Double Slit Experiment

[George-ananda]

lol, I know it looks like a eye in the cartoon.

Sorry, the eye is an appropriate analogy. They actually knew what they were doing.


The device used is a photomultiplier and it only detects and amplifies. It doesn't send out anything that bounces off the electron. An eye is an appropriate analogy. They are both input only devices.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Sorry, the eye is an appropriate analogy. They actually knew what they were doing.


The device used is a photomultiplier and it only detects and amplifies. It doesn't send out anything that bounces off the electron. An eye is an appropriate analogy. They are both input only devices.

A photomultiplier will only work if the electron has interacted with a photon that is then converted into a current. Anything you think of is going to require interaction with the system.

 

[George-ananda]

A photomultiplier will only work if the electron has interacted with a photon that is then converted into a current.

so, the same photon/electron interaction will occur with or without the photomultiplier being there. So why should observing with a photomultiplier effect anything???

 

[brokensymmetry]

so, the same photon/electron interaction will occur with or without the photomultiplier being there. So why should observing with a photomultiplier effect anything???

You have to have some way to discern that an electron has passed through a path. Any system you set up that can do that is going to have to interact with the electron, otherwise it is invisible to the detector. Light (or something) has to be shined and the electron has to happen to interact with. I am not sure how you think the detection is occurring based on what you are saying.

 

[atanu]

lol, I know it looks like a eye in the cartoon. What I am telling you is that that part is not scientifically accurate.

There are some really amazing and strange thing that come out of the double slit experiment. The idea that the wave function collapses by physical interaction is itself amazing and strange. The idea that there is a wave function at all is amazing and strange. There is so much incredible going on here, and I think you are missing it because you are focusing on one thing, one thing that is not really happening.

I think this is good. However, the one thing that George is focussing on may really be the most important mystery. Else, there would be no question of 'Non Local variable' coming up.

If we link the observation of the Two Slit and Paired Photon experiments, we surmise (or 'see') that there seems to be Non Local communication happening beneath our manifest power of sensual awareness.

 

[idav]

I think this is good. However, the one thing that George is focussing on may really be the most important mystery. Else, there would be no question of 'Non Local variable' coming up.

If we link the observation of the Two Slit and Paired Photon experiments, we surmise (or 'see') that there seems to be Non Local communication happening beneath our manifest power of sensual awareness.

An issue they run into is the instrument has to be quantum to detect something quantum and so the photon gets entanled with our waveless reality. Deep down it is all waves/frequency/energy.

 

[atanu]

An issue they run into is the instrument has to be quantum to detect something quantum and so the photon gets entanled with our waveless reality. Deep down it is all waves/frequency/energy.

I do not understand how one can arrive at such a claim "Deep down it is all waves/frequency/energy....."

Has any science shown that? By claiming our own intelligence to be deterministic product of inert matter and also claiming that "I know this objectively and I know it better than you", some scientists only betray their non-thinking beliefs.

What Everett did was that he removed the observer as independent of the system and included the observer/observation/interaction/interference within the system...... and that took him to Many World theory.... a theory that predicts non-communicating infinite number of universes. Now one can never ever verify these many universes since they are non-communicating. Moreover, Everett, himself believed that a man is immortal as per his own Many World theory, because one may die in one yet live on in another universe.

Can anyone explain as to what splits? Does Everett finally prove that there was no role of consciousness or did he, on the other hand, pushed us a bit farther into the wisdom that the Seeing/Knowing is deeper than physical material.. and is non local. Else what splits? How the whole universe, including its objects, animate and inanimate, split into different universes?

 

[crossfire]

I do not understand how one can arrive at such a claim "Deep down it is all waves/frequency/energy....."

Has any science shown that? By claiming our own intelligence to be deterministic product of inert matter and also claiming that "I know this objectively and I know it better than you", some scientists only betray their non-thinking beliefs.

When systems become complex, there is enough chaos built up between the multiple interconnections that cause and effect can quickly become ambiguous. The human brain is one of the most complex systems to have been discovered yet, so the amount of chaos from this complexity is sufficient to overcome any claims of determinism.

 

[idav]

I do not understand how one can arrive at such a claim "Deep down it is all waves/frequency/energy....."

