Double Slit Experiment

[idav]

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?

It isnt the intention it is the action of the experiment/experimenter.

 

[brokensymmetry]

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?

Why does it have to be an experiment or involve observers? It does *not*. While we might cast these thought experiments in that way because humans tend to do experiments, you can take away all that talk about observers and experiments and the same things hold true.

It depends on the larger system the electron is interacting with as far as how it acts. Does it decohere? Does it remain in a superposition of states? It doesn't matter if the larger system involves an actual experiment or is just out there, by virtue of nature. The same questions can be asked and you will get similar answers.

 

[brokensymmetry]

It isnt the intention it is the action of the experiment/experimenter.

Yes.

The end result is the physical situation. The intentions of experimenters is irrelevant.

 

[atanu]

Why does it have to be an experiment or involve observers? It does *not*. While we might cast these thought experiments in that way because humans tend to do experiments, you can take away all that talk about observers and experiments and the same things hold true.

It depends on the larger system the electron is interacting with as far as how it acts. .......

Why? Isn't the experimenter part of the whole environment? Isn't that what decoherence suggests, although not in so many words.

What actually is different in the two sets of experiments?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Why? Isn't the experimenter part of the whole environment? Isn't that what decoherence suggests, although not in so many words.

What actually is different in the two sets of experiments?

I am not sure what you are objecting to? Yeah, one way to understand decoherence is to think of the smaller system (i.e. the electron) become entangled with a larger system (in this case, the experimental apparatus).

 

[atanu]

I am not sure what you are objecting to? Yeah, one way to understand decoherence is to think of the smaller system (i.e. the electron) become entangled with a larger system (in this case, the experimental apparatus).

And the larger system is insulated from its environment?

 

[brokensymmetry]

And the larger system is insulated from its environment?

There is never perfect isolation no. You can always consider the larger system.

 

[Avi1001]

There is never perfect isolation no. You can always consider the larger system.

Until the larger system is the entire universe. I have to catch up on this thread .

 

[George-ananda]

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

Why should that scare you? To me it makes things more interesting. It adds to 'The Sum of Awe' in the universe.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Would it be fair then to call quantum theory 'mysterious' in its nature.

Others here seem to be trying to say there is nothing mysterious here; just complex interactions of things. They, to me, do not seen to be grasping why this experiment is so talked about.

I understand your cautioning against people using this mystery as evidence for more speculative theories at this point in time.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Would it be fair then to call quantum theory 'mysterious' in its nature.

Others here seem to be trying to say there is nothing mysterious here; just complex interactions of things. They, to me, do not seen to be grasping why this experiment is so talked about.

I understand your cautioning against people using this mystery as evidence for more speculative theories at this point in time.

There are things about QM which are profoundly counterintuitive. There are also things about it that are difficult to interpret physically. "Spooky action at a distance" for instance, if Einstein was disturbed, shouldn't I at least find it odd? IT is, even if we have the mathematical formalism to find it. I prefer to say there are aspects of it that are very weird, but that may just be semantic preferences. I suppose the hesitation I have is that I think QM is improperly imported by certain people to promote stuff like universal consciousness and so on. I don't think it can be legitimately used to support that sort of thing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is always mystery within nature, but that does not make something "mystical".

 

[fantome profane]

Would it be fair then to call quantum theory 'mysterious' in its nature.

Others here seem to be trying to say there is nothing mysterious here; just complex interactions of things. They, to me, do not seen to be grasping why this experiment is so talked about.

I understand your cautioning against people using this mystery as evidence for more speculative theories at this point in time.

If it seems that I was at saying that there is nothing mysterious here, that was not my intention. There are many strange and mysteries elements to quantum theory.

But I don't think you understand why this experiment is so talked about. You are taking this "observer effect" much too literally, and there is so much more going on here than just that.

 

[George-ananda]

If it seems that I was at saying that there is nothing mysterious here, that was not my intention. There are many strange and mysteries elements to quantum theory.

But I don't think you understand why this experiment is so talked about. You are taking this "observer effect" much too literally, and there is so much more going on here than just that.

So what is it that is mysterious to you?

 

[fantome profane]

So what is it that is mysterious to you?

Start with the existence of a wave pattern at all, that is amazing. It is a pattern of probability, that is strange and mysterious. It is absolutely impossible to predict where any single particle will go, but it is absolutely certain that the pattern will emerge.

And yes it is amazing that we can collapse this wave function by taking a measurement. But that does not mean that we collapse the wave function with our minds. This is a strange and bizarre phenomenon. But it is not a "psychic" phenomenon. We affect the particles by physically interacting with them. But the way this affects the particles is still strange and mysterious.

If there is any single idea that I think you should take away from this thread it is this. There is no such thing as passive observation. Keep that in mind as you think about this experiment and you might come to understand it.

 

[atanu]

....... and there is so much more going on here than just that.

But that was the point. Explain away the observer effect and you land into multiverse-s.

 

[idav]

So what is it that is mysterious to you?

The mystery of it is because of the fact that we have such a hard time catching the wave aspect in the act even when we try to be clever, and we are clever. They say its as if the particle knows what experiment we perform, I chalk it up to the experiment physically effecting the result. Its the delayed choice experiments that really boggle the mind especially the delayed choice quantum eraser, I can barely even grapple that one.

 

[idav]

There have been more recent experiments where the q state has been observed so all this mind creating reality stuff is unfounded and debunked.

 

[atanu]

There have been more recent experiments where the q state has been observed so all this mind creating reality stuff is unfounded and debunked.

All these explanations do nothing to change the nature of consciousness, however.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's like those darn eye floaters. Just as you think you've caught one in the corner of your eye, no sooner is it gone. Darn eye floaters!!