Double Slit Experiment explained! by Jim Al-Khalili 

Hahaha maybe so, I suspect upgrades maybe soon forthcoming. The question is whether these design artifacts & other physical constraints are necessary or intentionally?

Elton Maiyo With the possibility of our physical observations being selectivly simulated depending on if we're physically observing them, it also seems possible that on "the other side" there may be beings living out several lives, each time starting with a new redeveloping consciousness that can't seem to grasp the double slit theory. I wonder if they're then able to remember each and every life when on the other side ("unplugged" from simulated reality). The social implications of your lives lived's quality can then be a factor when it comes to your footing in the community hierarchy on "that side". Not that I believe in this, but it is interesting that the Hindu idea of reincarnation and karma that basically says your life lived determines how you'll return can fit in that far out logic. This can obviously also explain other realms of _being consciousness_, like heaven and scary enough, hell. Hell, if these beings are only nearly as messed up as humans they'll send the oppressed or misbehaving to shitty simulations for possibly an infinite time period. The knowledge a civilization with this capability can produce when the data of many simulations are mined could make them infinitely knowledgeable. Another possibility could be that you are just a learning AI component. So many possibilities opened up by this gap (slit) in our knowledge. kooky

Adriaan Serfontein Interesting ..observations :) The nature of base reality/"the other side" is an infinitely interesting subject to explore with equally infinite conceivable possibilities. Your theories makes sense.

Well, as a developer your algorithm knows what area should be observable on the screen at any given moment and does the rendering accordingly. How can a 'dumb' particle 'know' when it has been observed?

As a CG artist, what particle system is being used here?

This comment can't be praised enough

@LisaBlooper what a load of verbal diarrhea

Can you explain how the detector detects? How can it detect the atom without touching it or shooting photons at it, potentially affecting its trajectory?

@@Oscaragious You can with X ray plates in the old days, now we have better detectors that pick up the tiny charge the atom/particle deposits on the screen.

Given that it's a deliberately obfuscatory _non_-explanation, I have to disagree.

The same way we turn on three dimensional box inside out is the same thing that’s happening here we are the 1- looking down at the H2 on the periodic table. THE HUMAN SOUL IS THE FIRST ELEMENT

@@Oscaragious We can’t. At the quantum level to observe is to interact. This video was extremely oversimplified and feeds the popsci crowd (which isn’t bad since it gets people more interested in science). The popsci idea people seem to have is that observing (which means interacting) a photon causing change being the weird part, when its not. The weird part is the multiple questions and experiments that followed and are still continuing to this day.

There are no causality breaking consequences or time travel.

@@amihart9269 There have been tests that have resulted in "reverse causality" concerning the double split experiment. This requires entangling two particles, and one travels a further distance than the other. The one that travels the shortest distance is not measured. However, if you measure the particle that travels further, it will be reflected in the interference pattern (or not) of the one that traveled the shortest. It's as if it knew the other particle was going to be measured, and thus its behavior is altered prior to the actual observation taking place.

@@goldnarms435 Nope.

​@@amihart9269 care to elaborate?

No, that's not the major inconsistency. The rub is that the pattern seems to depend on whether the atoms or photos are being "observed". But I think there is an explanation, which is that the device doing the detecting is interacting with the atom. Why didn't he explain how the detector works, to rule this out, if he believes it is not the explanation?

exactly

Why?

@@joxyjoxyjoxy1 well maybe we live in a predetermined universe, that's the scariest outcome. or maybe we live within a simulation or a conciseness, but the chances that we live within the universe that is material by nature is probably untrue

@@garrybarry4286 or maybe God just likes messing with us.

@@joxyjoxyjoxy1 A bible god? Zero chance

lolol

great fuckin comment, keep experimenting

Alex G haha i think he meant it in a sexual way

Hahahahah me too goof ball

That was a funny ass comment! I am still cracking up!😅

What explanation? No explanation for the inconsistent results were given at all. In fact we're told we'll get a Nobel prize if we come up with one. Did you even watch the whole video??

This experiment isn’t the confusing part. Everything in this video can generally be explained. At least the “relevant” parts. The questions and experiments that followed are what really get whacky. So to relate it to you: if you think we’re living in a simulation, Quantum physics is so whacky the simulation is debating on whether its living in a simulation!

