The Double-Slit Experiment: Physics' Most Bizarre Paradox | #shorts

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

The nature of a particle when observed is different from when it is not observed. The famous slit experiment explained very simply!



https://youtube.com/shorts/_iThqhGdZms?si=AMSly42mTkdnlpe_

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Very interesting Rani, thanks for sharing. Before watching it, several questions came up that seem to point to assumings that might be operating in the experiments and their interpretation. 

1) is there a particle without the observer/experiment?

2) Is the observer creating the experience of there being a particle, perhaps even before there is the experiment?

3) What is there without the experiment defining things? Can we say? And even if we say or give it a name, do we really understand whatever we call it?

The video points to the observer affecting the experiment, being the observed. I'm wondering if this runs deeper than is realized, even in designing the experiment before it happens....

Thanks, -Dan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/E3F803F7-A5E3-481D-8BE1-D6B116D3D6E4%40gmail.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

Dan,

I think while the concept of the observed is the observer is known in spiritual and philosophical circles the idea that mere observation changes the nature of that which is observed demonstrated so elegantly was a shocker to the scientific world. 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Sep 1, 2025, at 12:05 PM, Dan Kilpatrick <kilp...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoC_bh%2B3SgYUzjmREB9Qyrbx5E6Sq_Dg--tshCUCka1kDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Dan , Rani… There is no particle until it is observed or measured. Prior to that there are just waves. It’s interesting to think about your other questions. I don’t know the answer. I suspect that the light waves would be affected prior to any experiment. These are very interesting questions..

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoC_bh%2B3SgYUzjmREB9Qyrbx5E6Sq_Dg--tshCUCka1kDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sheri R]

Rani, Dan and All, 

Rani, this is one of my favourite experiments. 

Dan, I really like the questions that spiralled off of this. If I may add my own?

1. Are we making assumptions about the observer? What that is? Who that is? 

2. Is an Observer possible without a particle? 

3. Is it possible that the particle gives rise to another form of 'Observer' unknown the limited sensory perception of the human organism? (The way different organisms 'sense' and navigate their surroundings in ways foreign to humans). 

4. Is the human definition of the 'Observer', the seeing sense of the waves turned particle, only one limited way affecting the waves? In other words, for wave to become mass/particle, is there another perhaps a different 'action', 'entity', or 'sense' perception present we are not aware of? 

5. Finally, is the movement of wave to particle its own codependent arising? 

Fun to explore! 

With Metta, 

Sheri 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCQmj581L3zgHYra-n1XSfwi7QjjXgNzMPYhxNBpnYd%2BKw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jeffrey, Sheri, All,

Jeffrey, yes I appreciate that the particle is only affirmed once it is measured. But it seems to me that underlying all this is an assuming that the particle already exists. Otherwise why would there be an experiment to measure it. It seems to me that the observer (which is the assuming of a particle) is operating during the measuring (observed) and even in the designing of the experiment. And even waves are an approximation it seems to me, again, based on our experiencing and approximations that flow from this. We gotta go with something, but I wonder the degree to which our experiencing and formulations are determining what we measure, interpret and so on. It seems like it can be self-reinforcing process, worth appreciating perhaps. So then how we are looking and formulating are not held in such a concrete way.....  For example, a particle is assumed to exist independently of its environment. Is this true, or is it actually its very environment, not separate from it? In seeing this, the whole framework for formulating and interpreting the experiment is affected.

Sheri, yes, to me "the observer is the observed" is a framing or pointing to something that may actually happen, ongoingly. We tend to assume our seeing is absolute instead of realizing that how or from where we are looking at everything affects what we see. There is an "observing" or measuring or interpreting or translating happening, that might not involve any fixed entity. It is a happening or experiencing taking place that is not conceptual, but moves in concepts. 

This very thing is operating right here and now as I write this. There are so many influences operating in how things are coming up and being expressed now. I can't possibly take all these influences in, just appreciate this is the case. Something totally unexpected might suddenly come in, who knows. What I sense is the noticing of  assumings operating, which may open into something unexpected.....  -Dan

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCQmj581L3zgHYra-n1XSfwi7QjjXgNzMPYhxNBpnYd%2BKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Dan Sheri Rani All

Quantum particles exist in a dual nature. They can act as both particles and waves. Until observed they are waves The observation enables them to act as localized particles. I find it more interesting that by observing the waves going through the two slits the resulting particles pick up information from the conciousness of the observer and they have this information regardless of space and time.  Sheri Dan.  I realize you are pointing to other areas which I am pondering so thank you. 🙏 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCiuOEimgovumxEh56OPv0uwpEsBnxuDMjaTbmxFuJHow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Everyone on this thread,

I'm finding this thread really interesting. And I've been aware of the Double-Slit Experiment ever since I met David Bohm. I am hesitating here to share my simplistic way of talking about it. But I'll go for it anyway. You've heard this before. It seems to me that the forest doesn’t exist the way you experience it until you walk into it. Then only does it exist that way. The whole universe doesn't exist the way we interpret it with our senses and instruments until we interpret it. Object and subject co-arise. They were never separate and appear as experience and meaning. When a bat flies into the same forest at night, what appears for the bat is only there when the bat flies into the forest. And it seems to me that's a totally different experience/reality. So which is real? If an alien with really different senses and instruments is looking out into the universe, what does the alien see as the universe or experience as the universe? Might it be a totally different universe? Is it possible that subject and object have always coexisted as all potential? Does one come before the other? Is it linear?

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCQq4Nu_1A6B6ALvFeoWMTYfOgjL4kzpvCWPtK9kRS5y9g%40mail.gmail.com.