/sci/ - Science & Math

imagine shining a light into two vaginas

>>10182280
Look at the picture

>>10182280
Basically proof of God's existence.

>>10182280
Particles are waves as long as they're not observed

>>10182298
>observed
what does this mean in layman terms?

>>10182304
It means measured but the observer doesn't have to be a human, it can be anything

>>10182310
measured how? Do you mean the light interacting with something? Do the miniscule amount of light absorbtion and scattering by air count too?

>>10182298
I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, but this seems like a really stupid way of thinking about particle-wave duality. If something has wave-like properties under certain conditions and particle-like properties under others, then to me it seems like the problem is in the initial classification of things as either particle-like or wave-like.

>>10182316
>I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics
yeah no shit

>>10182314
As long as it's a measurement which tries to determine which slit the photon went through, it counts as a measurement

>>10182316
Fundamentally, the entity is described by a wave function but the wave function can be more wavelike or more particle-like

>>10182323
Then he's in the same boat as the rest of us.

>>10182290
Basically proof you are the god.

>>10182310
No not really. Schrödingers cat is the example that it has to be human.

>>10182690
the fucking cat example was used to shit on the idea that humans observing something matters

>>10182690
Brainlet the post

>>10182280
The probability function i.e. the wave properties of particles is analogous to fields in classical physics. Waves are no more physical than fields, neither of which can be directly measured.

The interference pattern has absolutely nothing to do with waves. It has everything to do with the uncertainty principle at the slit.

Not making a measurement at the slit allows a particle to have a wider range of energy and momentum, creating a wider pattern at the detector. Measuring at the slit bounds the energy and momentum so that it can only exist where it is observed on the detector i.e no intereference.

Calling it an interference pattern is a misnomer from when it was poorly understood. The uncertainty principle is the ultimate redpill.

>>10182280
measurement error

>>10182310

What do you mean, what else if not human could be the observer? A machine? A cat?

Does it mean that us marely observing the particle will somehow influence it?

>t. Brainlet

>>10183024
Observing means shooting photons at the particle for example. Of course that will influence it

>>10182280
Photon with momentum can go any direction after interacting with a fermion (for example, air, dust, or slit)

>>10182951
brainlet here
is the uncertainty principle certain
hard to believe physics isn't deterministic at all levels from my brainlet view
but then that would destroy free will?...

>>10183138
>implying that free will makes any sense whether the universe is purely random instead of purely deterministic

>>10182280
Explain the meme that "It's in two places at once, but if you look at it, it's not"

>>10183174
your vision is quantum entangled with the photons

>>10182280
The intactnesses that make it through each have their own omnidirectional turnovers (out is only half of all directions).

>>10183138
>hard to believe physics isn't deterministic at all levels from my brainlet view
then just think of it from this point of view:
physics is not deterministic at any level

>>10182280
When you quantize things like position, momentum, energies, etc. observation doesn’t come for free. Depending on whether you subscribe to orthodox theory or not, there are axioms (or theorems in the other paradigms) as to how you can treat quantum experiments. Measurement is a bad word to use in Copenhagen since it’s strictly upholds that particles don’t exist until “ideal measurement.”

Basically when you follow a particle’s position through time, there isn’t an interference pattern because you have specific information. There is dual behavior, but basically you have to examine the collapse of the wave function. The interference pattern lets us talk about how particles collect in discrete intervals. There are more sophisticated mathematical reasons, but essence is that no matter what theory you believe, looking does NOT come for free. Take more quantum theory courses until your teaches stop just teaching you to shut up and calculate. All of my best quantum professors have been skeptics of Copenhagen, so I’m a little biased. You have to understand the born rule, bell’s argument, quantum nonlocality, superliminal propagation, how HV theories like Bohmian mechanics surpass the basic arguments like hardy and GHZ, and most importantly, the measurement problem. Unfortunately, it’s hard to have this conversation until you’re comfortable shutting up and calculating.

>>10182690
bait

>>10183138
If it makes you feel better, you can choose to believe that it was pre-determined whether or not the system would be measured.

Does the particle take on the wave function because

1. It is not probabilistic, but we never measure it precisely so probabilistic is the best we got. It can take on one value at any time.

