File: Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment.swf-(9.89 MB, 320x214, Loop)
[_] Anon 3210907 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3210913 Meme magic is real.
>> [_] /b/astard 3210914 >># Decent flash 5/7
>> [_] Anon 3210916 learned something new 8/10
>> [_] Anon 3210924 >># gb2 imgur
>> [_] Anon 3210936 I will never understand quantum shit it changes because you observe it? that just means you're pissing off the gods, time to sacrifice a goat so they don't rain fiery hail down on us
>> [_] Anon 3210939 >># No anon. This experiment is saying that we are the gods.
>> [_] Anon 3210942 Okay, giggle away because the word 'slit' is funny, whatever. Seriously though: John Astin is a motherfucking pimp and I'll watch him do anything.
>> [_] Anon 3210949 http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-tal k-3
>> [_] Anon 3210950 the reason the interference pattern disappeared is presumably because of the way the "camera" physically interacts with the electrons.
>> [_] Anon 3210951 >># Interesting. I was always prepared for the hood, though.
>> [_] Anon 3210969 >># >># this has always been one of the most interesting experiments to me. It implies the act of thinking about things changes them. really makes you question what reality is. good way to give some people an existential crisis. another interesting experiment with the LHC(hadron collider) suggests that energy and matter can be converted to one another back and forth and that matter can be made from a vacuum/void with enough (a fuckton) energy.
>> [_] Anon 3210972 >># The wavefunction collapses when the quantum is observed. In the case of this experiment, the quantum is observed when the camera interferes with it. Human awareness isn't a factor here.
>> [_] Anon 3210978 >># >># in what way does the "camera" interfere?
>> [_] Anon 3210980 >># Suppose they measure using a beam, which causes interference just a guess
>> [_] Anon 3210981 This voice sounds really familiar.
>> [_] Anon 3210982 >># John Astin did the voice.
>> [_] Anon 3210985 >># Also matter will always appear in a void, It doesn't take energy to do that. A perfect vacuum is impossible.
>> [_] Anon 3210987 >># >># >># >># >># The "observer" is at least an electromagnetic (photoelectric) device adding a strong enough electromagnetic field/radiation into the environment collapsing the wave behaviour. Particle superposition must collapse to transfer the minimum information needed to "interfere with something"/"exchange energy". The wave can interfere with itself without trade/loss energy and still be a wave, but to interfere and trade energy (prove your existence) they collapse.
>> [_] Anon 3210988 >># It's not thinking about it that changes them, it's being observed. schrodingers cat is a perfect example of this, when the cat isn't being observed it can be dead and alive. Just like an electron can be both a wave and a particle when unobserved.
>> [_] Anon 3210989 >># Not that impossible. Ordinary vacuum still have potential energy. If we drain this energy we can get some real void. I don't now how. but this not mean that is impossible.
>> [_] Anon 3210992 >># This is kinda weird. the wave of possibilities carry only one coin of energy to be trade when the wave collapses. What in the hell is in charge to prevent one electron to not mess up inside the wave and hit two or more places instantly. Hit one place collapse all the wave faster than light, so what kind of information or lack of it says to the wave "hey the particle hit something, disappear now!"?
>> [_] Anon 3210996 Meh, just more evidence that electrons aren't real. It's almost like we are drowning in a sea of positrons and the electron's mass is the energy equivalence of the positrons displaced from by the positive charge on the nucleus. I have always been suspicious of pair production where a high energy photon will spontaneously convert into a positron-electron pair. This could also solve the mystery of dark matter and dark energy.
>> [_] Anon 3211003 >># >># There is no magic behind it. Observing something literally means bouncing a photon off whatever it is you want to measure. If you don't bounce a photon off it, nothing is interacting with it. (beside itself) Or an EM field. Or, if sufficiently close to a large mass, the gravities. >># Doing so would probably rip a hole in the universe and collapse in to a blackhole. This is one of the theories as to why blackholes happen, the space is ripped so violently by gravitational waves that it simply tears. The fact we found gravitational waves just there is further proof to this theory than Einsteins flawed ideas.
>> [_] Anon 3211004 >># We don't know what is "in charge" yet. All we know is there can't be equal particles in the same unit. (atom in this case, not sure if it applies to "super atoms") So no 2 electrons in the same spin or some shit like that. I forgot the exact definition of it. There was a term for it that defines the rules.
