this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
334 points (92.2% liked)
Science Memes
20129 readers
2955 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah, man, it's literally how it works (for all we know). The wave function doesn't collapse until the data is read. You can't prove otherwise, so people are free to believe it.
no... This is a major failure of all science communicators that get off on mystifying people despite the error being pointed out to them. You need to interact with something to obersve it. It isn't magic and you have been intentionally misled.
Haha, no I haven't. I don't believe in magic. I watch mainstream YouTube science channels, and not any "mystical" ones. PBS Spacetime, Dr Ben Miles, Quanta Magazine, Sabine Hossenfelder, etc.
So, I ask you: please design an experiment that proves the outcome is determined precisely when the detector detects the particle going through the slit, and not when a person observes the screen or a recording the detector made. You can't. You can't prove that the detector detected something until you look at the result, and until you do, for all you know, it's in a superposition. That's all I'm saying. You know, shorting your scat. Everyone knows the shorting your scat experiement.
And yes we were all misled that is the point many people are making in this thread.
Why double down you were misled and misunderstood but now you know better, that to obersve something you need to interact with it therefore changing the state it is in. The first panel is also wrong it is being observed, after the light passes the slits.
A reply to your edit: You need to work on your grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I can't understand a thing you're saying.
I'm KFC Double Downing on the double slits being doubly doubtful until you've observed the result.
Ah so you lack reading comprehension that explains a lot... the youtube channel qualifications. Anyways dude I didn't mean to insult your intellectual indentity. If my comment came accross as harsh it is because I'm annoyed at communicators.
You have a stick up your butt. I observed it.
Does the result of the experiment change if there's a sensor active that records data to a hard drive that no one ever looks at and it just gets deleted? Does the result change again if someone decides that if they get a wave pattern, they will interrupt the deletion process and look at the data?
I don't understand. How can they "get" a wave pattern if they didn't look at the data?
Yes. It collapses the wave function. There is no need for something 'conscious' to count as an 'observer'.
Your second question is moot, because the first part counted as an observation.
But the way it works is only the top one if im not mistaken
Well, no. Not if you put a detector in one of the slits. It collapses the wave function, and the interference pattern disappears. The meme is a joke that your eyeballs are the detector, which is not true.
I was making a bit of a joke myself to get people to think about when the collapse actually happens. It could occur as late as when you look at the screen, and you can't prove otherwise. You know... like, "is the moon still there when you're not looking at it?" Except for real.