Comment on Look at this. Or don't.
474D@lemmy.world 1 day agoBut then what is the significance of this experiment? Why is it so popular if it’s that simple and why is it usually associated with quantum physics?
Comment on Look at this. Or don't.
474D@lemmy.world 1 day agoBut then what is the significance of this experiment? Why is it so popular if it’s that simple and why is it usually associated with quantum physics?
abfarid@startrek.website 1 day ago
If not touched the photon goes through both slits and interacts with itself, which is still super weird. Basically, it’s a wave if not touched, but a particle if touched.
Gremour@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Which suspiciously reminds optimization. Like computer game with infinite procedural world, where map chunks only generated where player interacts with world, being just formula (algorithm) everywhere else.
Agent641@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Photons exist at the edge of our dimension, not really a part of it, but skimming the borderlands between dimensions. Like a bug on the surface of a lake, it influences the lake and the atmosphere simultaneously, can be inferred by its effect on the lake, but it cannot be observed (eaten) by a fish without also fully entering the lake dimension. In this borderland state the photon has the theoretical potential to influence many dimensions, but doesn’t belong to any one of them. Measuring, or touching the photon turns that potential into causative certainty where the photon is now part of our dimensions’ event chain, pulling it fully into our dimension to the exclusion of all others and converting it from a probabilistic multidimensional potential into a deterministic unidimensional particle.
I just made all that up but it sounds pretty good IMO.
abfarid@startrek.website 18 hours ago
That checks out.
Source: am photon.
Johanno@feddit.org 21 hours ago
Well yes’nt I say a vertasium video and he explained it a bit differently. However I still didn’t understand it. But they show the effect in different ways so it is easier to understand.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJZ1Ez28C-A
abfarid@startrek.website 18 hours ago
I have actually seen that video. But my simplification is still correct, except that I should’ve used the word “behaves”. Because for the purposes of how it will behave the simplification shows the effects clearly.