Hello from a non-skeptic

[Olowkow]

This is a fairly good video that explains the double slit experiment, from a new Bishadi thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...04#post6429804

A few more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-scc...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xM2_MrC2k

They don't mention that the slits must be very close together, and very small in width. Both parameters and the light color affect the pattern seen. There is a very good Java appelet somewhere on the web that permits one to play with these. No time now to look for it.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

The reference to my spelling, for a start... "Photon" is spelled "Fóton" in Portuguese. "Futon" is not attacking and attempting to ridicule?

The "one issue at a time" I wish to debate is the asociation between the act of observation influencing experimental results. My own personal cases can easily be discarded. I gave them merely as examples.

I don't have to be a quantum physicist to pose a question based on what has already been verified, so I'll ask the question again:

How can the act of observation have an effect on quantum physics experiments? How does this interaction take place?

OK which particular verified experiment are you referring to?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

In the case of Lady Di's death, what was said to me by a "medium" on the previous Saturday (not in a "paid consultation") was that "a member of the Royal Family would die that week". At first I thought it would probably be the Queen Mother, given her age at the time, but upon running through the channels of Cable TV on the following Saturday I crossed CNN at the moment in which they were broadcasting the news of the accident. Even before the official confirmation of her death, I knew what had been said to me had to refer to her.

In any given circumstance, shouldn't all possibilities be considered rather than instantly discarded?

Yes!

You are correct. So my question to you is after you considered all possibilities for the prediction, how did you decide that every possibility other than "psychic powers" was incorrect?

[Charles Boden]

It was actually the fact that such "coincidences" happened more than just the once, but on several occasions. Almost impossible not to at least raise a brow or two.

I am certainly not out to try to convince anyone. Just to raise some food for thought...

As far as I can make out of it, though, the explanations given here do not explain the phenomenon.

I'll pose another question then:

In another experiment, a lie-detector was attached to a plant. The same man would repeatedly come into the room where the plant was with a pair of scissors and snip at it. After some time, it was possible to verify that the lie-detector registered changes within the plant every time the man came into the room with the scissors. Seing as plants have no brain, how could this be possible? What form of "consciousness" could possibly exist in a plant that it might be able to sense the man's presence?

Again, what I am getting at is the possibility of "consciousness" being more than just electro-chemical discharges of the brain, and that such "individual entanglements of thought-consiousness" might indeed retain their existence and individuality even after physical death.

Charles

[Robert Oz]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

My own personal cases can easily be discarded. I gave them merely as examples.

Does this mean you accept the possibility that your earlier claim that you...

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

personally have also encountered apparently mediumnic occurrences which would go well beyond the possibility of a scam of any kind

...may have been a bit hasty?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

It was actually the fact that such "coincidences" happened more than just the once, but on several occasions. Almost impossible not to at least raise a brow or two.

I am certainly not out to try to convince anyone. Just to raise some food for thought...

As far as I can make out of it, though, the explanations given here do not explain the phenomenon.

I'll pose another question then:

In another experiment, a lie-detector was attached to a plant. The same man would repeatedly come into the room where the plant was with a pair of scissors and snip at it. After some time, it was possible to verify that the lie-detector registered changes within the plant every time the man came into the room with the scissors. Seing as plants have no brain, how could this be possible? What form of "consciousness" could possibly exist in a plant that it might be able to sense the man's presence?

Again, what I am getting at is the possibility of "consciousness" being more than just electro-chemical discharges of the brain, and that such "individual entanglements of thought-consiousness" might indeed retain their existence and individuality even after physical death.

Charles

Charles, if you are going to talk about experiments we need links to the papers so we can see the experiments ourselves.

This is the third or forth time you have referred to scientific experiments without giving proper references.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

How can the act of observation have an effect on quantum physics experiments? How does this interaction take place?

For someone who so desperately wants the answer to this question, you seem to have ignored my last post as well as what others have told you: "Observation" does not mean "observation by a person." It means any probing with any tool, including a photon or a single electron. Nothing can be found in space without something bouncing off it (or emitting something itself). It is the bouncing that collapses the dual state, not the noticing.

