Is the double-slit experiment a proof for God or some kind of creator?

No.

>>8844967
It is proof that our model doesn't suffice for some observations we make, that is all.

>>8844978
How can you explain that the experiment has different a result if there is an observer? How the atoms 'know' that they are observed?

>>8844967
No.

>>8844978
Wrong.

No, just a proof of the wave-particule duality.

>>8844982

The methods we use to observe the experiment release energy/particles that change how the electrons act in the environment

>>8844967
Has anybody ever tried this with a big grate and a rifle? I mean, we all know what we think would happen -- but then, in the original experiment, everybody thought they knew what would happen and WAIT WAAAAATTTT????? occurred. So has anybody tried it?

>>8844982
>How can you explain that the experiment has different a result if there is an observer?

Wait, what? Are you saying that if everybody looks the other way, the experiemt comes out differently?

>>8844967
No, it's just a phase shift that can be replicated with a laser and a straight pin.

There is no wave particle duality.

There are no particles.

>>8844967
absolutely

>>8845078

You u derstand that photons are particles and electons acting similarly to them in some situations isnt shocking or enlightening

>>8844985
Brainlet.

>>8844967
Double slit is just simple geometry. If the distance between slits would be increased, electrons wouldn't interfere.

This "observe" bullshit is the chimp-to-man drawing to illustrate evolution all over again... or the word "theory" and it's reception outside scientific communities

Scientists name things in really dumb and misleading ways
Just fucking say interact you imbeciles, what do you mean observe!?

>>8844982
I can't. Neither can anyone else currently.
This has exactly nothing to do with "God".
A long time ago, humans could not explain why rubbing 2 sticks together makes fire. Was that a proof of God then?

>>8845242
it still is a proof of god...
you may explain the mechanism of producing fire via stick rubbing but in the most fundamental we don't have further info beyond these two things:
things is nature tend to favor:
-lower energy
-higher entropy

and these are pretty much as valid as "god exists" in explanation-level

>>8845258
this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

>>8844967
It is proof that the universe uses ocular occlusion to save on processing power.

>>8845258
you logic is the following:
>why does everything happen?
>because god exists
now the question: why does god exist?
and we're back to square 1. you solved exactly nothing.

>>8845270
yes, it does

I'm saying at the basis of science lies axioms which by definition aren't falsifiable
Therefore they have the same argumentative quality as "it was god"

>>8845275
My argument wasn't a god defense
It was an offense against both god and scientific dogmatism
See >>8845278

>>8844967
Yes.
It shows he has a sense of humor

>>8844982
The act of observing an electron makes it appear differently, that's all.


If you were the universe, wouldn't you act differently with everyone looking at you all the time?

>>8845242
Yes -- it's called "God of the Gaps" and is a common error in theology and attempts to prove the existence of God.

Evidence of God is not to be found in things we do not understand, but in the things we do.

>>8845283

The existence of ostriches and the flaccid penis already proved that.

>>8844978
>>8844987
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

A creator can't be the unmoved mover. Something had to have created him. Certianly, this thing is not going to be a sentient intelligence.

>>8844978
What if the thing responsible for the effect observed is inscrutable and we can never know it?

>>8845069
But that's been proven to be false. Stop spreading these lies.

>>8844967
It's proof that people still fall for pop/sci/ when it caters to their degeneracy

>>8844982
"Observation" entails physical processes you fucking mongoloid

>>8845278
>at the basis of science lies axioms which by definition aren't falsifiable
P1. The universe exists
P2. The universe is observable
P3. The universe is governed by laws which are invariant over time and space
P4. These laws can be approximated by models with varying degrees of predictive capability through the use of observation
Wow, such fragile epistemology! It's just as bad as assuming a divine creator!

Although you clearly were confusing the predictive models themselves with foundational dogma

>>8844982
GTFO, "Dr Quantum".

File: insert blush.jpg (314KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1280x850px

>>8845339
>If you were the universe, wouldn't you act differently with everyone looking at you all the time?
A-anon-kun, please stop staring at me like that... >///<

>>8846554
Is the word observation hurts your feelings? I could say measurment and that would mean the same.
Also read this >>8845554 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

File: Frank-J-Tipler.jpg (85KB, 270x410px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 270x410px

>>8844967

Yes.

If we're in a quantum MWI situation, then eventually pic related's theory of an Omega Point (AKA God) will come to pass.