2. It is fundamentally probabilistic and takes on multiple values at any time

I'm sure it's (2) but honestly that doesn't explain much.

Why does shooting photon at electrons count as "observing"? What about the fact that the photos have to more or less collide with the slits or the right-side barrier?

>>10182280
Actually the Pilot Wave explains it very well

https://youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc

Watch this you idiots

>>10183901
Bohmian mechanics is beautiful.

can anyone explain the actual equations please? i wanna know the real thing not analogies

>>10183928
Eigenvalues.

>>10183928
>>10183950
Whoops, I meant to say “””””””eigenvalues”””””””””

>>10183041
>observing means shooting photons at the particle.
Explain this, I was not away that my eyes shot a laser. I thought that other things could emit their own photons towards my eyes, for example, and in such a case it would seem like you should be able to get accurate readings, though obviously as this thread suggests that isn't the case.

>>10182280
Even cooler is the quantum eraser experiment when the photon used to observe the reaction gets unread. Resulting in the double slit returning to a interference pattern. Brings into question what qualifies as an observer

>>10183906
Excellent vid so far thanks anon.

>>10184027
I was the first person to bring up quantum eraser I'm this discussion? Do you gets even quantum mechanic?

>>10183906
How can light behave like a wave if there is no ether? Waves require a medium, in fact that's why they propogate again at each slit, it's because they push against the medium, an the medium pushes against the walls of the slits.
I wonder how the water portion of the double blind experiment would go in zero gravity, would the water still behave as a wave?

>>10184039
Your post is should be put as an image illustrating "not even wrong".

>>10184039
Define ether. Most people don't use it in the same way implied by Tesla

>>10184045
The medium that allows light to move in a wave. For example sound waves aren't a thing without a medium to travel through, but you could also throw an individual particle of the medium that creates sound and there'd be no wave.

>>10184084
You just made a circular argument.
And it's not how ether is used historically. So your definition is basically headcannon fan fiction.
You also are not considering that space-time is a thing rather than a default given. Space is not a void, it's a medium in flux.

>>10184098
Show me the circle as I don't see it:
1. All waves consist of medium, usually under the effect of being in a pressurized environment, or an environment with significant gravity, or both. Sound, from my juvenile understanding, travels through various mediums (like the steel rail of a train track), or the open air, bouncing molecules and with this physics a 'wave' is created, because it's in an invisible sea. The reason you get new ripples at each slit is because the medium (water is easiest to visualize) is pushing against the walls of each slit, and then pushing back against itself too as it passes through. This is easier for me to believe than that it is magic. The double blind experiment works with water too, not just light, and it would work with sound too, except maybe the weird observer thing, but you'd have to test it to see.

>>10184106
Yes there is a medium, but you calling it ether doesn't make that the same usage for that term in the past. You said that light moves in a wave due to "ether" and when asked to define ether you said it was the medium that light moves in. That's the very obvious circle.
While you still ignore the fact we already know that space IS a medium.

>>10184118
Can you prove that there that the space inside of a zero gravity vacuum is a medium? Google says there's a medium in space, but it's random dust and gasses, so it's not "space itself," as you suggest.
How do I punch space and measure the effect?

>>10184133
Yes you can with enough energy.
Here is a layman friendly video for you to get your beak wet
https://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY

>>10184136
>https://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY
So far this one isn't enlightening me, I'll still watch, but I think you misunderstand.
A particle doesn't need a medium to travel through, but for many particles to act as a wave (say, water molecules), they have to be under the effect of physical laws that regulate their motion like pressure and gravity and inertia and more, and that's why I was curious if water would still ripple at each blind in zero gravity vacuum, or if it would just interfere like particles. When I visualize it in my head, I see it not behaving as a wave in that situation.

>>10184136
I am cursed with a good attention to detail. Are you aware that his supercomputer simulation is a 1 second clip on infinite loop?

>>10184152
You do realize there are timestamps in these comments and I know that you just skipped that part and made a assumption as if it's news to me. Did you realize this video is for LAYMAN like you to get a starting point and then investigate more. Seriously sometimes I think people like you post for attention.

>>10184159
Anon you realize I kept watching after I posted right?
>for the LAYMAN.
Sure is strange to claim to have a supercomputer simulation, and it's just a one second clip on loop. To me it looks like low quality propaganda or some shit like that.