>> [_] Anon 3211014 >># love quantum mechanics
>> [_] Anon 3211018 >># The movies file that the camera creates is then in a superposition until a human watches it.
>> [_] Anon 3211035 >># Nigga i saw this in chemistry class years ago
>> [_] Anon 3211038 >Comes on to /F/ to watch stupid flashes about dumb shit >comes across one of the most interesting discussions I've seen ANYWHERE this year >Well fuck. never change /F/
>> [_] Anon 3211041 >># >/F/ No, fuck off. Fuck you, go away.
>> [_] /b/astard 3211049 >># I'll gb2fuckin'yermum
>> [_] Anon 3211050 >># >comes across one of the most interesting discussions I've seen ANYWHERE this year how illiterate are you FYI, there is more to life than social medias and 4chan
>> [_] /b/astard 3211053 >># >/F/ You're a daft cunt and I hope your mother dies of cancer
>> [_] Anon 3211055 >># this isn't even the weirdest this series of experiments got. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsj jdo (a more indepth recap) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_Kw Ags (where it gets so weird time travel occurs)
>> [_] Anon 3211056 >># for more info >>#
>> [_] Anon 3211057 >># >the quantum experiment that broke reality >how the quantum eraser rewrites time This is just clickbait bullshit. Quantum mechanics is a model of nature, not magic. >it gets so weird Translation : I don't understand it so it's magic
>> [_] Anon 3211058 >># >># >># >># >># you don't understand enough of what was going on. I assure you the camera was not the issue, because they found so long as they destroyed the readings it went back to the interference pattern. It literally only cared about whether people were trying to understand what was going on. >># honestly probably the closest of all of you.
>> [_] Anon 3211060 >># the titles are admittedly clickbait, the content is not. Watch them nigga. Especially the eraser one.
>> [_] Anon 3211065 >># >when I try to understand why the walls around me are not collapsing they start to collapse It's an easy trick if you want to rob a bank
>> [_] Anon 3211066 >># >educational programming made by the Public Broadcast Station is bullshit Okay whatever, lol
>> [_] Anon 3211067 >># >/b/astard
>> [_] Anon 3211069 >># fine nigga, watch the rest of the /f/ video, which is gonna say the exact same thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_la1VU bcg
>> [_] /b/astard 3211070 >># At least I didn't put /B/astard
>> [_] Anon 3211073 >># I know they're interesting, but the clickbait playing on the general idiocy surrounding quantum mechanics infuriates me
>> [_] Anon 3211075 >># wait, so the entangled twin knew how to shape based on whether its partner was going to be watched or not in the future? LITERALLY HOW?! HOW DOES IT KNOW IT'S BEING WATCHED, HOW DOES IT KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE WATCHED /IN THE FUTURE/, AND HOW DOES IT KNOW ITS /TWIN/ IS GOING TO BE WATCHED IN THE FUTURE?!
>> [_] Anon 3211076 >># It's God playing tricks on physicists.
>> [_] Anon 3211078 >># "In the future" in the sense that the information is transferred faster than the speed of light, meaning that over a large enough distance, you could theoretically know about an event before you physically see it. Actual experiments show this is not quite the case though.
>> [_] Anon 3211080 >># nigga this is an actual experiment, and it's saying D0 had its results corresponding to the partner that went through B, before the photons from B finished running their course, much less knew what detector they were going to land in and whether they should be interference or clump as a result. That is "in the future" 100% of the definition. It somehow knew where its partner was going to land in advance.
>> [_] Anon 3211083 ALRIGHT YOU WANNA KNOW FINE! I ADMIT IT! I DON'T KNOW HOW QUANTUM MECHANICS WORK!
>> [_] Anon 3211084 Here's the deal with quandum stuff: We are used to dealing with stuff we can observe without interacting with it. In reality, when you look at something, light is bouncing off of it, and you are observing that. Light bouncing off of something changes it, but on our size level, it's virtually unnoticeable. Another example is how a cop observes your speed by bouncing a radar wave off of your car. On the quantum level, when you observe something (like, bouncing a particle off of it to measure its location) you change it. If you try to figure out where it is, you change its movement, and if you try to figure out its movement, you change its location. This is the uncertainty principal, you can only know one. Once you understand this, everything else makes sense. I saw someone talking about entanglement here, and the same thing is true. Two entangled particles stay entangled until you observe one. Then, you've broken the entanglement because you have changed one, and you haven't changed the other. It doesn't need to know, it just keeps doing its thing (and you don't know what that is), and the one you changed is now doing a different thing.