Thus, observation by a camera yields the same results as observation in person. Can you explain how "consciousness" can affect the quantum state yet, at the sam time, be indistinguishable from the effect of an inanimate object like a camera or a photographic plate?

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Does this discard the fact in itself of what I was told and what happened seven days later?

The thing is, what you were told is NOT what happened seven days later. You were told a member of the royal family would die, not Princess Diana. If we confine ourselves to just the British royal family, that set contained twenty-two or more people. One of them, the Queen Mother, was 97 years old. A 97 year-old female has a 27% chance of dying within the year. That's a 1/200 chance of dying within the week.

Perhaps the medium was psychic. However, if I were pretending to be psychic, I would give that prediction every week. Usually I'd be wrong, but sometimes I'd be right and those people would be very impressed with me.

Second, a member of the royal family did NOT die within the week. She died seven days later. That is outside the predicted time. The prediction was wrong. You (and you alone) are choosing to give the medium a pass and to accept that the first day of the next week is the same as "within a week." But that's your choice. It is not necessary. The medium failed. Nobody has to count that as a successful prediction, even by chance. The fact that you, a former skeptic, do find that to be compelling says more about your personal definition of "evidence" than it does about the spirit world.

Don't you agree?

[Robert Oz]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

It was actually the fact that such "coincidences" happened more than just the once, but on several occasions. Almost impossible not to at least raise a brow or two.

You don't need the quotation marks around the word 'coincidences'. They were most likely either coincidences or cold reading techniques that you fell for.

Nothing about the personal experiences you have related should give reason to raise a brow or two. For most of the people on this forum there is nothing unusual, unique or even all that rare about your anecdotes.

[Agatha]

The thing about coincidences is that they do happen - that's why we have a word for them. Add the normal human tendency towards confirmation bias (remembering the hits and forgetting the misses) and some coincidences take on meaning for some people. But they are still just coincidences.

For example; I take a lot of prescribed painkillers and some of them give me very vivid, colourful dreams, often with a lot of blue and silver. I regularly dream of plane crashes, explosions, famous (and not so famous) people dying, marrying, visiting me, all sorts of weird stuff. Sometimes some of these dreams seem to be predictive in that what I dream about then happens. Maybe one in a hundred, maybe fewer (I get bored of writing them down after a few weeks), but it's not anything paranormal, it's just a coincidence.

Lots of things happen every day, I dream of lots of things. The two things are bound to overlap once in a while.

I assume you are referring to the Backster experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster which was debunked on Mythbusters?

[Emet]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

I'll pose another question then:

In another experiment, a lie-detector was attached to a plant. The same man would repeatedly come into the room where the plant was with a pair of scissors and snip at it. After some time, it was possible to verify that the lie-detector registered changes within the plant every time the man came into the room with the scissors. Seing as plants have no brain, how could this be possible? What form of "consciousness" could possibly exist in a plant that it might be able to sense the man's presence?
Charles

Read this article on plant percetion (aka The Backster effect).

ETA: Agatha beat me to it.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

And btw, attacking me or attempting to ridicule me

Oh dear, victim complex already. That didn't take long... nobody attacked you at all, this is dishonest.

Originally Posted by Robert Oz

So the 'medium' didn't predict Lady Di's death. The 'medium' predicted the death of 'a member of the Royal Family'. Isn't it possible that, due to age, the 'medium' also had the Queen Mother in mind? I'm sure many mediums all over the world were making regular 'death of a member of the Royal Family' predictions with baited breath, eagerly anticipating the keeling over of the old bat.

Not to mention, did the medium specify which royal family? The British one is certainly the most well-known, but hardly the only one on the planet. Would they have claimed a hit if a member of Swedish, Belgian, Saudi, etc. royal family had died?

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Agatha

<snip>
I assume you are referring to the Backster experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster which was debunked on Mythbusters?

Be fair to Charles; if you go to reference #3 in the Wikipedia article, you can get to a Stanford Research Institute study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall...iofield_Sensor:

Quote:

Thus, although we must reject the hypothesis that subject GSR and plant potential fluctuations of a nearby electrically shielded plant are in general correlated, there is evidence for a degree of correlation beyond that expected by chance."

