Double slit experiment

[GOD]

Ok, have a look at this video and learn some science...

YouTube - What tHe BLeeP Do wE (k)now? Part 3 "Double-Slit Experiment"

I can see some flaws in their concepts and I wonder whether these science people really cover off all the angles.

In essence, they are basically concluding that there is some sort of intelligent life that determines how these particles act, as they react differently according to whether they are being observed or not.. yeah right. (However, looking at other video's its clear that the act of viewing shines energy into the equation which stops the experiement functioning properly).

Ok, Firstly, the wave diffraction theory. Good and fine. However, it should be noted that the wave occurs because of the connectivity of the matter being propogated. ie that each water molecule is not a discrete and individual event.

However, I have a problem when they simply assume that because the electrons fired through the double slit replicate the same pattern that somehow it proves an absolute connection to the wave theory. Possibly not so.

However, in order to cluster more frequently at more points would indicate interaction and some form of connectivity between the electrons being fired.

What if the electrons have a stickyness (gravitational/magnetic etc), this coupled with the diffraction off the internal walls of the slits AND the focal length (The distance of the back wall to the slits) meant that the separation in the impacts was just a mathematical forumula of the three factors I discussed in this paragraph. If we adjusted the focal length to 0 then by implication we would have 2 impact marks, if we reduced the slits to a thickness approaching 0 would we have less diffraction? And if we reduced the distance between the 2 slits would the impacts on the back board fade? I think so.

[kingbrain]

all the experiment is really saying is that the observer - through some means - was able to affect the outcome.

it doesnt say anything about intelligent life or if thats the implication. It is basically saying that some force of nature yet recorded or measured was influencing the outcome of the experiment. Its clearly some sort of force that can affect the behavior of electrons.

I do believe the Bleep film does take it a bit too far though. It sort of "bends" the science here a little bit to fit its purpose. Though its a useful experiment, many more experriments need to be done here.

[GOD]

all the experiment is really saying is that the observer - through some means - was able to affect the outcome.

it doesnt say anything about intelligent life or if thats the implication. It is basically saying that some force of nature yet recorded or measured was influencing the outcome of the experiment. Its clearly some sort of force that can affect the behavior of electrons.

I do believe the Bleep film does take it a bit too far though. It sort of "bends" the science here a little bit to fit its purpose. Though its a useful experiment, many more experriments need to be done here.

Yes, they added a bit of creative licence to make it more interesting for viewers. Most people aren't that interested in science.

The thing that constantly amazes me though most, is the infinitely few people that can come up with detailed hypothesis to these sorts of unstructured problems and that can generally fend off critical deconstructive attack.

From what I can recollect is that effectively I see electrons as non independent entities and/or light either injects energy or possibly decouples (or attracts) the independence (Although I can't remember whether they cluster or declustered on sight). (Who knows maybe the frequency of light has a resonance with the beam etc).

Anyway, I'll have to put up a new video as that one above seems to have a corrupted link; it’s been taken down...

[Zeliar791]

The problem I have with science is the way it is taught in our institutions. Our education system does a good job in eroding interest in academics.