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*