Subject S-3: p < 4.2 X 10-4; p < 0.024, replication experiment.
Subject S-4: p < 0.038.

This Report supports the possibility that plants may respond to human consciousness as contended by Cleve Backster.

[majamin]

Charles:

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
(2) Does every occurrence of somebody predicting a future event necessarily imply that they are clairvoyant?
(3) Should the events that we can significantly influence be considered?

Any hypothesis that is potentially influential or can be depended upon, requires scientific scrutiny. You seem to be charging that because we don't consider your experience as "evidence", that we are closed-minded. Please watch this video on open-mindedness. It will explain what I consider to be the only valid definition of being open-minded.

[Olowkow]

I'm reading all these posts by very reasonable sounding and rational appearing members, in keeping with what has been said literally hundreds of times to people coming here presenting their anecdotal exposure to the paranormal, and I know somewhere in the back of my mind that eventually the OP will feel he is being attacked, become angry and leave. It is the pattern we have all seen all too often. I really hope this does not happen though.

I cannot understand what it is that causes the paranormal believer to persist, to the degree we all have witnessed, in untenable beliefs in the face of real world logical thought showing the absurdity of such claims. Life is so much more fun when we don't have to worry that our dreams have predicted our fate.

[Charles Boden]

Olowkow, you have been very kind and I knew what to expect when I first posted, so needn't worry about my getting angry and upset and leaving.

You all may think you have answered my question, but that is not how I see it, as I also do not see that the comments on Jacqueline Pool's case answered the issue either. But right now I have to go and fetch my wife at the dentist, so I'll have to get back to replying to some other of your posts here later.

In the meantime, take care all...

Charles

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

...You all may think you have answered my question, but that is not how I see it, ...

I'm curious. Could you be a bit more specific as to why you see this differently? Specifically, which question are you talking about, and what is lacking in the answers?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

The thing is, what you were told is NOT what happened seven days later. You were told a member of the royal family would die, not Princess Diana.

Come to think of it, Diana was not a member of the royal family when she died. She hadn't been since her divorce. I don't think 'Princess Diana' was even her official title any more, though most people continued to call her that.

[Agatha]

She was still considered to be a member of the Royal family (according to Wiki, anyway), but her correct title was then Diana, Princess of Wales. That still doesn't give any credence to Charles Boden's anecdote, though.

Quote:

Buckingham Palace stated Diana was still a member of the Royal Family, as she was the mother of the second- and third-in-line to the thrones, which was confirmed by the Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household, Baroness Butler-Sloss, after a pre-hearing on 8 January 2007: "I am satisfied that at her death, Diana, Princess of Wales continued to be considered as a member of the Royal Household."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Diana

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Generally, no one here points out spelling errors, since we all make them, but once in a great while an error is just humorous, and it is turned into a joke. This was no attack, it was just poking fun at the whole idea of photons having something to do with mediums.

Thanks Olowkow. It was a joke for Sledge really, he being a stalwart of long-running UFO debates so I thought he'd appreciate it*, and not a dig at Charles Boden at all. Just lightening up the conversation.

*and I fancy his avatar so I guess I was flirting

Do go on, everyone.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Come to think of it, Diana was not a member of the royal family when she died. She hadn't been since her divorce. I don't think 'Princess Diana' was even her official title any more, though most people continued to call her that.

As said, she actually got to keep the title "Princess" as part of her divorce settlement.

In a completely unrelated development, people I know from high school still call me Butt Monster.

[Mirrorglass]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

As said, she actually got to keep the title "Princess" as part of her divorce settlement.

In a completely unrelated development, people I know from high school still call me Butt Monster.

You must have had an awesome lawyer.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

I knew what to expect when I first posted

Are you familiar with the term "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Thanks Olowkow. It was a joke for Sledge really, he being a stalwart of long-running UFO debates so I thought he'd appreciate it*, and not a dig at Charles Boden at all. Just lightening up the conversation.