>>8844967
>a proof
Lrn2proof fgt pls

>>8846582
Yeah, "measurement" also entails physical processes

>>8846593
Then all you need is to show us is how the measurment collapses the wave function. Especially in the more sophisticated dobule slit experiments. No need for hostility though, I'm not a popsci fag.

>>8845205
>what is photoionic emission?

>>8845278
epistemic relativists get out!!

>>8846558
everything you listed have alternatives

>>8845069
No. Literally watching the lines appear alters the pattern, no electron beam required.

>>8845076
Go ask /k/, they would be happy to run this for you

File: 43f4b86356b90a3f8372f14ffbdd9ee94221b48ee422251c4c058c9c814923eb.jpg (24KB, 822x258px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 822x258px

>>8847108
So? I wasn't implying they didn't. Not sure what you're after here.

>>8846532
>>8847124
Is this true? I always assumed the method of watching it interfered. Does literally watching it change it or is that a meme?

So is it the instruments of Observation that change it's outcome or literally a human observing the event?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Z_TIw9InA
I can't even begin to comprehend the math it would take to begin to understand this and yet the people who study the math for decades still don't understand this.

>>8846532
>>8847124
explain or you're talking bullshit

It's proof that free will is real.

>>8846558
>The universe is governed by laws which are invariant over time and space
Prove it.

>>8844967
It's proof that you are God. You make miraculous things happen with particles just by looking at them.

>>8844967
If there was a god he would be observing the particles :^^^)

>>8844967
here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

>>8849160
>The universe exists
Prove it.

Obviously you don't know what the word "assumption" means
Besides, it's implicit from just the existence of some rule set at every point. For instance, if the rule set R applies for 0<t<a, and if Q applies for a<=t<b, then the statement of such is itself a rule set which is consistent over all 0<t<b.
But this isn't "guess what foundational consequences are implied by my ultra-elegant axioms" hour, so I just stated it that way outright.
Those are the assumptions foundational to empirical science, which revolves around predictive models of reality. The idea here is that all you need to assume is the well-definition of "reality," which, analytically speaking, amounts to those four premises.

>proof of god

No, the concept of proof can barely hold phenomena.

>>8844967
This reminds me of the doublevslit experiment I perform ed on ops mom last night.

>>8849525
hurr durr

Photons are timeless things-they experience zero time due to their speed. When you understand that,it makes this kind of stuff a bit easier to understand.

>>8849646
>Photons are timeless things
Electrons aren't, and all this applies to them too.

>>8849648
fuck you're right

christ I'm an idiot

>b-but god cannot exist without devil
>0 cannot exist without 1
>logic cannot exist without emotion/willingness ?
>then whats not irrational and logical
>maybe 0 is 1 at the same time
>is maths real ?
>is real maths?
>is zero even or odd ?
>when dose value of pie end
>who is snake ?
>why are we still here ?


i dont believe in religion btw

>>8849699
Chim el-Adabal.

>>8849705
why did you made me listen a elder scrolls song ?

>>8845339

Is an electron a conscious being which is insecure and has weak character and afraid to be it's true self when people are watching? like a weak Stacey who isn't popular?

>>8845258
That's exactly the way I am thinking. No matter how far we reach there will be some axioms, some based rules that can't be explained. Universe is bound to have a start and this indicates the existence of a God.

>>8845568
I don't have a horse in this race religiously speaking, but without an unmoved mover, you're just arguing "Turtles all the way down" which is just as unfalsifiable.

The best straight answer we can give is "I don't know."

From there we can pick faith in one or the other, but both are just as good or bad critical thinking. It's two sides of the same coin.

>What made the universe?
>A prime mover: God. He's a pretty cool guy that creation and doesn't afraid of anything.
or
>Another universe made it which was made by another universe which was... ad infinitum

>>8844967
sen otistikmisin orozbu coccuu sg mal kafanı sikim

>>8850342
Fuck off, cuckroach

>>8844987

Undergraduate chemist detected.

The DSE along with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser are proof that our reality is a very, very complex thing.

It seems that our reality is well aware of all information that exists within it and this information interacts with itself and regulates itself.

I've used this analogy recently to explain this phenomenon, hope this helps:
Let's say the sun is shining on a building and you're at the side of the building that casts its shadow. You have no shadow at the moment, even though the sun is shining (or you could say your shadow has no direction or is everywhere on the shadowside of the building), but once you walk to the edge of the shadow, where the sun shines, you will cast a shadow yourself. You will be determined by something that acts upon you, even though there doesn't seem to have been a huge change.