Has any science shown that? By claiming our own intelligence to be deterministic product of inert matter and also claiming that "I know this objectively and I know it better than you", some scientists only betray their non-thinking beliefs.

What Everett did was that he removed the observer as independent of the system and included the observer/observation/interaction/interference within the system...... and that took him to Many World theory.... a theory that predicts non-communicating infinite number of universes. Now one can never ever verify these many universes since they are non-communicating. Moreover, Everett, himself believed that a man is immortal as per his own Many World theory, because one may die in one yet live on in another universe.

Can anyone explain as to what splits? Does Everett finally prove that there was no role of consciousness or did he, on the other hand, pushed us a bit farther into the wisdom that the Seeing/Knowing is deeper than physical material.. and is non local. Else what splits? How the whole universe, including its objects, animate and inanimate, split into different universes?

Cause when we get to the building blocks the atoms are built on various forces and bosons that hold certain frequencies. These particles including electrons are in high states of energy that allow it to, like being at the speed of light, uses space time at its disposal. As you mentioned the experiment where the particles seems to predict the experiment. A couple things seem to show, that the experiments are effecting the outcome and that the particles violate spacetime. The implications are things like the many worlds theory. How are particles in many places before they can evene be there? By using special relativity to its advavntage. The seeming communication is a consequence of the information being attainable through real laws of physics.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I think this is good. However, the one thing that George is focussing on may really be the most important mystery. Else, there would be no question of 'Non Local variable' coming up.

If we link the observation of the Two Slit and Paired Photon experiments, we surmise (or 'see') that there seems to be Non Local communication happening beneath our manifest power of sensual awareness.

The nonlocality of entanglement is typically what causes the most wonderment. George is off in that he thinks observation qua observation is special somehow and that is mistaken.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I do not understand how one can arrive at such a claim "Deep down it is all waves/frequency/energy....."

Has any science shown that? By claiming our own intelligence to be deterministic product of inert matter and also claiming that "I know this objectively and I know it better than you", some scientists only betray their non-thinking beliefs.

What Everett did was that he removed the observer as independent of the system and included the observer/observation/interaction/interference within the system...... and that took him to Many World theory.... a theory that predicts non-communicating infinite number of universes. Now one can never ever verify these many universes since they are non-communicating. Moreover, Everett, himself believed that a man is immortal as per his own Many World theory, because one may die in one yet live on in another universe.

Can anyone explain as to what splits? Does Everett finally prove that there was no role of consciousness or did he, on the other hand, pushed us a bit farther into the wisdom that the Seeing/Knowing is deeper than physical material.. and is non local. Else what splits? How the whole universe, including its objects, animate and inanimate, split into different universes?

The Everett interpretation isn't very popular in scientific circles. That being said, what 'splits off' is that every superposition of states which collapses into an eigenstate, i.e. a single determined state of some observable, is played out in some world. So for instance, if you have a superposition of spin states in some system, two electrons, you measure one and see it's spin up, infer the other must be spin down, in some other universe you measured spin down.

By the way, every time you are trying to learn about quantum mechanics and people are talking about themselves doing measurements, you can just as well replace that with any physical interaction that causes decoherence. It doesn't have to be a literal measurement by a person.

 

[atanu]

When systems become complex, there is enough chaos built up between the multiple interconnections that cause and effect can quickly become ambiguous. .....

That seems all the more reason that the thoughts are not only not objective but chaotic too.

 

[atanu]

The Everett interpretation isn't very popular in scientific circles. That being said, what 'splits off' is that every superposition of states which collapses into an eigenstate, i.e. a single determined state of some observable, is played out in some world. So for instance, if you have a superposition of spin states in some system, two electrons, you measure one and see it's spin up, infer the other must be spin down, in some other universe you measured spin down.

By the way, every time you are trying to learn about quantum mechanics and people are talking about themselves doing measurements, you can just as well replace that with any physical interaction that causes decoherence. It doesn't have to be a literal measurement by a person.

Good post.

Let me share the following with any non science person who may happen to read this.

Quantum suicide and immortality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avi1001]

Interesting thoughts, BrokenS. Is QM of particular interest to you ? My interests are more in solid state physics. But this topic is fun.