*and I fancy his avatar so I guess I was flirting

Do go on, everyone.

Mmm, Smith & Wesson Model 629.

Wait, did you mean David Rasche?

I haven't seen any attacks on our new friend. My comment was certainly not meant as an attack, and was what I genuinely think. Given the extremely complex nature of what Charles wishes to discuss, I would be doubtful of most people's ability to have a meaningful discussion in a language other than their primary one.

[Charles Boden]

Hi all,

Concerning what was said to me regarding Lady Di, perhaps I should be more specific:

For 12 years I took part in a spiritualist center here in Rio. The story as to how and why I came to join one is rather long, so I won't go into the details right now here in this post. The sessions were held on Saturday nights and usually went into the early hours of Sunday. For whatever relevance this may have, though to me it seems rather picky, I could mention that what was said to me was in the early hours of Sunday, so therefore the accident took place within the "one week". Without my having asked or said anything, one of the mediums at the session approached me and said:

"A member of that Royal Family you have associations to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

I have the "Stuart" as one of my middle names coming from my mother's side of the family, and more recently I found that I am descended from a Scottish clan known as the Stewarts of Appin, who are descended from, among others, an illegitimate daughter of Queen Mary Stuart's grandfather, King James IV, also an ancestor of the current Royal Family.

I am also a believer in reincarnation, btw.

I took part in this spiritualist center for twelve years. In all the twelve years I took part in it, why would the medium choose to say what she did precisely on that day and in that week? This was also the case when I was told of my wife's pregnancy. Nothing like that had ever been said to me before, nor was anything similar ever said afterwards, so the chances of a "coincidence" were minimum. Furthermore, I gave these two cases merely as examples and in attempt to make a long story short, but the cases of such "impossible coincidences" that I came to encounter were numerous throughout all the years I took part there.

Returning to the case of quantum waves collapsing into particles under observation, however, would the results be the same if a light were projected without the experiment being under observation? That would be an interesting experiment to carry out and verify...

And please forgive me, but when walking into unknown territory it is almost inevitable that one should walk into it with a shield in one hand and a sword in another...

[Pure Argent]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Without my having asked or said anything, one of the mediums at the session approached me and said:

"A member of that Royal Family you have associations to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

I have the "Stuart" as one of my middle names coming from my mother's side of the family, and more recently I found that I am descended from a Scottish clan known as the Stewarts of Appin, who are descended from, among others, an illegitimate daughter of Queen Mary Stuart's grandfather, King James IV, also an ancestor of the current Royal Family.

So you happen to share a name and be ridiculously distantly related to a(n ex-)member of the royal family who happens to die within a week of someone saying that an unnamed member of the royal family that you have associations with will die this week?

I don't really think that counts.

Sharing the "Stuart" name is hardly a strong connection. There must be hundreds of people with that name. I don't think that counts as a connection. And the "descendant" bit is a stretch as well. If you go back far enough, everyone - and I mean everyone - is related to someone famous. For example, I am a blood relative of William the Conqueror, Pocahontas, and several other famous names which no one really cares to hear. This is not surprising, and pretty much anyone else can say the same simply because, once you go back a few generations, pretty much every family tree out there has some overlap with every other.

Quote:

I am a believer in reincarnation, btw.

What does that have to do with the prediction?

Quote:

I took part in this spiritualist center for twelve years. In all the twelve years I took part in it, why would the medium choose to say what she did precisely on that day and in that week?

Why not?

Did you have any other predictions made to you, by that person or any other? Did anyone else have any predictions made to them?

Quote:

This was also the case when I was told of my wife's pregnancy. Nothing like that had ever been said to me before, nor was anything similar ever said afterwards. So the chances of a "coincidence" were minimum. Furthermore, I gave these two cases merely as examples and in attempt to make a long story short, but the cases of such "impossible coincidences" that I came to encounter were numerous throughout all the years I took part there.