>>10184159
>You should be compelled by this video that blatantly fakes a simulation hoping the viewer believes it's real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MsMuQa80fI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Bush-AnnRev2015.pdf
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bush-PHYSICS-TODAY2015.pdf
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/?page_id=484

>>10183870
It's fundamentally a wave like property. So number two.

>>10184162
>>10184165
Retards don't even n realize it's a simulation of where quarks are likely to be in a vacuum, the already known science is that the further you really to measure the more uncertain position becomes. Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The video is meant as a starting point. For attention seeking idiots that use ether wrong it's the subject of avoidance as you make an false claim about the videos premise based on a short segment of it.

>>10184186
The video is deceptive and I explained why, I can't find any of his claims credible withstanding.

>>10184192
You didn't explain anything. You pointed to a single part of the video never represented as the full simulation and you claim because they loop some footage the whole video gets thrown out. You are literally lying to protect your false claim and misuse of ether.

>>10184186
The story of the stork delivering babies is for kids but it's also sure as fuck a lie and completely unlike how it really goes down.

>>10184201
The use of the word "ether" isn't important to me though, so that's wrong too. The video makes a point about how what we are viewing is a supercomputer's simulation of the energy in a piece of 'empty' space, but it's actually just a bullshitted one second clip "for laymen." Anything that lies to you shouldn't be trusted.

>>10184201
Why would I explain a video you posted which lied to me about a supercomputer's simulation?

>>10184202
How to know an intellectually dishonest: they avoid talking about substance and reach for allegories in order to attack people that undermine their flawed ideas.
You failed to Define ether without being circular. You even failed to even use ether in the same way it has been historically by such figures as Nikola Tesla. You falsely make a claim about the video but it's not representation of its content, and you are so off base with your "science" it can't even be used to predict the difference of interference patterns when there's an observation and in the quantum eraser experiment.

>>10184213
That's not true, you told me to use an unreliable source as a starting point, and never answered my questions. You deflected to a video which deceives the viewer instead of posting substance, because all you know is what those videos tell you, because you never even knew that was just a one second clip on repeat and now you're damage controlling.

>>10184212
At no time did it lie. You gave a false premise of a lie based on the fact that they loop some of forage so you can see the see the data points they are discussing. You are basically lying about the video at this point.

>>10184217
You are lying about the video in the most hilarious way. Go to /x/

>>10184217
How is that video unreliable

>>10184144
It depends entirely on the effect, obviously water particles that have no force exerted on them are going to be completely still

>>10184221
He directly states that we're viewing a supercomputer's simulation and it sure is a clever looped clip but when you look close you can tell he's lying and it's just a faked one second gif on loop. Watch the whole fucking vid that you posted yourself anon.
I'm watching again to quote the lie.
>Empty space is not truly empty... I know because I've seen it. This is a simulation by Professor Derek Leinweber at the university of Adelaide.
>ONE SECOND GIF GOES ON LOOP.
>It was made using a supercomputer to crunch the calculations of quantum chromo-dynamics.
Without sauce on the simulation, the video is deceptive.

>>10184234
once they hit the slits forces will exert from that.

>>10184223
>>10184227
It states that it's showing a supercomputer simulation to us, but it's actually only showing us a bullshit one second gif on loop. This is called a lie.

>>10184021
You're right. However, in order to measure it we need to "see" it. This means at the very least, a single photon is absorbed and re emitted by the particle being observed, so whatever it would have been doing before the photon hit it, it's now doing something after.

>>10184221
It's a stupid argument. Light is a quantization of the em field. Fields require no medium to exist. I along with many physicists don't believe fields actually exist at all.

>>10184235
Says the fucking guy that ether is the reason light travels in a wave, but fails to define ether be either the historic term it the one made up in your head. You also fail to plug that into the observed double slit that makes the interference patterns go away and the quantum eraser experiment that destroys the information of the observing photon that makes the interference pattern return.
Your claim the video is deceptive is a fucking lie

>>10184243
What if the distance between the observer and the photon is as close possible?

>>10184239
The simulation length does not constitute a lie you fucking retard.

>>10184247
I already defined it as the thing or combination of forces that allow a wave formation, since it is required for a wave to form. Waves are a result of external forces, not intrinsic to a substance.

