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

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. 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

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 37 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

it’s literally how it works

That’s all I’m saying.

And yes we were all misled that is the point many people are making in this thread.

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 recording the detector made

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.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 0 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

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.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You have a stick up your butt. I observed it.