>> [_] Anon 3211089 >># More precisely... when you later check what the results were, you always find that they agreed with what you expected. Maybe everything that happened that far away was in a superposition state until you interacted with it, and only then does it definitely become the results that you expected. Check out the delayed choice quantum eraser.
>> [_] Anon 3211097 Now are electrons waves or matter or both? Pretty sure there's a name for it. Don't tell me to go to /sci/ because that's where proto-neets go to die.
>> [_] Anon 3211099 how do you define observe? I mean if you just put a "camera" with the sole purpose of getting different results, for atom waifu production in a distant future? Does anyone Need to see the results for it to change? What if you use a broken camera? What if nobody ever sees that recorded by a camera, doest it still change its behaviour?
>> [_] Anon 3211100 >># >># No, the main issue is that, though the EPR paradox was created to try to illustrate the issue, you cannot decide the state of the particle in advance, so you cannot communicate meaningful information. The fact that the state is decided when you observe it ignores that fact that both sides still have to observe it, meaning that no information can be transferred. So yes, remote measurements can interfere with one another, but the distribution of outcomes prevents you from transferring information. Sources: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-u s/137-physics/general-physics/particles-a nd-quantum-physics/810-does-quantum-entan glement-imply-faster-than-light-communica tion-intermediate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no nlocality http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio ns/203831/ftl-communication-with-quantum- entanglement
>> [_] Anon 3211101 >># Observe means cause interference in any way, shape, or form. Different types of interference cause different outcomes (e.g, measuring momentum vs position)
>> [_] Anon 3211108 >># i dont know how they measure it but, do they need to throw something at it to get the bounce to observe? or there are already things bouncing off of it and you just need to catch it
>> [_] Anon 3211114 >># >># >># There is no notion of bouncing or impact. It is purely the type of interference. Photons are not necessarily a tangible particle, so it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that you physically interact with something by observing it in the classical sense. One thing worth noting, that I don't think is mentioned in the video, is that the experiment is reproducible with larger particles aside from electrons. I believe they were able to reproduce it with the various particles up to the size of a sodium atom (can't recall exactly, though).

File: Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment.swf-(9.89 MB, Other)
[_] Anon 1757855 Your mind is jelly. Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 1757864 every time I see this I think, maybe the world is a game created for us. like, when you play a video game and try to cheat or break the game mechanics there's a block in place to keep you from doing so. So there's this BIG FUCKING SECRET that we would find out if we watched this happen normally so the programmers of this world are like "not this time nigger" and put a safety in to stop us.
>> [_] Anon 1757874 The electrons are aware that we are watching them, but are we aware that they are watching us?
>> [_] Anon 1757877 I already know all this shit.
>> [_] Anon 1757887 I convinced my AP Chemistry teacher to play this in class, twice.
>> [_] Anon 1757930 >># i know that feel
>> [_] Anon 1757931 I enjoyed this. I like learning this sort of stuff, but I hate studying because it's too much of "why this happens" rather than "what the fuck ACTUALLY happens". I just want to be spoonfed the information at first, and then if it interests me, then I might want to know more about it.
>> [_] Anon 1757933 >># 2/10 failed attempt at being "deep" and "meaningful"
>> [_] Anon 1757948 >># He wasn't trying to be deep or meaningful. I think the proper English term is 'tongue in cheek'. Like a joke.
>> [_] Anon 1757952 its not because of light? to observe something you need light, and the photons from light interact with the electrons causing to modify their behavior.
>> [_] Anon 1757955 >># when they say observe they don't necessarily mean with the naked eye. The use of the eyeball for observation is a poor one.
>> [_] Anon 1757958 >># I'd like to know how they observe it though. I don't see a way to do so, without emitting something that would interfere with the test.
>> [_] Anon 1757968 >># I think it's more or less a ring that can detect an electronic charge moving through it.
>> [_] Anon 1757969 Holy fuck... this is crazy...
>> [_] Anon 1757974 >># The detectors used (to My knowledge) are sort of a ring that recognizes when something passes through it - this causes the electrons to act like matter as opposed to light. I love me some Wave–particle duality. You are sort of right though, the closer you "look" or more detectors you use causes a sort of interference. MFW people think electrons "know" they are being observed when in actuality it's just a reaction to the detectors.
>> [_] Anon 1757984 Schrödinger's cat just came. Or not. Perhaps someone should open the box and check.
