The Double-Slit Experiment: The "Fuck You" of Quantum Mechanics

Okay, most of you are probably aware of the double-slit experiment, but for those who aren't, it basically goes like this:

When particles are fired at two slits, you would expect to find that a pattern of two lines are made.  Easy.

When a wave is fired, you get an interference pattern where wave crests cancel each other out or acquire more energy.

So when a stream of electrons are fired at two slits, we get an interference pattern.  This in itself is weird.  However, even when electrons are fired individually at the double slits, we get this same pattern.  Apparently, the electron is acting like a wave.

This is the part where the electron apparently says, "Fuck off, physicists."

When the electron is observed going through the slits, it acts like a particle and not a wave.

So basically the purpose of this thread is to discuss the observer's role in this.

I don't think it's the fact that we're observing it, but rather the fact that we're measuring it - or, to put it more accurately, the fact that it is being measured. There's nothing special about our brains that can possibly affect the behaviour of an electron like this just by watching it.

Why was a head expoding a reply...? (taht was retoricle, I actually dont care)

though yes, I do know of this, and so will anyone woh has watched "What the Bleep: Down thr Rabbit hole"

I suspect my ealier posts have begun to open people into here with this "New Science" as I like to call it. Though there is not much new about it, in many cases people are just accepting.
Though in saying that, they are only "accepting" because of the awosme experements taht have sparked all sorts of new ideas. You know what I cant wait for... when this stuff will be used to make new tech, I dont know what it would be, but it would be cool, yes.

also, I dont understand the reply to this, how does "measuring" it (and I remind you that in this case it was just observed) change the experement outcome, if now though the fact that thought, at least human thought, has outcomes on electrons?

   -Liam

though yes, I do know of this, and so will anyone woh has watched "What the Bleep: Down thr Rabbit hole"

That movie was terrible.

also, I dont understand the reply to this, how does "measuring" it (and I remind you that in this case it was just observed) change the experement outcome, if now though the fact that thought, at least human thought, has outcomes on electrons?

I don't feel like deciphering this gibberish. I'll answer your question when it is phrased in syntactically correct English.

By measuring the electron, we are forcing it to collapse it's other waveforms and instead of an integral path, or the "sum over histories", it follows a set path, that one we force it to take.

Are you saying you subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, or are you just noting what is known so far?

I like the Feynman explanation - that the electron actually takes all possible paths simultaneously. If you place a detector at one slit, you see the sum of all the possible paths from the origin to that point. I'm not sure if this contributes anything, but everyone seems to just be chipping in their opinions at the moment...

Yes Matrix, that is all that's happening.
And in all honestly its all taht will, because none of us actually do THESE experiments, we just don't have the tech lying around, tiss all.
We can only work from what eveidence is given, and if you say, "that evedence didn't happen" "it's faked" or anything else alone these lines, we cant argue with you.
It's ok that we all have differnt oppinions, but evedence is all that can be given, dont say it did OR didn't happen, because no one here actually knows.
   -Liam

Quote from: Whiteshoes-n-gloves on August 29, 2008, 07:25:57 AM

though yes, I do know of this, and so will anyone woh has watched "What the Bleep: Down thr Rabbit hole"

That movie was terrible.

Quote from: Whiteshoes-n-gloves on August 29, 2008, 07:25:57 AM

also, I dont understand the reply to this, how does "measuring" it (and I remind you that in this case it was just observed) change the experement outcome, if now though the fact that thought, at least human thought, has outcomes on electrons?

I don't feel like deciphering this gibberish. I'll answer your question when it is phrased in syntactically correct English.

your right, that is gibberish, what the hell was I writing? lol
I think I was saying two things...
1. The electron was only observed, not so much "measured" which may imply that something ELSE more "phisical" "touched" the electron. And by observing it, the experiments out come changed.

2. HOW is this possible? though I DO believe that it is through (in this case human) thought, that this experement shows such wacky answers. How does the actually transition take place, HOW does a thought do what it does, if its suposed to be happening in your brain and nowhere else?

   -Liam

your right, that is gibberish, what the hell was I writing? lol
I think I was saying two things...
1. The electron was only observed, not so much "measured" which may imply that something ELSE more "phisical" "touched" the electron. And by observing it, the experiments out come changed.

2. HOW is this possible? though I DO believe that it is through (in this case human) thought, that this experement shows such wacky answers. How does the actually transition take place, HOW does a thought do what it does, if its suposed to be happening in your brain and nowhere else?

It can't be observed without being measured, and it can't be measured without being affected. In order to measure its position, we need to take advantage of one of the ways in which it interacts with a detector. We can't do so gravitationally due to its tiny mass, and it won't be interacting through either of the nuclear forces, so that leaves us with the electromagnetic force. Any detection of its behaviour electromagnetically will necessarily change the electric or magnetic field around it by a small amount, which will in turn impact upon its motion. Thus, it is my view that by forcing it to interact with a detector, we are forcing its waveform to collapse.

hmm, too true.
Though I would like to point out that that dissproves my point, I would also like to point out that there is currently no other theory behind WHY it actaully moves.
Sure we can say that its because we have interacted with it, but why does the experement change in this certain way?

