Message from @Σ5
Discord ID: 496858099601113109
*looks as the jokes sails over J's head and into the corner of left field*
haha but the irony of the double joke of being an asshole made you provide the obviouse joke of double checkers vs the chest masta
the point was you are on this server yet fail to seek most of what is found.... like as in anything beyond the mainstream
neat
I don't believe it because I never been exposed to sufficient reason to believe so
burdon of proof is on you
what about the bourbon proof?
@Σ5 i kinda just gave the broad points that are fundemental parts of science and essoteric/occult knowledge.... these are really general terms you could google, hell even the double slit experiment points this out. (being that even light is both a partical and a wave at once; but under observation colapses into just a partical rather than a wave expression) honestly you have these absolute NO's that are only a product of ignorance; take these seeds and seek fourth. when and if you do i'll be here for questions, and to set you upon other roads... perhaps
not really what it says but, what ever
@DrPeper honestly if a old guy with more degree's than a cod plays trick shots says that and more I'm more willing to bet his take on it is right compaired to the guy who plays fortnight and only provides his edgy 16 year old views of what he's learned in highschool....
i will say, you arent totally wrong, but you arent completely right. Light travels in a wave of probability, that their is only a certain probably that light is at a point in space. However when you observe it, you forced to be in one spot
....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
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