@@adamnguyen4517 this is comforting 😂

@halligalli I'm just saying while quantum physics has some unanswered questions, its also a relatively new science. Just give us a century or two and I bet we'll have it down to a science, literally. Then we'll move on to the next weird phenomena of reality.

@@adamnguyen4517 You didn't mention the real elephant in the room: quantum gravity. The idea that time doesn't exist in the human sense of a sequenced order of life, everything exists simultaneously, and life is the process of sequencing those events into some perceived order. And if that is so, then just why?

@@steviesteve750 Well thats just one train of thought, but if that does turn out to be the case, I'm not sure. Definitely not qualified enough to answer something that complex.

I hear ya!

I'm with you as this is the first time I really "get it" !! wish this guy was my HS teacher back in the day !!!

this professor is amazing. What he is stating is that the atom somehow KNOWS that its being "measured" or sensed. and thus it ALWAYS becomes a "particle". it will NOT interact! but IF you turn the "detector" OFF.. it doesn't know! and thus it just becomes a part of a "wave". yeah how does that atom KNOW about the EXISTENCE or ABSENCE of that detector?? thus if there's only ONE slit present the atom has no choice but to pass through that one slit. thus every atom that does so hits the screen in basically the same place. its ONLY when you open the 2nd slit that things get a bi "hairy". But as long as nobody is measuring the atoms perform as interference waves. BUT if you turn on a detector for just ONE slit NOW ONLY TWO DISTINCT patterns on the screen are formed (one directly behind each of the slits). The atoms are communicating. hey if I go through slot # 1 YOU go through slot #2!

@@leecowell8165 p

@@leecowell8165 The atoms knows its being measured or you know the atom is being measured or not? Im new to this but this observation behaviour seems to be related to knowing or not knowing. I wonder if there was a way to put a detector that beeps in a frequency we cant hear and that no one knows that it beeps for example. What would happen?

me too

grahamyodude it’s quite simple my good sir 🍷

Tom Campbell has it licked in his video The key to understanding our reality.

watch him say God

American Movement email meee im interested to know

No, still doesnt make sense, the detector is looking at only ONE slit, still the second slit is affected too. Also the detector is passive. And even if you unplug it, it will receive the energy but dont record it. Also ALL the atoms are shot one after another... The only explanation would be that space has a structure that guides the atoms. And that structure is becoming deactivated by the detector... the question is, WHEN. When WE look at the result or when the detector looks at it... If its about US (way later..) this would mean that the space has somehow temporal determinism or the atoms do... its weird anyway...

You might think that the universal laws of thermodynamics apply here, after all to detect an atom, or "see" it, that requires an interaction with a photon, this changing it's energy level; a bit like using a contacft thermometer, which immediately changes the temperature of the surface once it's in contact, as the thermal energy rebalances locally. The issue is how does this interaction change the slit pattern?

I agree with this and was going to post but was hopeful there was another person who saw it this way. Bravo go collect your nobel prize 🎉

This is absolutely how it works. The observation device disrupts and, therefore collapses the patern. If we could detect a photon or electron without altering its state, we could theoretically have instantaneous communications between devices from one galaxy to another. The atoms do not "know they are being observed," like many experts say or allude to. It's just them witnessing to you about their silly simulation religion.

Nice glitch in the matrix if you ask me. Humans 1 creator 9999999999999😂😂

Im not sure if this was stated before the delayed choice experiment was done in 2007

That’s not true just because Stephen Hawking says so. There are thousands of experiments on this, delayed choice is a perfect example.

That has more to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle than it has to do with this experiment.

Observing is interacting

Could you tell me the source of this quote pls?

Hahahaha same! Except it was him reacting to Rick and Morty and also referencing this.

me too but from rick & morty

Ha ha anime working wonders

I started from a tiktok where a woman criticized religion and now I’m here ;-;

@@bro0ke_lyn794 i do not even wanna know what happened in between lol

Have you heard of "delayed choice quantum eraser double slit experiment"??? If not Please checkout and explain to me with logic..

ppl buy into the "spookiness" of quantum physics so easily.. while there are perfectly reasonable and simple explanations out there.. makes me pretty disappointed on my fellow human beings.. we are smarter than this if we just try a little bit.. come on now.

