Why are our eyes immune to the Double-slit experiment?

[Anonymous No.9664737]

No, really? Isn't it the same thing in the end?

I was researching about it. I think there's no Quantum Mechanics. I'm just a person trying to find answers, but this whole "many universes" thing, or "atom decaying into a point upon observation" thing seems like bullshit.

With big religious tones to it.

This answer is much more satisfying and intuitive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

Were people working 80+ years trying to explain something crazy that doesn't exist?

Are people defending these models just to look intelligent and receive funds from the states?

Are they trying to justify the crazy investments by saying that "we don't understand anything, everything is crazy in the universe?" while not even looking at other possible and more plausible resolutions?

Is it a industry or pure marketing?

Did the scientists forgot what real science is?

[Anonymous No.9664764]

>>9664737
Pilot wave also has the double slit experiment.
An answer I read on this board recently which I like a lot is that copenhagen simply corresponds best with the limits of what we can observe empirically. Pilot wave theory has hidden variables, we can never observe them, so it would be pointless to develop it further, in favour of a statistical theory, where the statistical uncertainties correspond directly to the uncertainties of our measurement.

>"we don't understand anything, everything is crazy in the universe?"
These sorts of sayings are a product of popular science reporting and new-age woo, not actual physicists. It seems you have fallen victim to scientism yourself by quoting this.

[Anonymous No.9664766]

>>9664737
This is why access to the internet should require an intelligence test.

[Anonymous No.9664770]

>>9664737
Just stop.

[Anonymous No.9664775]

>>9664764
Yes, I'm not a scientist, that's why I'm asking this questions.

The Pilot Wave explained the Quantum Tunneling and the Double Slit perfectly.

And why don't we experience the Double Slit effect through our eyes?

There's no magnetic source interacting with it to bring it down to only two possibilities. There should be 8+ according to the Quantum Theory. What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.9664777]

>>9664766
>>9664770
Explain. I'm genuinely interested on the answer.

[Anonymous No.9664782]

>>9664766
>>9664770
Also, you sounded like religious people when being questioned.

Is it true?

Modern physics is only ego massaging/black box that great spending of money?

How can you detect gravitational waves if there's no media for it to travel through?

[Anonymous No.9664785]

>>9664782
black box that justify great spending of money?

[Anonymous No.9664787]

>>9664775
>And why don't we experience the Double Slit effect through our eyes?
We do. It's just very slight, and not noticeable. This is because our pupils are relatively far apart, relatively wide, and circular (not slits).

>>9664782
>How can you detect gravitational waves if there's no media for it to travel through?
But there is. The gravitational field.

[Anonymous No.9664791]

>>9664787
Why is there a difference between it being a slit vs being circular? Shouldn't the probabilities be the same?

[Anonymous No.9664793]

>>9664777
>>9664782
If you want serious answers then fuck off with that shitty concern trolling attitude.

[Anonymous No.9664802]

>>9664737
>Were people working 80+ years trying to explain something crazy that doesn't exist?
you mean like aether? Anon, physics and research in general is something highly non-linear.

[Anonymous No.9664804]

>>9664793
Then answer.

It genuinely looks like bullshit, specially when the community is basically closed to other explanations/scientists.

Also, I've never met a physicist that didn't have that arrogant "air" around them. It seems like bullshit to me. I wouldn't have any problem with it, if they were just trying to find answers. But there're billions of public money involved with tests that don't conclude anything and just adds to the "black box" thing.

[Anonymous No.9664810]

>>9664791
It's the shape of the interference pattern that matters. If the areas illuminated are circular, they get spread out more.

There's more to it too, like the fact that we get nearly equal amounts of light entering our pupils from all directions. The double-slit experiment usually uses a tight beam from one direction. Not to mention the fact that our visual cortex has had millions of years of evolution working to filter out annoying things like interference patterns.

[Anonymous No.9664814]

>>9664810
So our evolutionary filter force the light to decay to only one possibility?

[Anonymous No.9664820]

>>9664791
damn right boy, probabilities should be exactly 50%: it either happens or it doesn't, period.
seriously now, your brain filters the double slit experiment, just like it turns the image upside down and fixes other errors (like blind spots, which we actually have).