>>10182951
But isn't the uncertainty principle only true because they behave like waves?

>>10184248
Bullshit, yes it does. It suggests that it's fake, and since no one can post the real simulation with citation that even so much as has that portion of that fake animation in it, it should be assumed as such.

>>10184251
That's not a definition.

>>10184254
You must have 85 iq

>>10184255
I don't think you would accept any definition but one that affirms your pre existing belief. Even in the face of deception you are unwilling to accept a challenge against them, clearly.

>>10184258
I'd accept a definition that's actually useable. Not some philosophical nonsense that uses the term name that Tesla used but not even remotely in the same way

>>10184246
It doesnt matter. For a given slit length, you can calculate the position and momentum that allows it to go through the slit. As soon as you measure the position i.e. which slit it goes through, you are restricting the momentum that can be observed by those particles to ones that in aggregate will not give an interference pattern. This is because of the uncertainty principle.

The math is actually very basic. Say you have a 5 Mev stream of electrons being shot out of your collimator. Say a slit is 4mm wide. And the screen is 1m away Now you can calculate all of the momentum with direction allowed that will hit the screen.

Then restrict the width from 4mm to 50 micrometers. See which momenta are allowed then.

>>10184106
>The double blind experiment works with water too, not just light, and it would work with sound too
>with sound too
>sound is made of particles
No.

>>10184236
they wont hit slits if they arent moving in the first places

>>10184257
>being critical of accepted "laymen" belief is a sign of low intelligence.
>noticing a sleight of hand trick in a video is a sign of low intelligence.
Whatever you need to justify that bias.

>>10184271
Move the slits into them.

>>10184269
Well, molecules, you're right in the pedantic sense that they aren't quantum particles.

>>10184273
>Projecting a sleight of hand in video over looping data of a simulation while presenter discussed information in 10 seconds of a 5 min video.
Yeah I think that's a sign of low intelligence alright.
>Claiming someone had a bias towards a philosophical claim reusing a term incorrectly for a new concept.
Yup low iq confirmed

>>10184287
Anon I'm clearly talking about your bias to trust a video that lies to you, and the obvious truth that you never knew it was a one second loop until I told you.

>>10184287
Show me where the video informs you you are watching a one second loop instead of letting you believe you're watching a ten second supercomputer simulation?

>>10182280
Christine Ford's two front doors.

>>10184274
they would move in a wave like pattern this is the case with every molecule, unless quantum coherence is broken

>>10184280
>sound is made of molecules
>molecules of h20 behave as waves and particles
>shooting an entire h20 molecule through a double slit
>light is a molecule

>>10182679
I think, therefore, you are.

>>10184332
Make the slit proportionately larger.

>>10184332
I didn't claim light was a molecule. It's obvious that liquids can behave as waves too, though they are made of molecules. Since both behave as waves the easiest solution would be that physical forces on physical things create wavelike behaviors, rather than that it's magic. You are knocking down a strawman.

>>10182280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4The quantum eraser experiment is invalid because the path of light passes through BSa or BSb in order to always behave a certain way, whereas it merely reflects off of BSa or BSb when it acts the other way, the narrator here claims the paths are the same but passing through seems different than reflecting off. He makes it seem like knowing this difference between the stations is the cause, rather than that the difference between them is the cause.

Particles do not exist, the particles-wave duality is a ruse to keep the religion of scientism's atomic theory alive.

bump

>>10184133
>Google says there's a medium in space, but it's random dust and gasses, so it's not "space itself,"
You're confusing the interstellar medium with space itself. The ISM is the dust and hydrogen plasma that floats between stars.
If you could zoom into empty space, down to the quantum level, you would see the quantum foam which is virtual particles popping in and out of existence because the energy of a vacuum is non-zero.

>>10184144
>A particle doesn't need a medium to travel through
A particle is an excitation of its field. It's not separate from it.

>>10185569
But are virtual particles actually real in any sense?

>>10185576
Yes and no.
They're potentials. You can do things that force virtual particles to become actual particles like introducing horizons. This is where things like hawking radiation comes from.

>>10182280
Moskali must hang

Look up hyugen's principle. There are many videos on it

what happens if you have 3 slits?