The Everett interpretation isn't very popular in scientific circles. That being said, what 'splits off' is that every superposition of states which collapses into an eigenstate, i.e. a single determined state of some observable, is played out in some world. So for instance, if you have a superposition of spin states in some system, two electrons, you measure one and see it's spin up, infer the other must be spin down, in some other universe you measured spin down.

By the way, every time you are trying to learn about quantum mechanics and people are talking about themselves doing measurements, you can just as well replace that with any physical interaction that causes decoherence. It doesn't have to be a literal measurement by a person.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Interesting thoughts, BrokenS. Is QM of particular interest to you ? My interests are more in solid state physics. But this topic is fun.

Solid state is cool. I enjoy QM but I'm not a QM theorist. My field is in the realm of atomic physics so attempt to apply it to stuff.

 

[ruffen]

The point is how can a passive observer (only receiving information) disturb the photon or electron?

A passive observer cannot know which slit the electron went through. You cannot passively see something unless photons are bouncing of that something, and then it's not passive.

If there is an object somewhere that you absolutely do not interact with at all, then you cannot see it, because seeing it is receiving info from something interacting with it.

 

[George-ananda]

A passive observer cannot know which slit the electron went through. You cannot passively see something unless photons are bouncing of that something, and then it's not passive.

If there is an object somewhere that you absolutely do not interact with at all, then you cannot see it, because seeing it is receiving info from something interacting with it.

But if I watch a rolling marble and note what it does we can safely assume that if I didn't watch it, it would still have done the same thing.

Now if I watch a moving electron and note what it does I note that it moves as a particle. And if I don't watch it, it will move as a wave.

So, I'm not seeing how your explanation makes sense here because whatever was interacting with the marble or electron that allowed it to be visible was happening whether I was watching or not. So your explanation doesn't seem to explain this observer effect.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Quantum Physics scares me, how to quantum world works is very strange and nobody exactly knows what's going on!

 

[brokensymmetry]

But if I watch a rolling marble and note what it does we can safely assume that if I didn't watch it, it would still have done the same thing.

Now if I watch a moving electron and note what it does I note that it moves as a particle. And if I don't watch it, it will move as a wave.

So, I'm not seeing how your explanation makes sense here because whatever was interacting with the marble or electron that allowed it to be visible was happening whether I was watching or not. So your explanation doesn't seem to explain this observer effect.

How the electron interacts with its surroundings depends on the system its interacting with. There doesn't have to literally be an observer sitting there prodding it. Superpositions of states tend to be delicate because any interaction with another system can cause the one system to decohere.

In the end quantum field theory has everything as excitations of a field. There are fermioinic and bosonic fields, there is one for an electron, and any one electron is a mode of the field. My point is, it may not be too fruitful to attach deep mystery to the QM effect without looking at the further physical theories we have also. Or, looking at the actual formalism of QM itself-- the various formalisms! It may be another way of viewing it, say, through the path integral approach provides you with a deeper sense of the physical reality that is being attempted to explain. It isn't that QM doesn't have weirdness to it, but it will help I suspect to have a more sharply defined sense of the weirdness that interests you.

 

[atanu]

How the electron interacts with its surroundings depends on the system its interacting with. There doesn't have to literally be an observer sitting there prodding it. Superpositions of states tend to be delicate because any interaction with another system can cause the one system to decohere.

In the end quantum field theory has everything as excitations of a field. There are fermioinic and bosonic fields, there is one for an electron, and any one electron is a mode of the field. My point is, it may not be too fruitful to attach deep mystery to the QM effect without looking at the further physical theories we have also. Or, looking at the actual formalism of QM itself-- the various formalisms! It may be another way of viewing it, say, through the path integral approach provides you with a deeper sense of the physical reality that is being attempted to explain. It isn't that QM doesn't have weirdness to it, but it will help I suspect to have a more sharply defined sense of the weirdness that interests you.

While I tend to agree to you, at least to a large degree, let me me ask you whether we can say that the main difference in two sets of experiments: with observation and without observation, boils down to INTENTION OF THE EXPERIMENTER/EXPERIMENT.

Is that an objective statement or not?