>> [_] Anon 1758006 >preaching the Copenhagen interpretation as truth Nigger what are you doing? That is hypothetical, not observed. There are other interpretations. >># Nigger the copenhagen interpretation detailed in this flash is the source of the cat-box idea
>> [_] Anon 1758010 Science is so fucking interesting. It's weird though. It's not something I'd ever like to (or could) do professionally, but just hearing about it is like...What the fuck man.
>> [_] Anon 1758058 Atoms. Matter. I have a foot fetish.
>> [_] Anon 1758060 The answer is simple, an electron is a bit of matter, just like the marble. However, unlike the marble, it is in an ocean of other bits of matter, like the water molecules that made up the pool in the waves example. When the marbles were shot from the cannon, there were no other chunks of matter large enough to noticeably deviate their trajectory, but the electrons get bounced around so much both before and after passing the slit that they act like a wave.
>> [_] Anon 1758064 Aliens.
>> [_] Anon 1758074 >># Did you watch the part where they shot the electrons one at a time?
>> [_] Anon 1758084 >># Imagine shooting a marble through water one at a time, they would follow pretty much the same trajectory with minimal deviation. Now shoot rapid fire or whatever it is they do, the water is more stirred up and causes more trajectory deviation.
>> [_] Anon 1758096 >># I am pretty sure they shot the electrons through a vacuum, although I could be mistaken.
>> [_] Anon 1758101 They should add the more recent experiment where the exact test - single slit, dual slit with or without observation - is chosen AFTER the particle is fired (and obviously, it still behaves the same). The true nature of wave-particle 'duality' is that matter is something else, and what we observe are just projected properties through whatever measure we do. Think of it like a cylinder that projects a rectangular shadow if you put a light from a side, a circular shadow if you light it from the top, and something completly bonkers from any weird angle. I wonder if we'll get to really know anytime soon.
>> [_] Anon 1758117 >># Sounds like a very easy experiment to make. Perform two electron double-slit experiments, one in a hard vacuum. The one in the vacuum should result in two bands with no interference pattern. You could prove nearly a hundred years of scientific thought faulty. (Of course I'm pretty sure someone has already thought of this) I really like this. It's hard to make technical stuff interesting.

File: Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment.swf-(9.89 MB, Loop)
[_] Anon 1749505 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 1749512 This was impressive! :o
>> [_] Anon 1749517 >># I agree, and it was explained in a simple fashion. It's a hard concept to grasp that electrons can be both matter and wave light at the same time. Most people would conclude that science is a black and white topic, things either are or they are not, but this shows that there are grey areas in what we think we know.
>> [_] Anon 1749523 My mind!
>> [_] Anon 1749547 b-b-but single slits create interference patterns too
>> [_] Anon 1749556 Well I know I learned something: Gordan Freeman's relative is also a scientist Also, what happens when they don't look at all?
>> [_] Anon 1749559 >># That's not really the conclusion you eventually come to learning more about QM... More, what you find out is that reality actually plays by entirely different rules than it appears to. What QM seems to say, at least in my understanding of it, I could be entirely wrong here, is that reality as we know it is defined by interactions between particles IE entanglements. When something has no entanglements with any other particle, it may as well be nonexistent. And these entanglements are the same thing as cause and effect, or observation (observing something causes it to have an effect on your measuring apparatus, so it's the same thing). contd...
>> [_] Anon 1749560 Its like a happy Dr.Breen
>> [_] Anon 1749561 So, in order for you to know that, for example, Napoleon tried and failed to invade Russia because of the cold, there needs to be an entanglement directly from the event to your comprehending mind. Now, not having that information doesn't preclude the quadrillion-quadrillion waveforms that make up such an event from collapsing and making it to where that event DID happen in your universe, but by definition if the waveform hasn't collapsed, you can't know anything about its result. This could explain why time ONLY moves forwards, because quantum waveforms can only collapse, not de-collapse (unless another source of entropy is applied) or it may explain why it's impossible to go faster than light.
>> [_] Anon 1749563 Basically, things ARE playing by rules, extremely weird unexpected rules, but rules nonetheless. That's the only reason we're even able to formulate a theory behind their behavior.
>> [_] Anon 1749565 Look mom... i'm learning!
>> [_] Anon 1749567 >># Can't neutrinos go faster than the speed of light?
>> [_] Anon 1749569 >># The electrons behave as a wave; they knew because of the pattern the electrons made against the wall after the slits.