[Anonymous No.9664836]

>>9664820
But the 50% probability only happens when measuring it with devices, which themselves can produce waves that interact with the experiment.

A "clean double slit" produces like 8+ light/dark lines.

I don't know anon. The Pilot Wave explain this effect in a much more satisfactory way. And it implies an explanation for it being a particle and a wave at the same time.

[Anonymous No.9664840]

>>9664814
oh shit I just thought of something. There is no interference pattern because our pupils aren't connected. If you put a wall between the slits there would be no way for the light from one slit to interfere with the light from the other. Our eyes aren't two holes illuminating one field, they're two holes illuminating two fields.

[Anonymous No.9664849]

>>9664787
>We do. It's just very slight, and not noticeable.

So wait. Your contention is that you get the interference pattern with two separate single-slitted boxes? Because that's what two eyes are.

[Anonymous No.9664852]

>>9664836
Transactional interpretation and superdeterminism explains it well too, but all of the explanations are only theories and will continue to be theories for the immediate future, so choose whichever one you like to believe in out of the options and roll with it.

[Anonymous No.9664854]

>>9664849
Not anymore, no. I realized that here:
>>9664840

[Anonymous No.9664855]

>>9664852
Or better still, don't "believe" any of the, pending data that shows which, if any, is right. Or which, if any, is the last to be ruled out, guess.

[Anonymous No.9664856]

>>9664854
Fair enough, I started typing before your post went up.

[Anonymous No.9664864]

>>9664840
I see, it makes sense.

It contradicts this post: >>9664787

But your explanation makes more sense.

>>9664852
I see. But why is focus mostly, if not almost 100% on QT instead of the other options?

I mean, they should be competing, shouldn't they? What makes QT so much more special then others?

It's not unified either. So it doesn't explain its success over the other theories. Is that a meme thing?

[Anonymous No.9664873]

>>9664764
What did you mean by this?
>Pilot wave theory has hidden variables, we can never observe them, so it would be pointless to develop it further

What limits us to develo/figure out/discover these hidden variables?

[Anonymous No.9664876]

>>9664764
>Pilot wave theory has hidden variables, we can never observe them, so it would be pointless to develop it further

At least t does not require a more-or-less infinite series of unobservable universes. So there's that.

[Anonymous No.9664877]

>>9664864
QM*

[Anonymous No.9664882]

>>9664737
Copenhagen Interpretation makes the huge error of mistaking ignorance for data -- if we do not know that a thing has a certain property, then it does not possess that property

[Anonymous No.9664883]

>>9664737
"I did research"


"Research"

[Anonymous No.9664887]

>>9664864
>other theories
such as?

Also all hidden variables theories have been proved to be wrong by Bell's inequalities like 40 years ago

[Anonymous No.9664892]

>>9664737
Fact is humans are mediocre. Find a better unified theory, good luck the world will listen. Clearly QM isnt all that smart of a theory, it sounds like a bunch of PhD students rushed attempts to publish an equation jumbled into one. Chances are there is a better unified theory used by world powers for military development and we're all tossed the confusing deadend jewish scraps.

[Anonymous No.9664894]

>>9664883
I'm sorry, english is not my first language. I looked for information...? That sounds right.

Another anon already explained the eyes thing, it makes sense, it's probably that considering the human anatomy.

>>9664887
I see.

[Anonymous No.9664899]

>>9664892
>Chances are there is a better unified theory used by world powers for military development
Holy shit anon, did you come here from /x/ by chance?

[Anonymous No.9664905]

>>9664737
Pilot wave literally makes up hidden magical variables in order to shoehorn determism.
The reality is, your classical/enlightenment ideas of how the universe works as a giant determistic machine are simply wrong and you need to get over them.

[Anonymous No.9664906]

>>9664892
>Chances are there is a better unified theory used by world powers for military development and we're all tossed the confusing deadend jewish scraps.
lol

That would be funny, but yeah, it does seem rushed. There's too much marketing involved. I guess they need to do that to fund the researches.

I don't think most of the physicists working and studying it seriouslu really believe that QM is accurate.

[Anonymous No.9664907]

>>9664899
No, it was by intent.