@@takisk.7698 obviously everyone there know there's an explanation.... the point is with our current knowledge we are so far from understanding it that it ''currently'' is magic for us

@@popcorn2466 there's way too much that we don't know and that's okay but when you get some unexpected results and you default to supernatural nonsense like "the human conscience affects the quantum world?!" instead of going with logical explanations.. it's just disappointing to see.

@@takisk.7698 true

But if they are watching only the upper slit, why the atoms that go trough the bottom slit don't still behave like waves since no one interferes with them?

This is actually incredibly helpful, dude. Thank you!!!

@Dirk Knight Almost 100% of people? What's that 99 and half % peeps? or 99 and three quarters% peeps? Be specific man, or don't you know your sums?

@Dirk Knight Were you missing me 100% or only 99.99%.

@Dirk Knight Oh well, that would make it 100%. Well done, there's a good boy.

Thanks!

Thanks but RU-vid ads ruined it!

It's the photons of the camera recording them that affects their behaviour. It's not a mysterious effect.

@@ernestamoore4385 lol sure Mr einstein, you should be a scientist. 🤧

@@ernestamoore4385 I thought cameras contained sensors capturing photons rather than projecting them. However, you may be on to something, because it might be true that when the photon hits the material making up the camera sensor it is absorbed and an electron is released. Could these electrons being released from the camera sensor as the detector observes the atoms moving through the slit have an impact on where the atoms travel to as they pass through the slits?

he did a great job

And dear Richard Feynman

And Brian Green

He physically resembles Robert Andrews Millikan.

If the tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it, has it really fallen?

Does the world exist before you Open the Door?

Yes, that seems obvious, so why didn't Kalilli address it??

Kurt V haha 😂

They tried patching it last week but I remember this happening last week so looks like the patch update failed

@@grahamyodude I'm from future. What happened last week

It will never be patched, because then we would all realise that we are definitely in a simulation/computer program

The COVID-19-restart-required patch?

this is an underrated comment

Entanglement.

You don't. If I got it right, nobody has ever really detected these particles in an experiment, it's simply not feasible. It's just a theoretical thing to explain how QF works, based on the Uncertainty Principle stating you cannot measure both wave and particle behaviour. If you detect the particle it will act as a particle (two bands), if you detect the wave it will act as a wave (interference).

@@marin7615 You contradict yourself saying particles can't be detected, and then they do detect particles and waves. We observe particles by measuring their interactions and vectoring. This experiment demonstrates the Observer Effect on the quantum level, the act of quantifying the particles collapses their wave function. This experiment also demonstrates that particles only exist in waveform when there is no observation, evidenced by the interference pattern that can only occur from waves. Using detection equipment collapses the wave function thereby causing particles to behave like solids.

@@David-bc4rh I fully agree. I just meant the particles cannot be detected both at the screen and in between at the same time. If we were able to do that, we could probably solve the mistery, similarly as we understood the micro-world in biology after the invention of the microscope.

I was thinking the same thing. High school, then college .... errrr.. ok...huh? Now this video -- Ah I've got it!

I was just remembering doing this experiment at uni, I remember the girl I was doing it with and that's about it lol

Same here i study this in highschool when i was 16 yrs old and now i m 28 a doctor but still haven’t understand this

@@schrodingerscat8391 You covered quantum mechanics and the double split experiment in high school? Some high school you went to. I went to high school in Norway, and when I studied in the US at University, the math class my year at University in the US was high school level in Norway. So color me impressed of your high school.

Also learned the young double slit experiment at highschool. At the time it was only referring the wavelike pattern so no biggie. 10 years after that the same experimet cropt up on my feed and said it was one of the explainations of quantum theory .# My whole life is a lie

The Royal Institution is it possible that the device used to sense the particles was interfering in some way... magnetically or electrically? and that that caused them to behave differently

Witchcraft.

