfernandes83]

@@tristanmisjanot a good analogy. Those things do exist and we know they exist. None of that changes based on if someone’s watching or not.

[@tristanmisja]

@@victorfernandes83 Yup, and neither Quantum Entanglement nor Wave-particle Duality are affected by whether or not someone is watching.

[@thomasshakelton]

What Observation methods are we using, because clearly just watching it or recording it does not interfere. I’m sure people try different ways of observing it, but could it just be observation the waves? Obvious stupid question but I need answers

[@stargazeronesixseven]

😊🙏 Light behaves like Waves when they're not being observed & behaves like Particles when being observed! Thank You So Much Newsthink for explaining this phenomena to us using simple to understand layman term! 🕯🌷🌿🌏✌💜🕊

[@aestheticstudio007]

To be Honest the Title of the video is quite misleading

[@wiseguy8828]

Yep. The only support for it in the video is “some people think this means the universe is programmed”. Not exactly “proof of a simulation”.

[@moose6144]

By watching this video I have understood what I was told a long time ago about life when they tell you you choose your path before you come here

[@brianegendorf2023]

The biggest problem I have with the description of this experiment, is that "observed" is just our way of describing the process. If you just LOOK at the double slit experiment, nothing changes or happens. Instead, you are using a measuring device that sends out a wave of some kind to bounce off of the "flung" electrons, to measure what is happening. Its an over simplification to consider measuring and observing one process. The machine measures. We observe the measurement. Turn the machine off, the measurement goes away, and so does the particle pattern. OUR observation has nothing to do with it. I also picture the experiment in reverse. Its not a case of the measurement affecting the electron. Its a case of the measuring devices putting out a wave that distorts space time. And then the flung electron has to traverse those distortions. When an airplane rises, its because of aerodynamics. The airplane wings move into the air so much that the air starts to push the wings downward and upward. The airplane fights the resistance of the air, and then rises. Now imagine that you shoot an election similarly into a an area where the waves coming from the sensor push against the electron particles enough to move them from one course, to a new course. One wave won't do it, but if a few thousand to a few million waves push against the electron from the moment it leaves the slit till it hits the screen...well, maybe that's why the interference pattern condenses back to a particle pattern. My biggest question, to qualify that is, do the particle patterns on the side most opposite to sensor move back toward the sensor, stay in the same place, or mover further away from the sensor. If they move back toward the sensor, maybe they are hitting the back of the sensor waves, and get pushed backward as a result. If they stay in the same spot, then maybe its hitting the valley in those waves, and shooting right at the screen. If they move away from the sensor, then they are hitting the front of the sensor waves. It becomes a game of spacetime Plinko.

[@danielstockley5631]

God: the ultimate gamer with a KD ratio unmatched

[@BigDaddyJinx]

I've always wondered if there is some interference from the device "watching" that is altering the behavior and it's not so much that it seems to be aware that it's being observed. I always like to fall back on Occam's Razor for things like this - the easiest answer tends to be the right one. You changed the conditions of the experiment by adding an observation element and as soon as you changed the conditions, you got different results. So look for what was changed. The observation apparatus. Surely there has to be some interference that is being created causing the change in behavior. I have no reason to believe that these particles reacted differently because they were being watched. There has to be a simpler and more logical reason for the behavior.

[@jerichobeach2967]

It’s gotten everyone before and after Einstein stumped but it’s never wrong to ask these questions and demand reasonable answers. I wonder if it has anything to do with our limited ability to see or the device having different capabilities that seems simpler to me but I feel like our geniuses would’ve thought of that already. Most of what I see on KZbin is just ppl repeating what Einstein said verbatim but not actually using his stuff to formulate their own theories or experiments on.

[@jerichobeach2967]

@@BobbyT-yj1cw I think I get what you’re saying, just would like it more if ppl on KZbin came up with their own theories wether they’re based on Einstein work or not. Most of the videos I see are just ppl parroting his work in near identical variations.

[@jerichobeach2967]

@@BobbyT-yj1cw I don’t have one at the moment my friend but just a comment that I think it’s cool they have a machine for capturing individual photons of light. If I did have a question I guess it might be about observing changing the result I really don’t have enough info to be specific about the question but it falls somewhere in the category of …is it behaving differently when the machine views it vs the naked eye comparable to an infared light used to view uv vs the naked eye trying to view uv? They said nobody could solve why it behaves differently when being observed but a tree falling in the forest still makes a noise even if nobody hears it, I have to think from a layman pov that it’s something to do with the equipment we use to view it that makes us see different things and we believe it’s light reacting to us when light is not living or aware. My flashlight is just as bright wether I’m staring directly at it or not but from farther away that may seem a false statement when it’s not. Then again maybe I just need to rewatch the video a few times idk

[@neilbirnie7145]

It doesn't become a particle when it is observed, it becomes a particle when it is measured. The double-slit experiment has worked with measuring device where the results are impossible for a human to decipher.

[@user-sf3dw2sm3b]

Really are you sure they couldn’t decipher the results?

[@victorfernandes83]

@@user-sf3dw2sm3bso your human eyes can observe one photon at a time. Impressive. Not even superman can do that.

[@user-sf3dw2sm3b]

@@victorfernandes83 well no. How are they observing the particles then? What instrument

[@mjproebstle]

Observations that are passive in nature would not alter the nature of the particle being observed. Active observation implies an illumination of the particle utilizing some manner of energy, and observing the result. To passively observe the particle, you must know something of the basic nature of the particle, otherwise the particle goes undetected. To actively observe particle, you must also know the basic nature of the particle, and how it will react to the energy imposed on it, or it will again go unnoticed, or display a result which doesn’t make sense. This also applies in our efforts in attempting to understand and observe dark matter and dark energy.