Double-slit experiment is B.S.
“I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question” — R. Feynman
The double-slit experiment was first done in 1801 by T. Young and still manages to fascinate people now - more than 200 years later. Finally it’s time for you, dear reader, to see what Young really saw back then but couldn’t explain without spirituality.
So what’s really going on in the double-slit experiment. Photon goes through two slits, interference pattern appears. The moment scientist puts a sensor at the slit, pattern disappears. So the photon must react to conscious observation, Right?
If you answered yes, well, nice try - at least N. Bohr, W. Heisenberg, E. Schrödinger, M. Planck, W. Pauli and many more would have agreed with you. But we are here for the truth, aren’t we. And the statement above, however popular it was, simply couldn’t be further from the truth.
If you are still reading - you deserve to know what’s really going on.
Let’s first demystify what a photon is and what it is not. Photon is our best attempt to describe the phenomena of energy propagation through universe. In other words, photon is not a particle or a wave or anything that can be isolated - photon is simply an event. Think about it this way, from a photon’s POV, the spacetime interval between emission and absorption is always zero. Hence it has no journey, no time, no distance, simply put - it has no physical existence. All it is - is a momentary integral indivisible spread of a tiny bit of energy through spacetime, whether you can see it in the visual spectrum or not.
So, why the conscious observation has nothing to do with the double-slit experiment, after all? If you have read the paragraph above, you would have concluded that there is no such thing as the photon, hence it can’t be changing its behavior. The question then get’s down to, what do we observe when we add a sensor. And the answer is stupid simple - only the energy teleporting from the source to the destination. In the first scenario, the energy teleports laser → screen. In the second scenario it goes laser → sensor. Both sensors then reemit the energy back, each creating thus the independent sensor → screen transfer. That’s why when sensors are present the screen shows the two independent sources of light.
You may ask, how such brilliant minds could have been tricked so easily by a double-slit high school riddle - you would have all rights to do so! The answer could be that these scientists lived 200 years ago and were building quantum mechanics from scratch without information theory, decoherence or mental models we take for granted today. Or it could be something entirely different, we will never know - and it hardly even matters. Today we shall make our own unbiased conclusions!
So, why now, in 2026, with all information we have, there are still many smart people, who relate to this experiment and romanticize existence. Why don’t they simply google it? The answer, I believe, lies in how most of us are hardwired. Thing is, you can be brilliant at your job, have high IQ, build beautiful things, and still have no psychic tools for telling the truth from a fallacy. For seeing clearly without godly objections is a gift, that can be acquired through either a psychic trauma or by constantly training your capacity to stress your own beliefs. For those of you who take the hard path, the following framing helped me personally to remove the bias:
Physics and spirituality can’t intersect by definition - they are like the game console and the game itself. The game can be spiritual, have magic and gods and they are quite real within the game, however none of that will make the console fly or walk on water. The game is a hallucination of the brain.
If you relate yourself with this text, I shall warn you that you have taken the lonely uncomfortable path. Spirituality offers something that pure curiosity never can - comfort, community, certainty, a narrative where you matter. And people aren’t wrong for wanting that. It is a comforting replacement for seeing reality as it is - ugly, cold, debatable, uncertain. This rollercoaster never cares about the rider. For he may grip the handlebar, pray, survive the turn, his brain will take the credit. But the credit was never there, the cart never cared, and the prayer was simply irrelevant.
For the further reading, you may enjoy R. Feynman and A. Einstein.