You are on the right path my friend! So now The Mental Institution can mislead and confuse Spanish viewers as well! Watch The Primer Fields Theory 1 - 3 he goes into a great details about why all this is a new age BS. We are not allowed to go into higher energy physics and thanks to above bs is not going to happen any time soon.

Lo siento, no entiendo. ¿Cómo se dice en español?

Please remember that this is not a mind binder. I can give myself the Noble prize if you want but the explanation is so simple. The problem of course here is that scientists still think n term of electricity and magnetism as either wave or particle. They have not yet put feet n the other forms of energies that compose this duality of electricity and magnetism. If only they understood that thoughts are the creators of this duality, they would understand their own experiment. They still fail to understand how consciousness impact its own creations. They still don't understand the two impulses that manage this manifested expression. Time will come. I explained this mind binding illusion in simple terms but look into how consciousness create reality via its 2 impulses and you will understand why the camera impact on this experiment. No need to be a scientist, you see.

Bingo.. there's no way to "gently observe" as the presenter puts it.

@@takisk.7698 Gently doesn't mean without influence

@@nmarbletoe8210 it's a misleading word to use.. the detector interferes with the result so there's nothing "gentle" about it

@@takisk.7698why would a wave function collapse when it is measured

Both are the same tbh but i agree with you

Because it's a mystery, we can't explain why it happens.

He explained the EXPERIMENT not the phenomenon.. smh..

I think you read it as “the results of the double slit experiment explained” when all the title implies is an explanation of the experiment itself, which it did.

Duh! ....explain it and the Nobel prize is yours!

in a way, quantum physics isn't very good at science either - because anyone who thinks they understands it, doesn't understand it. And by definition, quantum physics is very much not classical physics, and therefore not being good at that to start with isn't a barrier. Quantum physics in essence is anything that logically doesn't fit with any everyday knowledge and experience.

​@dr_jaymz it's good at stats, but bad at theoretical physics. But everytime i watch the double slit experiment again i just get blown away again and again by it.

Stay curious Simon!! 🙂

More boggling for me is that when the detector is plugged in it's only observing the top slit, not both, and atoms are only being fired out one at a time with a gap in between. This means atoms passing the bottom slit are both not being observed and not being influenced by a previous atom - why would these ones not form a wave distribution pattern? In those instances, the act of observing *literally something else and not the atoms in question* is causing a change in behaviour, which is just whacky.

Wow...so profound!!

Swing and a miss.

As made as it seems in black and white it’s does make sense

Thank you for the unexpected laugh lol

That's intellectual venom

I actually debunked this in 6th grade for a science fair. Watching the pot takes the same amount of time, but it generates boredom as a byproduct

I make a point of watching every pot of every liquid change to the boiling state just to feel the satisfaction of putting it to everyone's face who repeats this nonsense.

Boils but very slowly

@@doktormcnasty You're taking too seriously fella, the phrase means that things seem to take longer when you watch it, kinda like how if you watch a clock for 5 minutes it will seem to take much longer than if you just watch a 5 minute video on RU-vid or distract yourself some way

@@manawearblack You know what, if you don't mean it then don't say it. Why not just say "It seems to take water longer to boil when I'm watching it"? Why's that so hard? Why do people feel the need to get all hyperbolic with words like 'never' which are obviously completely untrue to the situation?

Or, as President Eisenhower once observed: "Things are more like they are now than they every have been before."

And God saw the light, that it was good... Genesis 1:4 Jonah 3 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way...

thank you

it's all very small of course, but it's just an electrode that's tuned to detect the micro current of electrons or photons. There's other ways to get particles to move a needle, but to count single photons passing through a slit, this is all that's needed. old tech.

Does it really need an explanation though? It's based off of emitting a certain frequency that will detect the atom or some individual particles that compose it. I'd like to know what you think about the comment I made recently in this video. Sorry I can't provide you with a specific link though.

@@benitocamela6336 Not everybody understands everything without having scientific background.

I was thinking the same....it could be the detector interacting with the atoms that produces the results seen.

Wouldn’t all these genius researchers also pose that question?

@@Morethanamethod. I'd have thought so, but, I'd also expect them to talk about those questions too and they haven't.

That's a very very good point. Didn't think about it....