"Impossible" coincidences rarely are.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Hi all,
Without my having asked or said anything, one of the mediums at the session approached me and said:

"A member of that Royal Family you have associations to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

I have the "Stuart" as one of my middle names coming from my mother's side of the family, and more recently I found that I am descended from a Scottish clan known as the Stewarts of Appin, who are descended from, among others, an illegitimate daughter of Queen Mary Stuart's grandfather, King James IV, also an ancestor of the current Royal Family.

And that counts as an "association" to you? Millions of people are distantly related to the British royal family.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Sledge

Mmm, Smith & Wesson Model 629.

Wait, did you mean David Rasche?

Mmmm... You mean that's not you? Sledge, my dreams are shattered! But a quick google and I get where your moniker's coming from.

As an aside*, did you know Mr Kipling owns Smith & Wesson?

*not an attempt to de-rail, honest, there's more than enough separate strands to this discussion as it is.

Originally Posted by Sledge

I haven't seen any attacks on our new friend. My comment was certainly not meant as an attack, and was what I genuinely think. Given the extremely complex nature of what Charles wishes to discuss, I would be doubtful of most people's ability to have a meaningful discussion in a language other than their primary one.

Quite.

[Charles Boden]

By all means, but not here in Brazil... And yes, I encountered several similar cases as the ones I have already mentioned. Enough for me to raise a brow or two, as I said... Much more than that, in fact.

As for reincarnation, yes, both phenomenae are in my view connected. How could they not be if I am talking about the possibility of the afterlife?

[Pure Argent]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

By all means, but not here in Brazil...

Quote:

And yes, I encountered several similar cases as the ones I have already mentioned. Enough for me to raise a brow or two, as I said... Much more than that, in fact.

So predictions were made on a regular basis? How many did you hear? Were any of them any less vague than those that you have listed? How many of them failed?

Quote:

As for reincarnation, yes, both phenomenae are in my view connected. How could they not be if I am talking about the possibility of the afterlife?

You misunderstand. I was asking what your belief in reincarnation had to do with that specific prediction. It just seems like a total non sequitur.

[Agatha]

A child (or [great] grandchild)* of one of James IV's illegitimate daughters may well have married into the Stewarts of Appin, but given that the Dugald, the first Chief of the Stewarts of Appin, was born around 1446 and was formally granted the land in 1470, and that James IV's illegitimate children were born between 1493 and some point prior to 1510, I think the claim that the Stewarts of Appin are descended from an illegitimate daughter of James IV is misleading. The S of A were there first!

*The marriages of all James IV's illegitimate children who survived infancy are known.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Returning to the case of quantum waves collapsing into particles under observation, however, would the results be the same if a light were projected without the experiment being under observation? That would be an interesting experiment to carry out and verify...

Correct me if I’m wrong, because I know jack about quantum physics, but isn’t light made of photons?

Loss Leader said:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Observation involves probing something and sending back information to an observer. A tree may exist, but it cannot be observed until it is hit with photons from the sun, and those photons bounce back to an observing instrument.

You must be careful here because there are two separate phenomena: 1) being probed and 2) observing the results. It is important to note that the observer need not be a person. It can be a dog, or a chicken, or a camera, or a particularly reflective lake. The observer is irrelevant.

The only relevant thing is the probe - usually a photon. That hits the object and bounces away. It is this act that collapses the waveform - not the actual observation of it by any person, animal or machine.

So, your concept that consciousness somehow radiates some sort of energy that collapses waveforms is misguided. The waveform has been collapsed and the decision has been made before the observer even gets the information.

This is not a possible method by which clairvoyance or fortune telling could be accomplished.

My emphasis. So I think this answers your question.

[23_Tauri]

--

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

"A member of that Royal Family you have associations to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."


Furthermore, I gave these two cases merely as examples and in attempt to make a long story short, but the cases of such "impossible coincidences" that I came to encounter were numerous throughout all the years I took part there.

Can you explain in more detail why the Royal family prediction is an "impossible coincidence"?


ETA: also, did this psychic ever make prediction that did not come true?

[majamin]

Sorry to be repetitive, Charles (and others), but I will continue to ask and formulate questions until you attend to them.

