Double split

[Jox]

When there is not a detector we get a wave pattern. When the photons are being watched the wave pattern disappears. As we take the detectors away, the wave pattern comes back.

 

 

 

Any idea how this may be or may not be related to internal practice? 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Jox

[joeblast]

you cannot remove yourself from the experiment and may see different things depending on where your awareness lies

[Karl]

It has naff all to do with consciousness collapsing the wave front.

[Miffymog]

This link covers some of these concepts ...

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/41125-consciousness-and-the-double-slit-interference-pattern/

[Silent Answers]

I believe this has to do with the way our eyes/brains absorb and record light, and that our understanding of light is flawed.

[Marblehead]

I would like to express this a little stronger:

... is flawed.

... is fucked up.

[Nungali]

When there is not a detector we get a wave pattern. When the photons are being watched the wave pattern disappears. As we take the detectors away, the wave pattern comes back.

 

 

 

Any idea how this may be or may not be related to internal practice? 

 

 

No idea at all .... you do realise what you wrote is full of mistakes ? 

[Jox]

No idea at all .... you do realise what you wrote is full of mistakes ? 

Hmm ..., sorry for my English, I will try to fix it ... lol ...

 

1. Wave pattern.

2. With the detectors - wave pattern disappears.

3. As we take the detectors away - wave pattern.  

Edited August 5, 2016 by Jox

[joeblast]

I believe this has to do with the way our eyes/brains absorb and record light, and that our understanding of light is flawed.

our understanding of the structure of spacetime is merely incomplete - the detectors arent lying

[Brian]

our understanding of the structure of spacetime is merely incomplete - the detectors arent lying

Yes, this is a very important distinction. We will undoubtedly learn that our current understanding of "how & why" is naïve and incomplete but our current understanding of "what happens" is evidence-based and is not likely to fundamentally change. This means that our future discoveries will be pretty consistent with current observations while at the same time helping us to understand future observations as well.