Two-split experiment proves God does not exist

1) Results of the two-split experiment shows that waves become matter when observed.

2) The two-split experiment shows that waves exist when not observed.

3) God / Allah is supposed to observe EVERYTHING, including two-split exepriments.

4) Since waves exist, they are not being observed.

5) It follows that God / Allah does not exist, since, if he / she / it did exist, then waves should not exist.

I suppose I can be considered very deluded for clicking this thread thinking there might be something worth reading. I've brought shame upon myself.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
I suppose I can be considered very deluded for clicking this thread thinking there might be something worth reading. I've brought shame upon myself.

Shame on you, deluded kid!

🙁

Originally posted by znsho
1) Results of the two-split experiment shows that waves become matter when observed.

2) The two-split experiment shows that waves exist when not observed.

3) God / Allah is supposed to observe EVERYTHING, including two-split exepriments.

4) Since waves exist, they are not being observed.

5) It follows that God / Allah does not exist, since, if he / she / it did exist, then waves should not exist.

Observed by who and when? If you are eternal you can watch the experiment twice and observe both.

Originally posted by znsho
1) Results of the two-split experiment shows that waves become matter when observed.

2) The two-split experiment shows that waves exist when not observed.

3) God / Allah is supposed to observe EVERYTHING, including two-split exepriments.

4) Since waves exist, they are not being observed.

5) It follows that God / Allah does not exist, since, if he / she / it did exist, then waves should not exist.

Interesting argument!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Observed by who and when? If you are eternal you can watch the experiment twice and observe both.

That's my point. If the conclusion is correct, that observation causes waves to become particles, then all-observant God / Allah cannot ever witness waves. He / she / it is everywhere watching everything.

..you make an error ( i think ) in assuming a chronological time construct...a , then b so a cannot exist at the same time as b...if time is not linear and one dimensional then viewing co-existent contradictions in multiple non-linear universes might be possible..

Originally posted by znsho
1) Results of the two-split experiment shows that waves become matter when observed.

2) The two-split experiment shows that waves exist when not observed.

3) God / Allah is supposed to observe EVERYTHING, including two-split exepriments.

4) Since waves exist, they are not being observed.

5) It follows that God / Allah does not exist, since, if he / she / it did exist, then waves should not exist.

define 'observe'...

Originally posted by znsho
1) Results of the two-split experiment shows that waves become matter when observed.

2) The two-split experiment shows that waves exist when not observed.

3) God / Allah is supposed to observe EVERYTHING, including two-split exepriments.

4) Since waves exist, they are not being observed.

5) It follows that God / Allah does not exist, since, if he / she / it did exist, then waves should not exist.

I am most interested to observe that the anti-God group is as vehement in proselytizing it's dogma as the most fundamental christian or muslim.

Originally posted by Red Night
I am most interested to observe that the anti-God group is as vehement in proselytizing it's dogma as the most fundamental christian or muslim.

I can assure you, mate, I do not go around executing or lashing people for being a believer and do not threaten believers with hell fire damnation or wave a knowing finger at them saying 'you will be punished'. I let them live and believe what they want, am quite capable of being their friend and colleague, but I am prepared to put my point of view and engage in a reasoned argument.

There is no hate in my original post at all. Just a philosophical thought. Got it?

I hope you can see the difference.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
define 'observe'...

Ah-ha!!

That's a good one. Are there any Quantum Mechanics persons here? I should like to know more about this experiment and the findings of different ways it might be conducted.

Originally posted by znsho
Ah-ha!!

That's a good one. Are there any Quantum Mechanics persons here? I should like to know more about this experiment and the findings of different ways it might be conducted.

Hi.
I don't know how serious about that but observations really have some different definitions. Some people stress an interaction with a classical object and others say it is only importan to have a concescious observer. Now of course conciousness isn't easy to define nor to agree and so this last definition is a little bit controverse. But one thing that I think everyone agrees is not talking about God. Cause he has nothing to do with it. That would be mixing up different realms. QM was made by humans and refer to humans only.

Besides actual QM may not be the final word. Actually I think it is not the final word. One simple argument is that the usual QM is linear and physicists knows that linear theories are always a first approximation. So why doesn't everybody works on a non-linear QM. Well cause it is very hard and usual QM has a lot of excellent results. The double slit-experiment being just one of them.

If you want to know more about that stuff on an intuitive matter Feynman and some other guy have a good book on quantum mechanics. This book has the distinctive Feynman brand: a difficult subject is presented in a way that it almos seems natural. I haven't read the whole book but I read something like half of it some time ago and I remember liking it. QM has a lot of litterature available. Some good, some bad but a very worthy read to book is Sakurai's Modern Quantum-Mechanics. It's a bit hard if you aren't trained in maths and physics, actually it is impossible if you aren't and somewhat hard if you are, but is an excellent book.

And it seems that you misunderstood the actual meaning of the double slit experiment. what it shows is the complementary aspects of waves and particles in quantum particles. And by complemntary aspects it means that on the quantum level things aren't waves or particles they are quantum beings that possess both atributes and show each one of them according to is being tested. I think you should start by doing a bit of research on principles, or axioms of quantum-mechanics, and try to understand what they really mean then move on to those famous experiments and delight yourself with this wonderful and crazy world.

Originally posted by znsho
I can assure you, mate,
There is no hate in my original post at all. Got it?

Well when you put it like that...I think I'll stand by my original statement.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Hi.
I don't know how serious about that but observations really have some different definitions. Some people stress an interaction with a classical object and others say it is only importan to have a concescious observer. Now of course conciousness isn't easy to define nor to agree and so this last definition is a little bit controverse. But one thing ...[text shortened]... n to those famous experiments and delight yourself with this wonderful and crazy world.

As a biologist all my life, I have finally discovered the wonders of physics and I'll spend my retirement reading around this.

For now, I have a question:

Has a two-slit experiment been performed whereby the observing device is in place, capable of determining when electrons (particles) pass the slit but the result is not made available outside of the box? That is, the human observer can't see the results although the result is stored albeit in such a way that the result cannot be seen.

I hope you follow me.

If such an experiment has been done, what is the result? Particles or waves?