>> [_] Anon 1749570 >># Matter decides to act as a particle or a wave based upon the fashion it is observed. The strange thing about quantum mechanics is that, if it is not observed, there is no definite state. Until observed, the outcome is literally completely unknowable, exemplified in its extreme by Schrôdinger's cat.
>> [_] That one dude, that one time 1749573 well shit on my dick. It's been waves all along.
>> [_] Anon 1749575 Yay! Science!
>> [_] That one dude, that one time 1749576 So what sound does a tree make when it falls in the woods?
>> [_] Anon 1749580 >># You're a pretentious fuck.
>> [_] Anon 1749590 This flash explained it better than my professor.
>> [_] Anon 1749593 WTF
>> [_] Anon 1749599 particlewaves VS. waveparticles Soooo elementary, my dear Watson.
>> [_] Anon 1749611 What if our world is just a computer simulation. That would explain, why the particles behave differently when being watched. It's like if you were a programmer for such a simulation and you have limited resources, you have to make a cut at a certain point of depth. And that depth would be the quantum level. so as a programmer you just return a random number if this function is called. This would also solve the Uncertainty principle because it is only a cause of the abstraction of the programmer. In the world, where the simulation runs, the Uncertainty principle may not apply making it possible to store infinite amounts of information at a given space thus making a big simulation like the world we live in possible.
>> [_] Anon 1749615 >># He's an Anonymous, so your comment is invalid.
>> [_] Anon 1749620 Hand's down, dopest dope I've ever smoked.
>> [_] Anon 1749621 Wait. I got everything except the part with the eyeball. How did observing the electrons change their behavior..?
>> [_] Anon 1749622 Also, I was kind of expecting a hood here
>> [_] Anon 1749624 >># Uh... it is complicated. To tell you the truth, it is just a weird aspect of quantum.
>> [_] Anon 1749625 >># But there are quadrillions of entanglements between every single particle. One could say that reality emerges from these entanglements, and more are forming all the time. All of your history, your memory, is based on entanglements to the particles that made up situations that came before. An intert cube of pure metal will have an incomprehensible number of entanglements; to the pickaxes of the miners who dug it up, the memories of said miners (via light reflecting off the surface of the ore) the smelting ovens that purified it, the milling apparati that carved and shaped it. All the things that led to it being as it is now are so because of their previous interactions with other particles, in addition to being entangled with every other particle in its structure. This is probably why quantum stuff never happens on a macroscopic level; there's always some interaction that collapses the waveform, even if not comprehended.
>> [_] Anon 1749626 >># Anyway, my point is that if I was designing a matrix, I would not use this model to simulate our reality as it is now, unless our current reality wasn't necessarily the goal (or at least the only possible goal) of the simulation.
>> [_] Anon 1749628 fucking amazing
>> [_] Thank you Anon 1749629 as stated before, i just have to say, thank you for sharing this.
>> [_] Anon 1749630 >># Because quantum physics. No really, if you have only studied Newtonian physics, don't expect quantum to make sense, they won't, it doesn't even make sense when you have studied them anyway, about 1º or 2º month you wonder how the fuck does all make sense, but proof points it actually makes sense, so you nod your head a move on. Also if im not mistaken, the video is surprisingly good for explanation, but was actually part of some campaign to get people for a sect
>> [_] Anon 1749636 >># Because you can't observe something without interacting with it. To observe anything, light must bounce off of it and back to your eyeball. This "Bouncing off," or causing an effect, is what they used to think collapsed the wave form. But, through further experiments, we can prove that it isn't just a deficiency of our tools that causes this, but the very nature of observing something necessitates that it take on either one state or the other. Contd...
>> [_] Anon 1749637 contd' Brace yourself, because this is the absolutely transcendently weird part. If we use our tools to observe something then DELETE THAT DATA LATER WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT OR LETTING IT INTERACT WITH ANYTHING IN ANY WAY, the waveform DE-COLLAPSES, and you get a motherfucking interference pattern! THAT'S SO FUCKED UP! The waveform collapsed because it had an effect on something somwhere else in the universe. It took on its state, for one way or another, only based upon its entanglement with some other particle somewhere else. If the results of that interaction are destroyed, it has no reason to be one-way-or-the-other, so it goes back to being "wavelike". Our entire reality only exists because of the interactions of all these particles!