I believe that this is stiill the most accepted interpretation. I believe that cameras work by light wave/particles affecting the the recording part of the camera.

Why do you love false explanations?

Technically, he failed to explain something.

@@joxyjoxyjoxy1 Yes, he failed to explain the actual physics of it. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477u dumb , by ur logic explain the physics of God or a lack of God

@@joxyjoxyjoxy1L

😂😂😂

Yeah but it's also +5 RADS

Well of course, Bow Ties are cool, just ask Matt Smith.

oh God, if you get affected by these small things, then for sure you are distracting freak.... :)

True

That’s because when he was there you were working and when he he was gone you were on the internet watching clips like this.

And God saw the light, that it was good... Genesis 1:4 Jonah 3 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way...

+Avi K LEL

+Avi K You sir have just wrecked this kid hard. I guess you deserve the Nobel prize...

Jaydon Nolan i was just thinking something along these lines! lmfao or! or! or!... reality is trying to keep us from realizing thr truth, that truth being that all of reality doesn't truly exist, and reality conceals this secret with superposition. ;)

i refuse to believe this isnt the right answer, for me...thats how it is now thank you.

Why so complicated? They are just trolls.

Watching that next, ty for the rec

@@williamdekker enjoy

Same bro. Still gives me goosebumps.

Hm

I am wondering the same.

what about when the electron goes though the bottom slit ? the detector isn't required

***** chill out, i'm just making suggestions xD

I was wondering the same exact thing. This is the only logical explanation. I can only assume this has been ruled out as a possibility, and if so, I'd like to know why.

***** oh soz mate

it actually does seem like that lmao

Like UFOs. They are more free and open when we are unaware of them but once we prepare the detector equipments they are gone

What's bizarre about two slits minus one slit makes one slit? That's kindergarten arithmetic. Don't tell me you stopped paying attention in kindergarten. ;-)

This has to do with the device which is being used. How are we detecting the small particle without interference that's the question.

You only think that he nailed it in one shot, because you were observing! If you didn’t watch this video, it definitely would’ve been two shots.

So, how does one creat a particle pattern, if I want to do it at home, how would I do that?

Ur comment deserves more love. Very clever

Hahaha

But jut what, just imagine, what if one of those commenters is the one capable of solving this mistery, and is dehumanized by ordinary youtube commenters disgusting behavior, and actually never look back at this double slit experiment again. Yeah we humans deserve to be wiped out of egzistence

Solved it: our thoughts create waves (brain activity can be measured through frequency) therefore when we're observing we're emitting waves and the particles are simply riding them 🏄‍♂️

@@mudza92 relax dude. your resintment for humans has nothing to do with his briliant comment.

@@0i0l0o That's briliant to you? You are very easily amazed lol

No, humans are made of atoms

lol

This is a very good one

The "observer" in quantum physics is not a human being.

But if a human being did observe the particle, it would still behave differently if it was being watched

Does your cat happen to be a member of Atom Cats?

Show him what happens to schrodinger's cat, and let's see if he still acts that way

ohemgee That's the problem, isn't it? An instrument effect is the most logical conclusion to draw from the double-slit experiment, but videos like this (and indeed whole communities, including seemingly many physicists) are trying to argue the exact opposite: That it isn't an instrument effect; that the “observer effect” is a separate concept that involves some sort of knowledge transfer rather than an interaction of physical states. You can see that this is what they are trying to do when they put in the detector and the interference goes away; and then they turn off the detector without removing it and say “Look, the interference comes back! It must not be because of the detector!” If they thought it was an instrument effect, the final round of oohs and awws wouldn't happen. Hence my comment about active vs passive detection; the way videos like this treat the experiment only makes sense if it is a passive detector, since turning off an active detector is effectively removing it. (It becomes even more troublesome when you know that passive detectors at the quantum scale are pretty much impossible.) I guess I'm less confused about the experiment than I am about people's reactions to it. Why do they think this is impressive, let alone a world-shattering paradox? I feel like I'm missing something by not finding it as baffling as all of these scientists make it out to be.

ohemgee I think this guy honestly believes that there is something other than instrument interaction going on. I don't have any direct evidence of a large number of physicists thinking that way, but I get an impression of it from the phrasing that goes with this sort of experiment, even if the person talking is otherwise competent.