>>10186649
You'll get an interference pattern.

>>10186649
If you really want to fry your brain, pass light through three polarized filters at different orientations and see if the results are what you'd expect.

>>10185569
How do I punch space itself and measure the effect? This experiment is needed to prove your claim, not virtual foam.

>>10185572
What's the field made of?

>>10187442
Virtual particles.
Look up the sea of dirac for a good metaphor to wrap your noodle around.

>>10187436
>How do I punch space itself and measure the effect?
With a particle accelerator.

Everything everyone says to you is bullshit. You can’t explain it fully unless you know the math that goes into it. It’s like trying to describe the number “2” without knowing what numbers are.

>>10187479
That's bullshit, the effects observed aren't from punching space itself, but rather two standard materials at high speed.

>>10187528
>punching space itself
What the fuck does that even mean?

>>10187419
got a link to a demonstration or anything?

>>10190355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs

>>10182690
No

>>10190621
I thought you meant something related to the slit experiements, bells theorem still pisses me off

Our collective imagination created the universe. And it all comes from the same source that is you.

>>10182324
>As long as it's a measurement which tries to determine which slit the photon went through, it counts as a measurement
What the fuck does that even mean? How can you measure a thing without interaction.

>>10182290
Idiot.

>>10190666
literally anything at all that could be used to determine which slit the thing went through is a measurement

>>10190673
>literally anything
Except you have to do something in the real world to detect it. If you have to bonk the photon with another photon of course they are going to affect one another.

>>10190657
Polarizing filters don't just filter light they also change the polarization, mystery solved.

>>10190680
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the quantum eraser show that it's not just a result of interaction and is actually about the measurement existing?

>>10190685
ya

>>10190689
Quantum erasers interact with the photons.

>>10190698
Right, but the interference pattern remains even after the interaction because the measurement was destroyed.

>>10190703
>the measurement was destroyed
That sounds like bullshit but I believe it.

>>10190711
Well that's my understanding of it anyway, if the information storing the measurement is completely and irrecoverably scrambled the interference pattern remains.

>>10182280

>>10184039
>>10184045
>>10184084
>>10184098
>>10184106
>>10184118
>>10184133
A "wave" is what something does. Not a thing of itself , by itself. You have to further elaborate what exactly is "waving". The "medium" is "waving". It does not matter what the fuck you call it, it is a variable pressure that never becomes fully inert. When you disturb the medium you aren't adding anything to it. You are displacing it, creating compressions and rarefactions in it. That's not measured in "speed". Let me simplify that for you.
YOU ARE DISPLACING THE DENSITY OF THE MEDIUM PRESENT BY MEANS OF INDUCTION.
To say "light travels" is completely incorrect. It's a rate of induction. You are inducing a pressure mediation of a medium already present, when you place any object (be it the pinhead of a "double slit") in the path of that coherent mediation it's obviously going to displace it.

oh god he's back

>>10190685
this doesn't explain bell's theorem.

>>10182690
Oh god

>>10184341
cogito ergo sum

isnt it just the observer problem.
only interacting fields can distinguish each other
like spinning in empty space right?
you only know your spinning when there is something else to tell you that your moving?
relativity?
>>10184243

>>10190673
does it mean, photon does not exist in our reality, until measured?

>>10184039
search up Michelson-Morely Experiment they disproved that light needs a medium.

light can travel inside a vacuum @ 'c' regardless of who is observing it (all inertial reference frames)

>>10190666
Means you can't measure whatever process happens within the box, only the end result.

Trying to observe what happens during the process, changes the process itself.

>>10182690
haha lol

>>10190734

What does "inducing a pressure" mean in this case?

Imagine me DPing your mom all by myself, and in such a way some places in her get twice as many sperms as normal and others get none, and nobody can ever tell exactly what happened so a bunch of fucking retards come up with handwavey mumbo jumbo about how my dick travelled back in time to communicate with itself because popsci faggots can't wrap their heads around the fact information isn't energy.

@10193315
Anon, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no (You)'s, and may God have mercy on your soul.

>>10193187
change in quality, doesn't necessarily have to be a "cause" though.

>>10193355

How can something cause a change but not be a cause?