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
(2) Does every occurrence of somebody predicting a future event necessarily imply that they are clairvoyant?
(3) Should the events that we can significantly influence be considered?
(4) Does your medium often make predictions, on a regular basis, that come to pass?
(5) Is your claim that, because you are related to these royals, that they are able to communicate with your medium?

You spoke to (1) briefly here, but did not state why you concluded that chance could not have played a role in your circumstances. Loss Leader asked you about chance here (last paragraph), which you did not attend to. I would like you to speak to the other questions, as well.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Returning to the case of quantum waves collapsing into particles under observation, however, would the results be the same if a light were projected without the experiment being under observation? That would be an interesting experiment to carry out and verify...

If you mean "observation" as something being watched by a sentient being, then yes, the results are the same regardless of if anyone is watching or not. When I performed this experiment in school, we didn't personally watch the light beam hit the slits, it was a closed system with a recording device. We only observed the end result, not the splitting process itself.

And you really should post this in the Science forum, as the phrase "waves collapsing into particles" isn't correct.

[Charles Boden]

The questions are being posted at such a rate that I am honestly finding it difficult to keep up, so I apologise if I am not managing to reply to all of them.

The fourth Lord of Appin, Duncan Stewart (1515-1547), married Janet Gordon, daughter of Lord John Gordon (1477-1517) and Lady Margaret Jane Stewart (1493-1517), eldest but "illegitimate" daughter of King James IV and Lady Margaret Drummond (1476-1501). I am descended from the 2nd son of Duncan Stewart 6th of Appin (b. abt 1570), John Stewart.

The prediction concerning my wife's pregancy was by no means vague, and neither were several others...

I'll read back on some previous posts and attempt to answer some more questions, if you would all be kind enough to hold a moment so that I might have time to do so.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Mmmm... You mean that's not you? Sledge, my dreams are shattered! But a quick google and I get where your moniker's coming from.

As an aside*, did you know Mr Kipling owns Smith & Wesson?

My mind, she is blown. Mr Kipling makes exceedingly good firearms? Love it.

Quote:

*not an attempt to de-rail, honest, there's more than enough separate strands to this discussion as it is.

I'm not sure this thread has rails to go off. Are we discussing psychics, genealogical links to famous people or quantum physics?

[Charles Boden]

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
The sheer volume of them would make it difficult for this to be so...
(2) Does every occurrence of somebody predicting a future event necessarily imply that they are clairvoyant?
No, but I do believe that we all carry a mediumnic capacity to a greater or lesser degree.
(3) Should the events that we can significantly influence be considered?
Absolutely. But had I been told specifically that the prediction concerned Lady Di, I might have found myself frantically attempting to warn her. Mediumnic predictions do not work in this way.
(4) Does your medium often make predictions, on a regular basis, that come to pass?
I have had no contact with her or any other medium from the center I took part in for 5 years now, but the answer to your question throughout the 12 years I had contact with her would have to be "yes".
(5) Is your claim that, because you are related to these royals, that they are able to communicate with your medium?
No, that is not what I am saying. The relevance of this is of a different nature. It is my own association to them in the past that was relevant, which was why I mentioned being a believer in reincarnation.

[Charles Boden]

Quote:

I'm not sure this thread has rails to go off. Are we discussing psychics, genealogical links to famous people or quantum physics?

In my case, and according to my beliefs, they are all associated, Sledge...

[Olowkow]

I think what is bothering Charles Boden about the double slit experiment is what no one ever seems to state unambiguously: what is the cause of the collapse of the wave function when one attempts to observe which slit the single photon is going through?

I am not expert in this, but my understanding is that no matter how subtle the measurement instrument attempts to be, no matter how delicate the probe, you will always cause some information (phase, intensity, wavelength, etc) to be lost, and the consequence is that the interference pattern is lost. The real reason is that the photon is really going through both slits, but you cannot confirm this because it is only true if no measurement is made. It is the act of detection that kills the effect of the interference pattern.

Well I tried my best.

[Charles Boden]

Quote:

Correct me if I’m wrong, because I know jack about quantum physics, but isn’t light made of photons?

Yes, which was why I suggested the experiment...