|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.39.24
In Reply to: RE: The Double-Slit experiment posted by Paul Eizik on May 30, 2015 at 11:43:38
I researched beyond that video.The sensor tracks the photons to see which slit it goes through.
The photons land on the collection plate as a wave pattern when the sensor is on and recording.
The photons land on the collector plate as particles would when the sensors are on and not recording.
It's said to be not a matter of perspective but a real change to reality.
I'm not defending it or denying it.
I just want to know, assuming the above is true, why when we observe both the movement at the slit the photons and where they land, the photons stop acting as a wave (WRT where they land on the collector plate) but when we just observe where they land on the collector plate, but not the movement at the slit, they land on the collector as a wave?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 05/30/15 05/30/15Follow Ups:
The video actually refers to electrons being fired one-at-a-time at the double slit plate and wave behavior is observed. Then a sensor is placed near one of the slits and particulate behavior is observed. Electrons are very small and easily influenced by electro-magnetic fields and other electrons. Any sensor would have to be drastically larger than a single electron, and as such would become a major factor in the experiment. If you put a small magnet (which is not observing anything) in place of the sensor, it's reasonable to expect that the magnet would affect the experiment. It's not mentioned in the video whether a second sensor was placed near the other slit to see how that affected the experiment, and a scientist would be expected to explore all possibilities. The experiment really just proves the wave-like nature of the electron rather than the former conception of it as a solid ball of matter orbiting a central nucleus, which is analogous to a miniature earth and sun. There are too many holes in the experiment as it's presented in the video for it to stand up as evidence that the Copenhagen Interpretation is at work and observation is creating reality. If you substitute "measurement" for "observation", then it's easy to see why it's extremely important in science to understand how a measurement can affect the experiment.
This is not to dismiss the strangeness of the quantum world. There is also a longer 12 min. version on youtube of the 9 min. video you linked to here. In that version quantum entanglement is discussed, which Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance". This has been discussed on this very forum a while ago.
How does this relate to audio? After all we're in an Audio Asylum. The late Richard Heyser was an audio pioneer, and he was also interested in the quantum realm. He saw parallels between our difficulty correlating our audio measurements with what we hear, and some of the measurement paradoxes in the quantum world. Heyser's unpublished papers are now available on the Columbia College of Chicago website. They are being presided over by Doug Jones who did a very interesting presentation on Heyser at the Chicago AES meeting this May. Richard Feynman (who was a teacher of Heyser's) used to say "There are two things you have to remember with science: 1. That you have to be careful you are not fooling yourself; and 2. That you are the easiest person to fool."
Paul
I have nothing intelligent enough to add to this except that oddly I just joined The Asylum and independently was watching this video and reading about the topic, and just wondering how I got started on that and what an odd coincidence it is to be reading this here
Sort of like that "monkey" effect they spoke of back in the 80s
I personally was thinking that the quantum world may finally be elementary enough to bring into focus the stark difference between our thought processes and the actual objective functioning of reality. That just like philosophy fell into epistimology and linguistics then this too could be more a descriptor of how our thought processes are maybe hopelessly based in metaphor and versions of causality that simply do not apply to fundamental reality
And, no, I cannot clarify this further...LOL
JaroTheWise
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: