this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
829 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

19687 readers
1966 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hazmatastic@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not just the double-slit for quantum mechanics, but it applies to people too. In a workplace, the second you start evaluating performance based on a metric, it ceases to be a useful metric. Why? Because people will shit the bed willingly in every other aspect of their job if it makes the number their boss looks at better. At that point, "highest performers" are really just the best bullshitters who can fake short-term benefits in lieu of long-term solutions, and all of them just make things worse overall.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 96 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I have to comment this every time people post it, because they don't actually understand it. They only understand the mystical view of quantum mechanics, which isn't real.

Observation, in the case of this experiment, has nothing to do with humans looking at it. It has to do with the particle/wave interacting with something, which causes the waveform to collapse into a single particle. The reason this happens is because any interaction requires the information to be known, so it can't be wave-like anymore. It has nothing to do with consciousness or anything like that. It only has to do with an interaction that requires information to be discrete.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well but this meme is accurate because it said monitoring the situation. So when you start monitoring which slit the particle goes through, you changed the outcome.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

It is. I just always feel the need to comment this on these posts because the mystical understanding annoys me, and is surprisingly common. This meme doesn't do that exactly, and it even has an accurate experiment setup.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (6 children)

People keep explaining like it's a huge surprise.

I think I am technically a physicist so this could be a case of xkcd 2501 but it seems obvious enough.

Surely nobody actually believes that is how it works. I think I understood it that way and was mind blown for like 5min before being sceptical and asking for clarification and still being mind blown by how it was actually meant. I was a child when that happened.

All the adults I've spoken to about it learned about it school and understood straight away. That is of course completely biased though.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There are entire new age movements based on the misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

Off the top of my head: "What the Bleep do we Know?" and "The Secret" are two that come to mind.

Not sure how popular they are these days, but they were huge in the 00s-10s

[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 13 points 3 days ago

It's probably (hopefully) not a majority, but a disturbing number of people really do believe it works like that. I've once had someone, whose intelligence I used to respect, calmly explain to me that telekinesis is possible because "QM proves that the mind can influence matter".

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago

I wouldn't be so sure. There's a disturbingly high amount of people (including adults) out there who take Schrödinger's cat literally.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

I may not have been paying attention in school. Once adult, I read about it but wondered what it means "when observed". Couldn't find anywherw that explained it clearly. Figured it was surely related to a physical process necessary to get signals, but I couldn't know what exactly. Now, I know.

[–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 5 points 2 days ago

A lot of people do believe it unfortunately.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 16 points 3 days ago

Yeah its about quantum systems interacting, not sentient beings watching.

still pretty mystical though in my book!

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Maybe they shouldn't have been refering to it as OBSERVATION then poindexters, don't get mad when you confuse the laymen and he get annoyed.

For real, the amount of "smart" people saying this actually had an effect via human sight had me not understand how this shit worked for years cuz that made absolutely no sense, as it turned out all those 'smart' people turned out to just be parrots not understanding wtf they're talking about.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I totally agree. "Observe" was a bad choice of words, but it stuck. It should have been "interacted with", or "measured", or something like that.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 2 days ago

BTW, before a detector aparatus can be created, many physics results were (are?) identified through observation, which might include a measurement or might be qualitative.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

The point is that you can't observe anything without some kind of interaction. Even just looking at something requires bouncing light off of it.

We're used to our observations seeming passive because light is often hitting the things anyways, but the double slit experiment forces the point because the subjects of the experiment are so small that even just using ways of observing them affects the outcome of the experiment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago

Went here to write this

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is the thing you’re indicating that it’s interacting with was the slits ?

Or are you referring to something else?

Can you explain further?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, not the slits. How the "observation" is done is you measure what goes through the slit with a detector just on the other side. The detector has to interact with the photons, so it collapses the waveform, making it behave like a particle, only passing through one slit. If you remove the detector then it has wave-like behavior, as the waveform only collapses once it hits the surface on the far end.

The waveform collapses any time it interacts with something. The experiment just takes advantage of this by making it collapse in a way that creates a different result than if we don't collapse it until later, where the waves can interact.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ok so technically there are 2 to 3 ways it’s interacting to dissolve here?

1 - the slits 2 - the surface at the far end on which the particles land 3 - whatever method is being used to read it on the other side of the slits?

Just clarifying as the experiment has more than one interaction so when you said interaction I need to clarify which interaction.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

Yes, that's correct! Interacting with the barrier that creates the slits we don't care about, but yes, that collapses it too.

Interacting with the surface we're measuring in all the experiments. It doesn't change, so it shouldn't be effecting the results. It does collapse the waveform though, which is how we measure it.

Detecting it at the slit is the part that changes. If we don't do this, we get wave-like behavior, because there's no interaction until it hits the surface at the end. The wave can pass through both slits without any interaction. If we put in a detector, then it must interact with that to pass through, so it collapses the waveform and behaves like a particle at that point. This means it must be at one slit or the other, and not both.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What are the ‘detectors’ that were used?

(Looking at the image up there they have bars placed on the facing side of the slits there, is that the detector they were referring to when they said ‘monitoring’ it in this case?)

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is /c/science_memes, not /c/exactly_correct_science_memes

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm aware. I just hate the mystical way things like this are treated, and there's a lot of uninformed people. I don't care that the meme is wrong. I care that people believe that the experiment says something other than what it says, which is already really cool.

[–] DragonAce@lemmy.world 144 points 3 days ago
[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 102 points 3 days ago
[–] ExtremeUnicorn@feddit.org 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What’s that weird site where you have to first read the quote below the reply on top?

[–] DragonOracleIX@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] ExtremeUnicorn@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Was it always like this or only since Yilong Ma took over? How ppl are using this shit beats me.

[–] theQuickBrownFox@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

always has been. what is presented here is basically a repost or a quote of another tweet.

[–] crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 72 points 3 days ago
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 58 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If only helicopter parents understood the basics of the double slit experiment!

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 days ago

I'm afraid a significant number of them does but prefer the second one. It's easier to predict and less chaotic

load more comments
view more: next ›