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

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?