....ya thats kinda what i said but the way your saying it isn't right you make it sound like the theory when light itself is already just a stream of particals; the point was "they" produce a wave spread pattern as if bouncing off each other when launched one by one; but under a sensory between the openings of each slit they no longer produce the wave spread even tho the same input is being turned on..... this is what i mean by most people don't grasp it

same input; single light particals being launched
but when the slits are being observed it produces a different imprint upon the back sensor.... reality litteraly acts differently under observation... as if a computer uses wave form probability because its far easier then rendering every partical of light

its topics like this that are just the start of what i was hoping people on these kinda servers where ready to talk about.... not having to mention it as if its new

There is a statistically identical quantum mechanics model called De Broglie–Bohm theory

It's deterministic

and a particle is never a wave

It's always a particle

But it's guided by a wavefunction

so what does the changing spread/interference patern from a intermediary sensor mean to you; or you just gonna dance around the whole point here

classical quantum mechanics skips the complex math to get to the jist of what you should expect

the interference pattern acirding to De Broglie–Bohm theory is just the addition of 2 spherical waves (2 cilendar waves if it's 2 slits instead of holes)

The particle travels thru only one hole but is guided by the wavefunction to it's destination

so your still dancing around the big critical point here.... being the change in sensor data from the back plate by the introduction of a sensor at the slits....

An interneduary sensor nessarily has to interact in order to sense

thats kinda the whole point....

So it's nessary outcome that it does modify the outgoing wave

an observer turns light from wave to partical; and reality simulates itself as such

not according to De Broglie–Bohm theory

The sensor modifies the wave function that the particle follows

this effect happens even if a being doesn't look at it

a sensor nessarily has to interact

Otherwise what are you receiving to sense?

equal and opposite reaction

If the electron interacts with the sensor then the sensor interacts with the electron

It's not a matter of simulation but just a simple outcome of the equations

Yes the equations can be simulated but so can any other equation

but then again your talking about something we can do in this reality, simulate

so what your saying is everybody who's ever had a confrence on this in general was speaking compleate bullshit out there ass all because they don't understand that its all the sensors falt.....

Yes

All sensors are intrusive to some level

And at tge scale of electrons the smallest intrusion is large

are there any phd's or direct sources that tell you exactly this aspect of what everybody was/is talking about is the way you see it; because quite honestly it just sounds like your taking one aspect of the project thats built into it on a whole and using it as a justification to throw away the rest

no

I did only mention De Broglie–Bohm theory as an unrelated alternative to the probabilistic model

it's stasltisticly identical tho

@Sasowa "They" assume many things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It's also impossible to detect a particle without nessarily interacting with it

but your saying that the whole problem being that the wave form from both slits interacting with each other "bouncing" creating an interferince patern upon the back plate/sensor when no sensors are at the slits then shifting to a scatter shot as if from a gun when a sensory is placed upon the slits is only a product of the eqipment interfearing with the particals and not from the fact there's an observer.... because it sounds like your asuming you know the form of tecknology they use has to interact with the light partical..... do you know the structure of the sensory setup?

@realFlatEarther what?

As I said it's impossible to detect a particle without interacting with it

honestly at this point you sound like @DrPeper just talking from main stream bs that you honestly don't understand and are grasping at related straws

it's a nessesary outcome of the equations

but that interaction isn't of the same scale/product as what we are talking about....

o/

your logic is flawed @Σ5 "stuff" don't just interact and explain away the entire point of an experinment.....

so you dont believe in the uncertainty principle J?

never really read into it to my knowning; link?

it's not flawed logic if the equations literally predict it

how do you know about the double slit exspeariment and not the uncertainty principle?

the point of the experement was done before we had an understanding of quantum theiry

but your asuming the interaction as a process is the cause not as an after fact; as in there is no phisical interaction but a logical interaction

@dumblebore 🌈 You couldn't pay me to read the NYT

there is a physical interaction

the uncertainy principle says there is sets of complimary information, the most famous being speed and position, that the more you know about 1 the less you can know about the other

the act of measuring is applying an interaction onto the particle

but thats an assumption; unless you know the sensor lense is directly filtering and augmenting the partical how can you say.... nobody as ever even spoke about this X factor you say negates the whole thing... litterally dozens of scientists have spoken about this and non act like oh ya our sensor fucks with the light and creates this outcome....