   -Liam

That movie was terrible.

What did you dislike?

What did you dislike?

The plot.

The plot.

Er...of the acting portion? Or you mean you didn't like the theme?

Er...of the acting portion? Or you mean you didn't like the theme?

I didn't like the fact that they mixed what could have been an interesting and educational film with a story about some deaf woman and her lack of self esteem.

True.

When the electron is observed going through the slits, it acts like a particle and not a wave.

I thought the easy explanation was to just give electro-magnatic energy a particle wave dual nature... and call it a night...

I'm not familiar with the experiment myself but your referring to the interference pattern given off by an interferometer correct? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Michelson Morely experiments...

First off... where do they get off thinking the Aether moved in relation to the sun? And what made them think that “a displacement proportional to the square of the velocity” was an insignificant result...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

And this person claims to have found the Ether... not the luminous Aether...

"Frank Wilczek - The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces"

The fundamentals of physics haven't been realized yet...

So basically the purpose of this thread is to discuss the observer's role in this.

After reading about the experiment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

I would think the 16 fringes correlates in some manner with harmonics... I know very little about light but I did take some sound engineering courses... it looks like phase cancellations and amplifications... what exactly is the big deal?

so particles travel in waves... perhaps this is not a problem with the property of light... but the axioms of quantum mechanics... but I do understand that your intuition would have you believe that electron (force) travels like a particle while the actual photon (matter?) travels like a physical wave...

so... this actually makes sense to me... what exactly is the big deal?

I remember this from my optics course.  Anything with particle-wave duality can only be measured or observed as a wave or a particle, but no device can measure both nor any experiment can allow the observation of both.

I remember this from my optics course.  Anything with particle-wave duality can only be measured or observed as a wave or a particle, but no device can measure both nor any experiment can allow the observation of both.

So what this video is saying is essentially true to a certain extent?

"Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment"



When you say no device can measure both. Which devices are these?

The video I posted makes it sound like electrons are not particles at all but rather waves of energy. This is what it is isn't it?

Photons = Massless particles?

What makes anybody think they are particles at all... Gravitons are purely theoretical to my knowledge. Are photons the only massless particles? Perhaps massless particles are an illusion of sorts? Rather they are simply the measurement of mass potential everything be relative?

Holy fuck, right when the head explodes it looks like a panda. Does anyone else see that?

Holy fuck, right when the head explodes it looks like a panda. Does anyone else see that?

Was Newton involved in the production of your video at all? Then yes... Of course it's a panda.

Quote from: fluorescence on October 07, 2008, 01:11:21 PM

Holy fuck, right when the head explodes it looks like a panda. Does anyone else see that?

Was Newton involved in the production of your video at all? Then yes... Of course it's a panda.

I'm serious, do you see it?

Quote from: MrKappa on October 07, 2008, 02:34:34 PM

Quote from: fluorescence on October 07, 2008, 01:11:21 PM

Holy fuck, right when the head explodes it looks like a panda. Does anyone else see that?

Was Newton involved in the production of your video at all? Then yes... Of course it's a panda.

I'm serious, do you see it?

LOOK!

Now that you've isolated it. Of course.

So what does this have to do with the double slit experiment?

If I shot a single panda head through a double slit. Would it splatter like a panda head or wave?

Now that you've isolated it. Of course.

So what does this have to do with the double slit experiment?

If I shot a single panda head through a double slit. Would it splatter like a panda head or wave?

Splatter - panda head too large to maintain coherence.

I read about this in a Dilbert book, therefore it must be true.

I read about this in a Dilbert book, therefore it must be true.

Well... Apparently it is true. Light has a particle and wave dual nature. I posted a video earlier which seems to distort the meaning behind what the observer is and how it effects the measurements and outcome of the experiment.

It would be impossible to my knowledge that the simple fact of observing the experiment could somehow change the nature of light as this would require the Universe to have a consciousness.

This leaves me only one other option. The measuring devices are inherently different. When one is used it can see one "spectrum" of energy while when another measuring device is used it can see the other spectrum.

Somebody must know the reason why light shares both particle and wave properties and why observations using different measuring devices produce different results.

Either that or we are all crazy and the Universe is indeed alive with consciousness.

Which one is it?

Scott Adams made it happen.

Scott Adams made it happen.

Oh... I see... It all makes sense now... Thanks. If your holding any seminars or lectures in the near future. Sign me up...

Remember... No matter what anybody else says. Weed makes you stupid.

( not that there is anything wrong with that )