>> [_] Anon 1749639 >># I didn't want to nod my head and move on, so I looked at wikipedia and read this: "[T]he observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. That way, by deciding whether or not to determine the path through the two-slit experiment, he/she can decide which property can become reality. If he/she chooses not to put the detectors there, then the interference pattern will become reality; if he/she does put the detectors there, then the beam path will become reality. Yet, most importantly, the observer has no influence on the specific element of the world that becomes reality. Specifically, if he/she chooses to determine the path, then he/she has no influence whatsoever over which of the two paths, the left one or the right one, nature will tell him/her is the one in which the particle is found..."
>> [_] Anon 1749641 >># "...Likewise, if he/she chooses to observe the interference pattern, then he/she has no influence whatsoever over where in the observation plane he/she will observe a specific particle. Both outcomes are completely random." >nods head and moves on
>> [_] Anon 1749642 >># I fucking know, it's totally zen-like isn't it?
>> [_] Anon 1749646 >># If you have to "just nod your head and move on" you don't really understand it. If you keep reading, trust me, it will eventually click. The same way you know despite your intuition that all matter is mostly empty space, this too will eventually come together.
>> [_] Anon 1749648 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEq fc Here's a video that helped me get a lot of it.
>> [_] Anon 1749649 >># I could've sworn this just came from like, a movie.
>> [_] Anon 1749655 Yeah it's called "What the Bleep do we Know?" It uses science to a totally screwed up end; it tries to posit that the human mind operates on the quantum level (protip: everything operates on the quantum level by this standard). This Dr. Science guy comes off as a major-league douche in it too.
>> [_] Anon 1749660 Most of quantum mechanics isn't mystical, just poorly explained. All the uncertainty principles can be derived, quantization is just decomposition into eigenfunctions, blah blah blah. Measurement is the only really confusing problem. >># > the waveform DE-COLLAPSES Can I get a citation on that?
>> [_] Anon 1749666 Shit like this makes me wonder if there is some sort of god. NOT capitalised, don't kill me D:
>> [_] Anon 1749668 Shit nigger, mi mind is all fucked up!
>> [_] Anon 1749682 >># You can't observe something without interacting with it. Basic quantum physics. So... looks like you're wrong.
>> [_] Anon 1749725 >>#
>> [_] Anon 1749731 Moar!!!
>> [_] Fon Shaolin !QaHT6HayjI 1749734 2spooky4me
>> [_] newb-dude 1749738 Just in case people aren't aware, this video has been around for years, and the reason why people arwho actually know QM are going "but that's WRONG" is because this was actually put together by the Church of Scientology. The end goal is to get new converts. You've all been warned. And now that my duty to fellow humans is over, good night sheeple.
>> [_] Anon 1749748 My only issue with this flash is that it represents observation as an eye, when in the real world observation means interfering with the experiment with some device, hence the different behavior. It's not like electrons are shy or magical.
>> [_] Anon 1749753 >># >666 Well that proves it. We're all in hell.
>> [_] HuWat 1749755 >># >># >># >># >># >># >># 49624 >># >>ect... The reason it changes states is because its real when observed, and only an abstract on the back board when its not. (meaning the resulting abstract waveform is only caused because you cant see what your not looking at, and when your not looking at it its not real, but your looking at a result so that's real though more variable/abstract.) Full circle; Tree falls in a forest, no ones around to hear or see it, does it make a sound? No, because It doesn't exist until observed, there only being a chance it fell until seen again.
>> [_] Anon 1749756 wait a minute; what if they measured from a distance? the interference could come from being too close
>> [_] Anon 1749757 >># i thought the same thing
>> [_] Anon 1749762 >># >># >># nevermind lol
>> [_] Anon 1749763 >># still..
>> [_] !!BJiYgff8zf2 1749776 Electrons are waves too.
>> [_] Anon 1749780 How old is this shit that its only now getting posted here.
>> [_] Anon 1749782 >># old enough probably to when Pluto was a planet, though you cant argue w/ the text books, that still say it is.
>> [_] friendsofsandwiches 1749786 >># You wonder if there's a god, and you get trips. You get 666 trips. Mother... FUCKING... BRILLIANT
>> [_] Anon 1749787 Is it possible to just define them as living things than energy, seeing as the re-act to be observed.
>> [_] Anon 1749790 Fucking science
>> [_] Anon 1749807 Is there rule 34 on Dr Quantum?
>> [_] Anon 1749810 He blinded me with science!