>>10193315

>>10182690
Good bait

>>10188675
It means that if space itself is a medium, there should be a way to hit it and measure the effect.

>be me
>post 'it disproves the theory of atomism' along with a picture diagram showing the true structure of a "molecule"
>post deleted and got warned by a shill janitor/mod
Looks like someone doesn't like this idea being shared. Thanks for supporting open discussion, and adding credibility to my post.

>>10183138
this isn't really a question that physics is equipped to answer. to make this anything like this you would need to define "free will" in the first place. There are a lot of folk definitions but nothing rigorous

>>10190666
> How can you measure a thing without interaction.

By measuring its entangled counterpart

>>10183138
No, you dont have any influence over the quantum effects, so it acts on you, but you dont act on it. Quantum doesnt save free will

>>10190666
Measurement is a meme. Things TRAVEL as waves but INTERACT as particles. The magnitude of each effect is determined largely by mass, and on the really small scale, quantum effects. A weird case is we have diffracted neutrons. There is no upper and lower bound as far as we can tell for "locking" something into wave or particle behavior. Things are ALWAYS both.

>>10190667
autist.

>>10190716
Yeah, pretty unbelievable stuff is happening on the quantum level. Shit makes no sense

>>10184243

Correct me if I'm wrong but measurement in this case doesn't have to be visual and photons need not be involved. There are other ways of measuring which slit the electron would pass through that doesn't involve visual measurements.

>>10186649

>>10193374
An effect can still cause something else to happen by proxy. A newton cradle for instance, you picking the ball up is the cause yet it still transfers the motion and "causes" the other balls to hit each other. Initially though, you are still "the cause" of that and something else causes you. It is a steadfast where the origin is point non-specific.

>>10193586
>if space itself is a medium,
It's not though.
Seriously though, QM is not the place where things behave in an immediately intuitive fashion to what you'd expect after a lifetime of dealing with classical physics.
You've either got to learn the math or recconcile a handful of really clunky imperfect metaphors.

>>10193902
Electrons interact with eachother with virtual photons.

>>10194435
>virtual photons
AKA fields.

Particles are only an abstraction.

>>10194453
All I'm saying is that its hard to get an electron to do anything without photons being linked to it in some way. It's like trying to swim without getting wet.

>>10182304

It means interacted with in some way such that the outcome depends on the state of the particle.

there is no such thing as a 'duality" lol. Its a lame word used to patch up 'quantum" cults not understanding of whats going on.

>>10195560
Someone certainly is trying to cover up not knowing what's going on.

>>10195652
exactly. The dna helix is not called a "ladder spiral duality" lol, they exactly describe what it is without "but muh equations dont add up"

>>10196847
>exactly describe what it is
They describe a general shape of what grad been observed. That's like saying the Earth is round and saying that's an exact description of the Earth.

>>10196856
horrible example. That would just be an unrefined explanation. Quantum is saying the earth is a spherical/flat duality.

>>10190716
hold up, you're saying that it remains in wave pattern if the data from the observation is deleted? where did you get this from?
I'm gonna have a conniption if that shit is true

>>10193603
apparently one of our mods is an autist so he may have just been triggered by that for whatever reason
not dismissing the possibility that they're commanded to by the NWO

>>10190734
This nigga watches thoeria apophasis

>>10196913
go look up "quantum eraser"

>>10197012
>watches
is*
I'd recognize that guys rhetorical style anywhere. ...He's right you know.

>>10197130
nope, Ken is in Idaho right now, I doubt he 4chans considering the volume of the mans life output.

>>10196913
i can concur that this is true...IN THE CASE that it is all a quantum process while the data is recorded and deleted...if it got to the point where a person read the recording, it wasn't a "quantum process"

>>10197202
PS the reason is normal (mind-blowing) quantum mechanics. you could have recorded it and deleted it...or you could have never seen it at all...the two possibilities just interfere with each other, because they "both happen at once."

>>10194188
it's just envelopeception right? that's how you calcujugate it?

>>10197012
>>10197130
>>10197160
I'm not Ken, I just think he's right because he fucking cites all his shit and has a shitload of information regarding the subject. What he says is similar to what Eric Dollard and the electrical engineers of the past said. Protip though. He DOES browse /p/ and /x/ on occasion and only in threads you'd expect him to show up in.