[Anonymous No.9665009]

>>9664737
What do you mean?
You can see the interference pattern on the screen. No fancy equipment needed.
You can see diffraction through squinted eyes.
Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_rings
Ironically, the wave theory of light was initially dismissed because it could be shown there'd be a tiny dark spot right at the center of the pattern. There IS a tiny dark spot. For years, no one had looked really closely.

There are 2 or 3 interpretations of what QM "means" but they all give the same results. They have to to agree with experiments.

You're free to come up with your own hypothesis. But it has better not make predictions which don't agree with already performed experiments.

However, if it disagrees with Copenhagen (or any of the others) about the results of an experiment which MIGHT be performed -- publish! You're either wrong on a Nobel Winner! This is how science advances.

[Anonymous No.9665028]

>>9664905
This is not true. QM has supposedly random components, but nothing excludes it from being deterministic.

[Anonymous No.9665032]

>>9665028
"Deterministic" means "hidden variables".
Still possible if you accept non-locality, but ruled out if you don't.

[Anonymous No.9666230]

MIGHT BE BECAUSE YOUR EYES ARE NOT IN A DARK ROOM WITH A SINGLE, POINT LIKE MONOCHROMATIC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE????????

[Anonymous No.9666257]

>>9664737
Have you stared long enough into a cathode ray tube?

[Anonymous No.9666267]

>>9664905
>Pilot wave literally makes up hidden magical variables in order to shoehorn determism.

No, the "hidden magical variables" are nothing more than the position of the particles. Then it adds in the obvious equation that says the mass times the time derivative of the position is exactly the momentum of the wave-function at that position. Hence the name "pilot wave".

>classical
>determistic machine

Classical mechanics doesn't prove determinism. Just limits how random it can be to our ability to measure it.

>enlightenment ideas

Stop trying to turn QM into some new age hippie nonsense.

>>9665032
>Still possible if you accept non-locality, but ruled out if you don't.

QM is a non-relativistic theory. There are a few relativistic ideas (<E, p> = ℏ<ω, k>) but the wave equation is literally, p^2/2m[ψ] + V[ψ] = E[ψ], a non-relativistic equation. Therefore you wouldn't expect it to obey relativity.

[Anonymous No.9666274]

>>9664737
Are you saying you can't see diffraction, or are you saying there should be 8 of everything?

Also this video is shit. He says the droplet bounces and makes a standing wave that does not propagate out? Yes it fucking does. He and you clearly do not understand the difference between a period and group velocity.

you're a fuck tard

[Anonymous No.9666296]

>>9664737
Holy fuck this is some cancer. Actually learn what diffraction is before you inject your bullshit and horrific misconceptions into things

[Anonymous No.9666332]

>>9664906
>using a computer to argue against quantum mechanics

this thread is the definition of the dunning-kruger effect. Basically, all the new technology happening in this century because of QM were based on a guess, and QM is rushed despite being 100 years old and all the "tests" fails to disprove it

[Anonymous No.9666846]

>>9666274
>>9666296
>>9664905


>I believe in multiverse

[Anonymous No.9666849]

>>9666332
You can't "disprove" something, theories are prone to being falsified.

You can't falsify something that doesn't even has enough data but is treated like the ultimate truth.

[Anonymous No.9666861]

>>9666267

>QM is a non-relativistic theory.

Ever heard of quantum field theory?

Reality is local. Determinism is known to be wrong for almost 100 years.

Pilot wave "theory" has fundamental issues and these only multiply when trying to extent it to relativistic regime. Almost no physicist takes it seriously.

[Anonymous No.9666872]

>>9664864

there are no other options than QM, those different options are all interpretations of QM, but they are still QM

[Anonymous No.9666876]

My honest appeal to you is to actually learn this first before you even take some half assed approach through social media.

Actually take the effort to sweet and tear through litterature and learn the math and physics. U’ll see its amazing. And you will understand what it is you actually question.

[Anonymous No.9666892]

>>9666296
How about I inject my saemon in your mume faggot.

[Anonymous No.9666918]

>>9664737
This bait is pathetic

[Anonymous No.9666980]

>>9664737
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mIk3wBJDgE

This should explain.
It is indeed not very satisfactory but that is because it is a counter intuitive system, there are no analogies for quantum phenomena that work, it can not be explained in terms of being like something else, that is why it doesn't appear to make sense to you but if you care to look into it and not just dismiss it on account of your gut not liking it you might find it to be more compelling than it seems at first.