A Law of quantum mechanics is that information cannot be created, duplicated or destroyed

the act of measuring without interacting will violate that law

but your asuming the product of interaction is the cause of what we see when it could just be a %2 decreese in speed or a 1% reflection of bounce etc idk but i don't think they'd use a sensor that is designed to produce the result they are trying to find inspite of adding interfearence

it'd be like me trying to test bullet proof glass and buying grenads....

it could but then quantum particles like a photon doesn't work like that

quantum particles have set states not a continuous spectrum

like spindown or spinup

if you had a larger chunk of particles like a baseball then that would apply

....your not getting what i'm saying here @Σ5 unless you know the structure of the sensor you can't say its interaction is the product of what we see. When the entire point of the outcome was that the element of a "logical" innate observer changes the product of reality. if what your saying was true then all the papers etc would have nothing to do with any of those terms and it would just be "lense/sensory" shifts wave interferince pattern to scatter array.

because you are interacting still with a finite number of particles but a fraction of it

the reality doesn't change

It's like saying the reality changes when something exists

the sensor effects the wave function

nessesarily

it's a logical outcome of the equations

do me a favor and watch this.... i'm honestly at a point where i think your thinking from something else

https://youtu.be/fwXQjRBLwsQ

#NoSpace #NeverEverEverExpanding

I know what the double slit experement is

It's explained by the equations

https://youtu.be/fwXQjRBLwsQ?t=220 watch for like 10 sec

the equations predict that the sensor modifies the wave function

I know what the double slit experement is.
It's explained by the equations.
the equations predict that the sensor modifies the wave function.

o god

not that

i remember the animation was horrifing

I coded my own quantum computer simulator and you think I don't understand this

@Σ5 keeps saying **THE MATH** over and over again so it means nothing to his reality because somebody could make math about each aspect of it... sounds like he don't believe in anything beyond his own two hands

tell me this

@Σ5 coding quantum computers isn't hard when they run on less then 2k byte's the hard part is finding meaningful output.... what kinda output you getting?

bits*

How much data can 32 quantum bits store

far to many

its like n^X*Z or something crazy its not linear like normal computers

@DrPeper Moden day pedos exist today in highly respected positions -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/asia/afghanistan-military-abuse.amp.html

?

It's a gigabyte

i never said they didnt?

but what do you get out of your calculations/programs? any useful operations?

Hadamard

X

Y

Z

Tofoli gate

a few others

I can just add more by adding a matrix or a macro

but what applications do they fullfill, i know traffic prediction is one they use at google

it doesn't have the ability to have selective read operations yet

But I have the equations down for it in my head

it's a simulation

It has no use other than prototyping small code and teaching

wow sounds like your cutting edge on the tecknology that the creators can't even harness yet

It's extremely slow

?

I'm cutting edge on what?

many companies and schools already have much better quantum computer simulators than me

ya i know... i'm just calling out how you state I program quantum computers like your some kinda billgates.... relax that ego man that hard bound logic/reasoning is what drives you insane when you try to broaden the aspects of reality you seek to fathum.

@DrPeper You aksed when the "view" change... It never will - it's instilled in these third-world nations

I don't program quantum computers

?

I programmed a quantum computer simulator

it has, in the west

as in I modeled the qbits themselves in traditional code

and a 32 bit one at that... they are at/over nearly 512 and/or 2048

You can't simulate over 32 unless you get more than 32 GB of ram

was talking about the real ones

yes

And why do you bring it up when I'm coearoy talking about a simulation

also those large scale quantum computers are not working yet

because your simulating tecknology from nearly a decade ago

I don't see how this is relevant

exactly; so why not we work our way to something provoking in thought rather than coughing up facts; care to drop a half dozen or so topics you'd like to explore/expand

because I thought it would be fun to make a simulators for one day

your not even reading this right are you...

well good half dozen topics there; imma go to bed. peace

See ya

I'm not because it's not really worth it judging by the past responses you have

it's called inductive reasoning

Also I have the flu

shoo flu

https://www.infowars.com/womans-rape-claim-against-4-dentists-falls-apart-with-video-evidence/ 👈 👇

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1047284342588952583

👈

this guy

👉

@DrPeper ?

