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