Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
The "observation" doesn't occur when a person sees the result, but rather when the electron or photon interacts with the device (in this case the wall). The wall is making the observation. In this situation "observation" doesn't have the traditional meaning, but rather refers to an interaction event.
So the same average result will happen no matter where the device is, the only thing that changes is its proximity to you.
There is a great article on space.com that covers this exact scenario.
https://www.space.com/667-quantum-astronomy-cosmic-scale-double-slit-experiment.html
First, though, your premise is a bit off. Zooming in still wouldn't change the speed of light or change how fast the photons take to get from point A to your zoom lens. Zooming doesn't give you a time or distance shortcut - all zooming does is decrease the angle of view of whatever you are pointied at. The only thing that matters in the double slit experiment is whether you observe them enroute or if you observe the screen after impact. If the screen were between you and the photon sources and you zoomed in, the photons would still hit the screen first and the photons you observe through the lens would come after.
The TL/DR of that article I cited earlier is that we still know the field would collapse. The more interesting question (and the one they pose in the article that remains unanswered) is: how fast does the collapse propagate back to the source? Is the propagation delay of the collapse instant/infinite (like what would be described by entanglement) or is the speed of the collapse still subjected to the speed of light (which is the same for the propagation delay of gravitational waves)?
The links to the older articles are dead in that link. Here's an archive of the 3rd essay (and it links to the second and first). The 3rd essay presents a thought experiment very close to what OP is asking. If we delay the choice of inserting a detector then would we still get an interference pattern when we're not supposed to? It seems that the question is still unanswered but theoretically, no, because the universe is not locally real and quantum effects seem to happen faster than light in plenty of other experiments.
When you say zoom in, what you are actually asking is what if the wall was a light year away, and you're building the delayed choice version of the experiment, details here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
But basically, the universe knows, and you can't worm your way around it.if you detect which slit the photons flow through, then you lose the interference pattern.
A measurement device is necessarily local: if it’s “zooming in” from a light year away, it’s using transmitted particles to observe—and those particles are traveling (and entangled) with the particles you’re trying to observe.
If the measurement device were a light year away and were precise enough to “zoom in” and see which slit the electrons went through, what would happen on the final screen?
That level of precision implies technological advancement, that would result with far better equipment to perform the test and measure the results, providing they would be still needed.
I know it sounds like an attempt to brush the question off, but it's Spherical Cow and/or Newton's Flaming Laser Sword territory. 😉
The results of the double slit experiment and the uncertainty principle will not change with our level of technology. They are fundamental laws of nature.
The quality of the camera to observe the result of the double slit experiment (meaning the pattern on the wall) has no effect on the results.
I disagree.
The hardware, software, money involved and other variables required to conduct an experiment from a lightyear away definitely elevate the project to different level on Kardashev's scale.