🤷

It seems like there is some confusion on your part.

nope, just doing random things that are pointless

*doing

@DrPeper Oh. So what’s your point? 😂

i am impulsive?

Not sure?

i didnt really have a point

aka, impulsive

@DrPeper I find that most of your posts do that.

pretty much

Disgusting pig.
👇
https://truepundit.com/man-attempted-to-buy-an-8-year-old-girl-from-her-mother-at-walmart-offered-huge-amount-police/

Wow

pfff hahahaha

He just doesn't give a toss anymore lol

.gif what is right

No

Its broken

😦

What does the underside of a flat earth look like?

Its not broken @Citizen Z

It just has no access to this channel

<:why:492975944445853696>

Oh

Didnt you give it administrator

Or the student role

Which bot is it

UB3R-B0T

Dont see it

Its gone I think

I will have to learn the bots

.gif what is right

https://media.tenor.com/images/b8783cd657a7495adec206453d579483/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

Found it

Thx

Laaaag

Why

O

.gif Got that right

https://media.tenor.com/images/b01e7be6b00df8dda948a5e05a5430bb/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

.gif what is wrong

https://media.tenor.com/images/5f73a9f3308f57a3ecebe6f9d0ff4688/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

https://media.giphy.com/media/1AhRHJNtrwtK1L4CPL/giphy.gif

@Citizen Z

may i have perms to post one photo

Alright, @Music Man(Prank) has been warned because '**Duplicated text**'.

What if the globe dabs back?

lol

The heck

I'm on mobile so I can't see it

Is it a hog?

lmao

love is ageless

thats true, but not every1 is so..."woke"

Go

@Citizen Z is that your niece or daughter or something? What do you having her included in the photo?

it's a meme.

Ubo is troll

<:GWchadThink:366999782348292108>

What if when we die we wake up

I mean like rn we are all fetuses just dreaming our future of our true life

<:smart:484956754489376781> just thinking

well it's a really bad dream im having

Oh

4 bans from 24/7. I think that’s a record! I’m good at pissing people off, huh. This time, all I did was talk about parallax a bit.

Wow lmaoo

Well and they call us ostriches

Fun fact: ostriches DON'T stick their heads in the ground

Kevin^^

I do tho

When on Minecraft

( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

😂 😂

Can sb answer this : what does the *"no nukes"* role mean?

It obvs means no nuked

@Deleted User Essentially it questions the existence of nuclear weapons.

waow

for some reason

😴

https://breaking911.com/developing-several-people-shot-at-philadelphia-shopping-center-heres-what-we-know/

**MUST WATCH and SAVE - **
Shows how CIA and DEEP STATE use tactics to discredit, ruin and blackmail. Explains how they have been working it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hht1UU8aNYo

Hi there, myself and a few friends have just found this server, but we aren't very sure of where to start, would anyone like to help point us in the right direction?

@Kitty welcome

Hi! My name's Julia! Kitty invited me here and really look forward to discussing with you all. c:

Yo

i ssuggest heading into the left lane, and then in about 2.78 miles take a left and then bare right

Nerd

Pretty much just tell us if you believe the mainstream stories about conspiracies or if you think the mainstream media and government are not telling us the whole truth

🤘

Then we can assign you mainstream role or truther role

I am not entirely sure. I listened to some Mark Sargent and I didn't find it all crazy. What are your thoughts?

Or you can decide to be questioning

I've been looking into the Flat Earth and I'm really beginning to believe it. I'm just still on the fence is all but I am very sympathetic!

I would like to be assigned questioning, if you'd be so kind.

I think we are all questioning.

Yes.

i dont know if i am questioning

My thoughts are most of what government and media tell us is either a lie or has an agenda behind it. Most likely misleading the general public

No reason they wouldn't alter information. Governments have done so in the past.

When was the last time NASA used its funding for public service????