[Anonymous No.9667039]

>>9665009
I see Newton rings all the time when I'm glazing in the sun. If I squint my eyes my eye lashes will create diffraction patterns in my field of view and if an eye floater passes through that pattern it will create Newton rings.

[Anonymous No.9667052]

>>9666846
I never said I believe in the multiverse. I'm a Copenhagen guy

[Anonymous No.9667077]

>>9664737
http://milesmathis.com/double.html
http://milesmathis.com/quant.html
http://milesmathis.com/bohr.html

[Anonymous No.9667471]

>>9667077
>http://milesmathis.com/double.html
>http://milesmathis.com/quant.html
>http://milesmathis.com/bohr.html
That's what I'm talking about.

I was pretty sure that there were other alternatives that haven't been explored because only god know why. (billions in investment in particle accelerators).

I'll read carefully later. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9667669]

>>9667471
http://milesmathis.com/central.html
>The Central Discoveries of this Book

http://milesmathis.com/phycor.html
>PHYSICS IS CORRUPT

http://milesmathis.com/calcor.html
>THE CALCULUS IS CORRUPT

http://milesmathis.com/schek.pdf
>This Year's Nobel Prize Winner

http://milesmathis.com/lhc.html
>THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER the beginning of the end for postmodern physics
>Abstract: I show that the LHC, string theory, and everything connected to postmodern physics is fatally corrupt.

http://milesmathis.com/control.pdf
>Was physics taken over by the intelligence communities?

[Anonymous No.9667752]

>>9667039
THAT's what that pattern around the floaters is? Cool.

[Anonymous No.9668275]

>>9664737

[Anonymous No.9668403]

Brainlet here. Does the wave function give you the probability of where an atoms electrons will be? or where the whole particle itself will be

[Anonymous No.9668482]

>>9668403
Each electron has it's own probability function, and an atom has its own function.

[Anonymous No.9668681]

>>9664737
https://youtu.be/Q3oItpVa9fs

[Anonymous No.9668704]

>>9668403
Another thing I think is important to point out is that if you fire a single particle at the double-slit, you don't see an interference pattern. It hits only one point. You only see the interference pattern if you fire lots of particles and keep track of where they land.

[Anonymous No.9668730]

>>9668403
Yes, but it's mathematically wrong, because you can't make probability calculations if the particles itself has a inherent probability. It's like dividing for 0.

This shit is wrong.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.9669003]

You might be looking for the name "the measurement problem".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjvNkPmaILA

No one mentioned spontaneous collapse theories, and so I appeared, because IMHO they're cool, and a testable alternative.

[Anonymous No.9669273]

So, to summarize this topic...

Quantum Mechanics is some bullshit created by people that don't know what they're talking about with flawed math that have some spiritual/mumbo jumbo tones into it?

[Anonymous No.9669313]

>>9664737
Einstein is wrong dude. When you study anything it always comes down to simple laws. His explanation on light is more complex then it's counterpart of seeing it in existence. He brought it to a point where constants change and can not be reliable for evidence. So you can't repeat any of his theoretical experiments. If you can't repeat your findings it's not science.

[Anonymous No.9669941]

>>9669313
True

[Anonymous No.9669989]

>>9664737
who nose

[Anonymous No.9671374]

>>9664737
I order for the double slit experiment to show cool stuff the slit needs to be nanometers wide

Our iris is WAY ago big to show this effect

The more we know about the position of a partial the less we know about its momentum. Because we don’t “know” the position of the photons going into our eyes that precisely it just acts more classically

[Anonymous No.9671677]

>>9666257
the tube stares back unto you

[Anonymous No.9672368]

>>9671374
>Because we don’t “know” the position of the photons going into our eyes that precisely it just acts more classically

That sounds more like voodoo.

[Anonymous No.9672512]

>>9666849
Proving intuition has already been done. This is just the jump.

[Anonymous No.9672842]

>>9664737
>Isn't it the same thing
What do you mean by "it", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.9672989]

>>9664766
>>9664770
>>9664883
>>9664899
>>9666296
>>9666876
>>9666918
>>9667669
>>9672842
>yfw you try to ignore OPs questions because it will shatter your world view

[Anonymous No.9673348]

>>9664737
I'm no scientist but how can you even detect something without absorbing or altering it somehow as it passes through the detection mechanism?
Plz explain

[Anonymous No.9673377]

>>9664737
Maybe you just don't actually understand it and need to review.

