Last I heard, observation caused wave collapse. If you think the final screen is observation then you assumed wrong.

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by scifimath

You know I believe your biggest problem lies in not understanding what is meant by observer effect in physics.

It isn't the act of watching the object. However it is the act of measurement which causes interference 

Quote

possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.^[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,^[4][5][6 

This seems to be the root of your misunderstanding

Hrrm quote function got a little messed. Got my last sentence in the quote instead of outside the quote box.

Anyways the slits themself can cause interference and thus count as an observer effect.

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by Mordred

I got the memo, the final screen isn't measurement because it's not while the particle is in flight.

Again: imposing an idiosyncratic definition.

I don't care what you call it, it's just the way it is. Duality is dead.

Then you aren't asking for our POV, you are dictating.

According only to you not anyone else.

I forgot to include the link to the quote above

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Anyways you can declare whatever fallacies you wish it doesn't change anything in the physics community.

If you wish to believe pink unicorns gives birth to pixies that fills magic wands go right on ahead.

However if you wish to truly learn physics you should improve your listening skills when posters are giving you correct answers instead of wasting everyone's time

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by Mordred

I won this battle, you don't get to handwave it away. You want science? It just got updated.

This was the lynch pin for my big theory, someone might want to look at it again.

Lol go ahead believe you won if it makes you feel better. You haven't because you still have zero evidence other than falsifiable assertions that only you believe.

 I really don't care what you believe neither does anyone else. 

What? Can you read the experimental results of any quantum experiment or not? I just explained it, you don't get to deny it.

What do you think the act of taking measurements means. Do you not understand basic logic let alone physics ?

Lmao I even visited one of the more powerful electron microscopes At UVIC (university of Victoria) I've personally seen the data on electron measurement.

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by Mordred

Is this entrapment so I start talking about my theory?

Nope it's trying to get you to stop making false assertions and start listening to those that better understand physics. Considering this thread has two members with different physics degrees telling you your wrong 

Yep, only those with physics degrees can have new ideas about physics.

No, but only those with physics degrees are likely to have new and useful ideas about physics.

And when multiple people with physics degrees tell you that you are misunderstanding physics, you are almost certainly misunderstanding physics.

Funny how the facts are on my side

16 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Yep, only those with physics degrees can have new ideas about physics.

You know I have no problem when non physicists presents new ideas. Even speculationary models which I know have no chance of working. I have helped them develop. 

The difference is in those cases they were willing to do the mathematics they were trying to follow the methods of physics to prove or disprove their theories.

Making bland assertions based on personal feelings isn't a physics approach.

What math is necessary to point out that the final screen isn't observation? lol

2 minutes ago, scifimath said:

What math is necessary to point out that the final screen isn't observation? lol

None.

Which is the point.

I'm feeling soo much shame right now. Oh, wait, I reached my goal of killing duality ..nevermind, I'm fine.

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by scifimath

5 minutes ago, scifimath said:

I'm feeling soo much shame right now. Oh, wait, I reached my goal of killing duality ..nevermind, I'm fine.

Cartesian duality too?

15 minutes ago, scifimath said:

What math is necessary to point out that the final screen isn't observation? lol

The final screen also causes interference so your wrong. It is the final screen that measures the interference pattern causes by the slits.

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by Mordred

what? It doesn't cause anything ..it's the end of the line. A quantum wave or object is slamming into a spacetime object.

Edited August 27, 20196 yr by scifimath

It's what measures the interference pattern. Yes it doesn't cause the initial interference but in order to take a measurement it still results in an interference

dots on a screen are not special