Strange

Changing the name from "screen" to "panel" doesn't change the fact that there isn't one in the quantum version of the experiment. So what. They are not what measure where the photons end up. But the only observations that are made involved stopping the photon (or electron) to detect it. There are no observations made "in flight." But as you have invented this fake rule, it is irrelevant anyway. [Cross-posted with the thread closure. But I am leaving it here, anyway.]

But it is not observed ("seen") by us until it hits the eye. At which point, it is destroyed; ie. not "in flight". Just like the detector of the interference pattern.

It may be worth highlighting a few things 1. As far as I know, a screen is not used in the quantum version of the experiment as you would not be able to see where a single particle hit. 2. When making the “which slit” measurement, the particles going through the slit are not observed at all. Certainly not “in flight” because any such observation of a photon, for example, would destroy it. 3. The observation that is actually made uses exactly the same sort of detector as the “screen” so you can’t say one is an observation and the other isn’t.

I think that is debatable. (The field is more fundamental than the particle, it is a wave as much as a particle, it is surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles, it’s mass comes from its interaction with the Higgs, etc.) I am not aware of any evidence for that.

Of course it is an observation: we observe where the particle hits. You wouldn't observe the interference fringes if you didn't observe where the particles hit. I don't know why you think it "would never show fringe" but that is clearly false. Who says that is the case? We would be very limited in what we could measure if that were the case. Radar wouldn't work. DVD players wouldn't work. We would be blind and deaf. And so on. That is a pretty daft definition of observation. No one ever said that. What do you mean by "physical objects"? Any interaction counts as an observation in quantum theory, so it definitely counters as an observation. Can you provide a source that supports this definition? We do when your explanation is (a) made up and (b) wrong. Only the "facts" you have invented.

Yes. Obviously. Obviously not as we observe where the photons/electrons/atoms etc “hit” to determine the interference pattern. So that observation happens when the particle is not in flight.

When you observe wave-like properties. Obvs. Measuring wavelength, is one obvious example. Interference is another (even though it seems to annoy you for some reason).

Observation can either show wave-like properties or particle-like properties. Both of which are physical. What "parlour trick"?

This was all about observation: "Similarly, you can either measure wave-like properties or particle-like properties, not both." Observation is an important part of quantum theory. It is taken into account all the time.

Because <sigh> as with the picture above, you can either see a candlestick OR faces, not both. Similarly, you can either measure wave-like properties or particle-like properties, not both. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps it might be a good idea to learn a little basic physics before going off and making up your own "theories". I know it is so much easier to make stuff up from a position of ignorance, because you don't have to worry about all the complicated details and the mathematics, but it is a rather futile pursuit. The only person who will be impressed by the power of your imagination is yourself. Waves cause interference patterns but don't bounce off one another.

If it weren't at the same time, it wouldn't be duality.

No world. Who are you talking to? What experiment are you talking about?

"When things are a long distance apart then there is a long distant between them." Not exactly worthy of a Nobel Prize but well done.

We have had a couple of different members recently who have referenced Lee Smolin's work (in one case, claiming he had stolen their ideas). So I thought people might be interested in hearing what the man himself has to say about his work: https://www.quantamagazine.org/were-stuck-inside-the-universe-lee-smolin-has-an-idea-for-how-to-study-it-anyway-20190627/

Ah, I didn't realise "every" meant "one". ! Moderator Note Now all you need to do is provide a reference for "observational support for a different Planck length beyond the cosmic event horizon"

! Moderator Note Again, this does not answer the question. Even if there are unanswered questions in current models, that does not provide any support for your idea. ! Moderator Note Citation needed.

! Moderator Note And if you keep posting things like this which are both scientifically and historically illiterate, the thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note If you are not able to provide meaningful answers, this thread will be closed. "The CMBR" is not a reference as requested. The CMBR is not beyond the cosmological event horizon.

Measured from where? It sounds as if you are saying that because the universe is big, the Earth is a very long way from some things. That is slightly obvious.

I wouldn't call those "desires". But, I agree, that is why the OP needs to be more precise. (Not one of their strengths, unfortunately.)

Then show us, in mathematical detail, what the testable predictions of this "only difference" are.

A number of ways of doing this have been proposed, some quite high-tech and others using more "natural" processes. A summary of a few here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45967215 But it seems it may not be effective enough, even if it could be done: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sucking-co2-from-the-air-would-not-halt-effects-of-global-warming/ Then there is the problem of what to do with the captured CO2. Unless it can be sequestered for a very long time (probably thousands of years, at least) then it isn't really solving the problem. This system captures CO2 and uses it to grow vegetables: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air Firstly, I am sceptical that providing CO2 to plants will greatly improve yields (for some plants it has the reverse effect). Secondly, once those plants are consumed (and the non-edible parts composted) a large part of the CO2 will be returned to the atmosphere.

How does that say anything about the size of space? Electrons and quarks are both fundamental particles and so are zero-sized. That makes no sense. You haven't said how much you have slowed it down. Obviously you could slow it down by a hundred times or a billion times. That doesn't tell you anything.

What do you mean by “high place”?

You still need to present a scientific argument. So where is your model, the predictions and the evidence? Ironic comment from they guy who says he can’t understand the answers given. You can’t provide an alternative until you understand current theory. You havent got a theory. You have a vague idea with no evidence. That is not how science works.