[Anonymous No.9673418]

OP is an idiot and this thread is garbage but I just stopped by to remind people that the multiverse hypothesis != the many-worlds interpretation (although, since the "multiverse theory" is so poorly defined within its own community, there may be some overlap due to disagreements about what one "multiverser" thinks compared to another).
Educate yourselves.

[Anonymous No.9673544]

>>9673418
No one answered exactly why there're no interference pattern everywhere.

Quantum Mechanics is obviously wrong dude.

[Anonymous No.9673547]

>>9672989
Yes, it's a misture of corruption with people trying to look smart.

[Anonymous No.9673563]

>>9664737
>YFW the Double-slit experiment is literally a small scale "Allegory of the Cave" experiment set in motion.

[Anonymous No.9673634]

>>9673563
No.

It's probably interact with the magnetism of the wall/measure equipments.

[Anonymous No.9675348]

>>9664737
because your iris is too big and your eyes are too far apart.

Here! I took the bait! Happy now?

[Anonymous No.9676316]

I believe in perpetual funding theory.

[Anonymous No.9676479]

>>9673544
See
>>9664849
No interference because no double slit. Two photons can't interact between the two eyes before they are measured by the cones and rods in the eye because there is a nose in the way. Eyes are two single slits, not a single double slit. OP was just retarded

[Anonymous No.9677267]

>>9676479
>>9675348

It makes no sense for it not being uncertain, because real world objects are much more complex. It should be showing everywhere.

[Anonymous No.9678254]

>>9673563
Get out!@

[Anonymous No.9678276]

>>9664737
>I was researching about it. I think there's no Quantum Mechanics. I'm just a person trying to find answers, but this whole "many universes" thing, or "atom decaying into a point upon observation" thing seems like bullshit.

Many universes is just one of the speculative interpretations. Wave functions collapsing is also one of those.

>With big religious tones to it
Except quantum keeps producing accurate results at the end of calculations, like accurate down to getting the energy levels and orbitals of atoms exactly right

>This answer is much more satisfying and intuitive
It's also still quantum mechanics, but with extra unobservable bits tacked on that don't actually help us produce useful results. It's like a person who's smart enough to work with the math still stuck with the brainlet mindset and had to tack on a more "grounded" explanation

>Were people working 80+ years trying to explain something crazy that doesn't exist?
No, they were working on developing the results of the theory further, leading to quantum field theory, electrodynamics and eventually the standard model, all of which are ridiculously powerful physical models

>Are people defending these models just to look intelligent and receive funds from the states?
See above. People defend quantum models because they work, and they work incredibly well.

>Are they trying to justify the crazy investments by saying that "we don't understand anything, everything is crazy in the universe?" while not even looking at other possible and more plausible resolutions?
No, no, absolutely the fuck no. They're saying "This seems to be random, luckily we have a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to studying random things, and we've figured out exactly what kind of random it is, which things are random, and which things are absolutely predictable"

>Is it a industry or pure marketing?
It's a science.

>Did the scientists forgot what real science is?
No, which is why they made models to fit observations.

[Anonymous No.9678280]

>>9664737
>I think there's no Quantum Mechanics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxror-fnOL4

Explain this, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9678301]

>>9664737
>>9678276
>Why are our eyes immune to the Double-slit experiment?

I drew a quick explanation in paint for you.

[Anonymous No.9679280]

>>9678280
Parallel universes did it.

[Anonymous No.9679288]

>>9678276

>People defend quantum models because they work, and they work incredibly well.
kek

Anon, their models are wrong, it's not science because you can't test it.

All of your other arguments are conjectures.

[Anonymous No.9679456]

>>9678301
>so, no chance for interference between...

well...there's always SOME chance...

[Anonymous No.9679492]

>>9679288
>You can't test the predicted distributions of particle collision results
>You can't test the predicted emission spectra of atoms
>You can't test the predicted behavior of positrons, which were themselves predicted by quantum field theory
>You can't test photon polarization, a distinctly quantum phenomenon

[Anonymous No.9679535]

>>9679492
> I believe in multiverse