Badly Drawn Turtle The reason we don't hear scientists refer to the detector is because it had the same effect on the experiment in both cases. Without changing a thing, the experiment was done recording and not recording the information. Believe me, this experiment has been repeated many times and by much smarter people than you and I. Detector interference was the very first thing they tested for. We are beyond that now. But there is a logical answer. It just doesn't apply to a strictly material world.

Goohuman Yet, I have yet to find any reliable source that describes such an experiment with adequate attention to the detector. In other words, I don't believe you. Not without sources. A strictly material world is all we have evidence for. Postulating non-material answers would require a lot more than one type of experiment; it is an extraordinary claim that would need an extraordinary reason to consider it.

Badly Drawn Turtle I get it. You are not willing to consider non-material causes. I put it to you that the results of this test are pretty extraordinary. If you are seriously questioning the detector, then you owe it to yourself to look into the actual research that was done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment You may also be interested in an even newer version where the observation is made after the photons have passed through one of the slits and before they land. Quite fascinating: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Delayed_choice_and_quantum_eraser_variations

And God saw the light, that it was good... Genesis 1:4 Jonah 3 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way...

Its like we create our own reality. The universe behaves normally when we are watching it. Glitch in the matrix there 😃

@@SYNTAX_ERA Yeah, other than the particles have electric fields, interacting with matter with a slit in it, with electric fields, observed by a detector that has an electric field. These are not particle experiments, they are field on field experiments.

What did you learn ?

@@steefv781 quantum mechanics

MIT must be a place for you my friend

A detector isn't a conscious being tho, it being switched on/off affected the results

Are you suggesting simulation theory by any chance?

Veritasium did a much better video.

@@SunShine-kd6td If you think that. you don't understand the problem

Not really sneaky my friend. The atoms and molecules themselves possess kinds of consciousness impossible for you to analyze, because the scales of your activities are so different. They are information-gathering processes, however, containing codified electromagnetic properties that slip between all of your devices. The atoms and molecules and all of the seemingly smaller "particles" within them are, again, information carrying processes, and upon them depends your entire interpretation of the nature of events.

@@promoteamutube gathering information for reality?

block all the slits turn out the lights exit lab promptly

@@David-bc4rh Don't forget to lock up the atoms first, you really don't want to leave them loose in the lab, I use a shoe box.

Or remove the slit and place a hair.

@Tanaphar Plus Masks what’s waving? Aether? I don’t use the same mechanism everyone else’s uses for light. I use another assumption.

@Tanaphar Plus Masks so the question is, why to we see fringe pattern on the wall? We have two hypothesis, on a “wave” two a particle. Can we assume of a third hypothesis that mediates light?

It’s a survival instinct

You can't. People start experiencing the "I am being watched"-feeling because - for example - the room becomes awkwardly quiet.

@@aliasanonym9778 not at all man I’ve on many many situations through out my life just for no given reason looked in a particular direction that happened to be exactly where someone was looking at me and I have had the exact same thing happen when looking at someone else. In multiple different loud and busy situations as well like a bus a coffee shop the mall.

@@jesserodgers3759 and there were many more times where you didn't observe the person watching you; you only remember the times where you caught them

@@jesserodgers3759 Yeah, it's amazing that we sometines just have a "knowing" about being observed, as we do with intuition

2 channels you may like are, 'David Butler' and 'closer to the truth' Cheers

Yes, and that's about as much as we can really understand haha what the experiment is, what's actually happening is just ridiculous.

Exactly. So why is he describing it like it's bizarre and unexplainable? If turning the detector off affected the results, it is quite obvious it was interfering with the atoms.

Your ideas and experiences with space and matter are determined by your own sense apparatus. What is matter to you might be "empty space" for beings equipped in an entirely different fashion. Your conscious mind as you understand it is the "psychological structure" that deals with conditions on a physical basis. Reality is multidimensional. On Earth, you only have access to 4 dimensions in a galactic 3d dimension.

