GrahamH wrote:kyrani99 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment Thomas Campbell ex NASA physicist.
Showing that even if you allow the detector running but don’t collect the data you still get the same result as if you had switched it off.
That's a claim I haven't heard before. Photon detectors in place and working but no tape in the data logger and interference patterns result.
The claim is here ~2:30
https://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E?t=2m18sAny physics types here know what that's about?
[ETA]
This topic on Physics Forums suggests the calim is bunk:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ng.414617/
Firstly, some of the questions, statements and answers are not factual and some are biased.
And I want to say that while I agree with some of Campbell's theory, i.e., the "reality is a simulation" part, I do not agree with him on his other claims eg that "the ego is fear based" and that "God is an information system, which is imperfect and evolving." So I want to say clearly, I am not defending Campbell. I am pointing out inconsistencies.
The question asked was: “Physicist Thomas Campbell makes the following claim (at 2:45) if you leave the detectors turned on, but you throw away the data from the detectors without looking at it, you get a wave interference pattern on the screen behind the slits. Is this true?”
(Reference
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ng.414617/)
Is not even accurate.
In the video
you will not hear those words.
I’ll give you the transcript from 2min 29 to about 3mins 40 secs
At 2mins 29 secs he say: “so then there was thinking so it’s the detectors that is making the difference. When we detect it we get this (he points to the two bands) and when we don’t detect it we get this” (he points to diffraction pattern)
At 2mins 34secs he says: “So whether it was just luck or whether it was that they were clever, I don’t know, but fortunately one of them decided to leave the detectors on because if they turned off the detectors entirely of course they got this ” (he points to diffraction pat tern again ) and the idea was well the detectors are interfering.
At 2mins 52secs “So somebody decided to leave the detectors on but just not take any data.”
He elaborates on what he means saying: “in other words the detectors were there detecting but they just were not collecting any data.”
And he further elaborates by saying: “So let’s say if it was going to a magnetic tape then there was no magnetic tape loaded, okay. The head of the tape was still showing what the detectors said. The head of the tape was still oscillating because the detectors were still working. The detectors were still detecting but what do you think happened? They got this” (he points to diffraction pattern again ). “They got the diffraction pattern, okay”
At 3mins 25secs “So what it turned is that if they looked, if they collected the data, okay, then they get this (video zooms in where there is two bands). “And if they didn’t collect the data and they weren’t looking, they got this” (video zooms in on the diffraction pattern).
So it let them know that it was the actual conscious act of taking the data that made the difference as to whether light was a wave or light was a particle. Well that was a really big deal!”
He has said nothing about collecting data and then throwing it away without looking at it as the question asked. And notice too that he begins by making a statement, which is general and thus meaningless.
He says: If you place a detector on one or both of the slits, the electrons do not form an interference pattern. It matters if the detectors are on or off and if they are recording or not. The guy answering does not address the generality of the statement made.
And he did not bother to go and check what was actually said on the video.
If the data was collected and thrown away without looking I would agree with the physics forum guy that it would still give two bands because the act of recording means there is an irreversible process. His reasoning that “deleting the data does not induce any changes. It does not matter whether you throw away the data or look at it” is true.
So then he talks about quantum erasers, which I will deal with in another post.
However what I want to say here is that some of the "fathers of quantum mechanics" said things like:
It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. Eugene Wigner
http://www.azquotes.com/author/28077-Eu ... -mechanicsThe observer cannot be left out of the description of the observation.
John Archibald Wheeler
http://www.azquotes.com/author/15550-Jo ... ld_Wheeler'Participant' is the incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the 'observer' of classical theory, the man who stands safely behind the thick glass wall and watches what goes on without taking part. It can't be done, quantum mechanics says it...May the universe in some sense be 'brought into being' by the participation of those who participate?
John Archibald Wheeler
http://www.azquotes.com/author/15550-Jo ... ld_WheelerThe doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.
Bernard d'Espagnat
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/584792Why did Schrodinger make his thought experiment -that the cat is both dead and alive until we look?
It doesn't make sense that these guys, who are highly respected physicists, would make such claims if they had not checked out the measurement problem and determined if it was just the apparatus interference that destroyed the interference pattern or the involvement of a conscious observer. Sure there were other physicists that opposed them but they are also wedded to materialism. Which ones are right? Didn't they do their homework first before they made their claims?
I have looked and looked to find somewhere where it says "here is the experiment, we left the detectors on and not collected data and here it is we get this..." be it the diffraction pattern or the two bands. There is no where any such experiment recorded. And yet you get guys, like the one at the physics forum who says:
"No, it has not been proved in any experiment and it is just a plain wrong claim.
Whether there is an conscious observer at the end of the detection chain or not does not make any difference."
If it has not been proved then where is the experiment that disproves it?
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.