@@promoteamutube Very true. Even the self-realized beings on earth, ie, the Sages, see everything including all matter as emptiness. Buddhist Heart sutra: Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.

according to this science its always there just sometimes as an energy wave and sometimes as a solid mass. But when is the moon EVER not looked at with millions of species crawling about the planet?

This is a theory. There is not proofs about it. This theory uses in the games for optimizing the game. Just render where you look at. We do not need to render the back view scene in the game for optimizing the game. The world is not video game and then there could not be such as this theory.

@Fida Muhammad When you asked your friend you effectively transferred the vision to him so you ARE EFFECTIVELY looking at the moon. Now if he is also not looking at the moon and he tells you it's there, then he is lying to you :D

Prove this to yourself, sit quietly,clear your mind, close your eyes, close your mouth, close your nostrils, give it half an hour and then ask your self what really exists. Then try this for 3 hours!!!

I am looking at the moon where it was about a second ago.

but see comment by Jako above with possible explanation

There is no mystery my friend. “the observer is a part of the experiment, and the results will conform to the expectations of the observer”. By viewing the double slit experiment as not just an experiment, but as a reflection of the observer’s own experience, we see how our own expectations and beliefs can influence our reality. The "particle" itself is just information and has nothing solid. If you can find an individual capable of focusing so much as to see the picture of mona lisa in his mind, the "particle" will draw mona lisa on the detecting screen.

@@promoteamutube Perfect! This is what enlightened sages have said too.

Time will heal your confusion my friend. Remember, a mere 400 years ago, the Earth was believed to be flat. And it would have been absurd to tell those people that we will go to Mars. What is Mars? would have been the question. Today, we see the same thing happening. The universe is either particle or wave and is matter, they tell us. In 400 years from now, people will have a splitting laugh under the table, with contortions hearing this. How would you feel if someone tells you that the Earth is flat when you know that it's not? That is the same feeling I get when I see the descriptions of our universe in all scientific books at the moment and probably for another 400 years. But I stay away from the contortions and splitting laugh. Instead I give a bit of insights in forums like this one.

... that feeling you'll get when you actually realize, "Lots of unseen, NonPhysical, are watching you/us, all the time" - just keep observing Quantum Physics and *"keep mind fully open, free of predetermined beliefs, theories, opinions" i.e. apply the "Standards of Science and Research" ...* ... *"the info will flow to you in relative time".* ... and, *Keep in mind, the "Universal Law of Attraction" is Absolute.* Nothing to fear, it is all very Positive.

Consciousness watching the body-mind

they never do. They always pretend that atoms have some sort of telephatic powers.

Yeah, I was disappointed he did not explain that. I think it's because they think it looks cooler when they don't.

​@@nihatnihat8264 it's a lot more entertaining to leave the interaction detail out, makes it seem "spooky" as if the particle/waves can "see" if someone is looking at it.

@Donald Piniach I'm interested, maybe information has something to do with it, information is sort of like QM, it's very hard to understand. Your words require a definition. What is precisely meant by "delayed" and how is the information "sampled"?

@Donald Piniach Very interesting for sure. After looking at the erasure experiment several times over using various sources, it's kind of like a magic trick, where you distract the audience by having them all focus away from the obviousness that exposes how the trick is being performed. The obviousness in the erasure experiment, is that the screen itself is a detector that interacts with and therefore is able to influence the behavior of the entangled photons being detected on the other set of detectors, including the one that supposedly erases the "which way" information. It appears that all that was done, was to make the double slit experiment considerably more complicated without actually doing it any differently, i.e., we've simply relabeled one detector " the screen" for another "the detector". I do like what you suggested about the "observed" behaviour having something to do with "information", because to this point in time, I've not yet found a satisfactory definition of what information actually is, despite spending a lot of time studying the concept. Usually when it's hard to pin something down, it's because the word that is used is "loaded" where as it relates to multiple things all together ambiguously, the challenge therefore becomes how to identify and separate all of the different things out so that they each can be understood individually.. The reason why I'm looking at QM concepts, is while trying to sort out the concept of information. I actually find QM simpler to understand than the concept of information, that's not saying that I think that QM is not complicated, it instead appears to be better understood at this time than the concept of information.