|
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 geoffkait on May 21, 2015 at 04:04:08
Yes, waves when we are not looking and particles when we do look.
But waves when we look at the result. That was my question.
Why don't they act as particles when we look only at the result?
What's the difference between looking at the result vs. looking at which slit they go through?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
No. They are particles and waves all the time. Looking has nothing to do with it. Even electrons are particles and wave all the time - simultaneously. Even bowling balls are particles and waves all the time. Capish?
Did you watch the video?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
No. It doesn't show up on my iPad. Why, does the video dispute me?
Yes.
In the experiment the photons acted like a wave as long as their movement through the slits were not being monitored.
As soon as their movement were being monitored they stopped acting like waves and started acting like particles.
My question is this. The result, of them acting like waves or particles, is/was being monitored. Why wouldn't that cause them to stop acting like a wave?
Why does only monitoring them at the slits cause the wave to "collapse" but monitoring the resultant wave patter not cause the wave to collapse?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Well, that's odd because elsewhere on the Internet perhaps Wikipedia it mentions that when individual photons entering the slits are monitored (in a variation of The laser beam experiment the tell tale interference pattern is observed on the other side, proving that the individual photons are acting as particles when they enter the slits AND waves when they produce the interference pattern on the other side.All atomic particles including photons and electrons - and even bowling balls - act simultaneously as waves and particles. So, if you could devise an experiment to test bowling balls with slits big enough for them to go through the results would be the same: the bowling balls would act as particles and waves simultaneously. That was the big news about Young's experiment. Hel-loooo!
From Wikipedia for the double slit experiment:
"In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source such as a laser beam illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[2][3] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen-a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[2][4] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen.[5] Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[6][7][8][9][10] These results demonstrate the principle of wave
Edits: 05/21/15 05/21/15 05/21/15 05/21/15 05/21/15
You are not understanding the experiment.
You need to watch the video.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The single slit and double slit experiments are filled with mysteries and paradoxes. No bout a doubt it. If you have monitors near the slits that means you have to have light to see, right? Won't that light needed to observe the slits interfere with the experiment?
Edits: 05/21/15 05/21/15
The fact that there are measurement tools close to the slits does not change anything. And no, you don't need light to see photons.
The output of the measurement tools can be hooked up but only when recording data does it collapse the wave.
I think you need to do more research on this. You're not really up to speed.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Well, YOU DON'T KNOW. Go visit your local library.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I agree. Geoff needs to watch the video. I have the same question.
I'm glad someone else has the same question.
In almost 100 years someone must have answered (or attempted to) the question but I can't find it.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Uh, she's pulling your leg. Duh. The answer to your question I suspect is in the explanation of Schrödinger's Cat. So the answer has been known for what 80 years?
Edits: 05/21/15
Geoff, I'm serious, I have the same questions. I can think for myself. Just because I joke around doesn't mean I'm an idiot. If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know the answer.
I did watch the video. Doh. You have a question on the double slit experiment? You're so funny!
Yes I do.
Why is observing the movement of the photons at the slits different than observing where the photons land?
If observing the movement of the photons as they pass through the slits collapses the wave, why doesn't observing where the photons eventually land collapse the wave?
I really don't need an answer at this point.
At this point I would just like to know if you understand my question?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
obtuse to admit it. He will of course have a smart ass answer to deflect his lack
of understanding your legitimate (and damn good) question, 'cause that's how he do.
You shouldn't expect more than that from him though.
Well, maybe a smart ass photo after he gets tired of typing.
Mostly I suspect he'd rather be selling his quantum tweaks that he has
trouble explaining in any sort of cohesive fashion than trying to answer
a question that you'd be better off asking that cartoon character in the video.
HIM you can take seriously.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Until now, I thought I was alone in my findings.
Anyone who thinks he understands the double slit experiment is only fooling himself. I don't pretend to know everything, Mousetrap. Unlike yourself. Besides I'm the only one with attitude here so take your personality issues elsewhere.
So what is your guess?
Why doesn't observing the result collapse the wave the way observing the movement of the photons at the slit does?
Remember we already know it has nothing to do with the presents of the sensors.
I personally think you're bluffing and you really know nothing about quantum physics and the quantum wave.
Please prove me wrong and say something relevant.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
| Why doesn't observing the result collapse the wave the way observing the movement of the photons at the slit does?
The wavefunction of the particle *did* collapse on the final screen, that was an irreversible collision and the particle didn't continue to do anything else. Before the measurement on the final screen the wavefunction was distributed. After, not so.
The observation or non-observation at the slit permitted the particle to still pass through. This shows that even an observation which permits something to pass through will change the behavior of the quantum mechanical particle/wave going through.
Both kinds of observations have an effect.
"The observation or non-observation at the slit permitted the particle to still pass through. This shows that even an observation which permits something to pass through will change the behavior of the quantum mechanical particle/wave going through."
But having the physical mechanism to observe at the slit does not collapse the wave. Only HUMAN observation (or the the possibility of human observation [the recording of data from the sensor]) collapses the wave.
On the other hand, human observation of the final screen does not collapse the wave when there is no human observation at the slit (or the possibility of human observation).
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
If I was bluffing I would have offered up a reason. Guess I must not be bluffing. Duh. You see something on the internet you can't explain. Big friggin deal! Get over it.
Get over what?
I asked one question, "Why doesn't the monitoring of the end result collapse the wave?".
You either have an answer or you don't.
If you have nothing, not even a guess, I can only assume you haven't looked into quantum physics.
The thing is, I thought some of you products are supposedly based on quantum physics?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks anyway.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
No need to bust my balls. Yes, I design quantum mechanics based products. But that logically doesn't mean I know everything. Any more than a thoracic surgeon knows all about brain surgery. Let me know if you find the answer. By the way just curious don't you find it strange that particles like electrons act like waves too? Or that bowling balls act like waves. Or are you too sophisticated? EVERYTHING about the double slit experiment is strange, such as firing single photons one at a time through the slits, and obtaining the interference pattern on the other side. Do you see why that is strange?
Edits: 05/22/15 05/22/15 05/22/15 05/22/15
| Do you see why that is strange?Yes it's strange, but only if you think of particles as being first. The wavefunctions are.
The duality is that in observational physical 3-d space the effects look like 3-d particles sometimes and 3-d waves sometime.
The truth is that neither is precisely right.
The laws of quantum mechanics are written as evolution operators on wave*functions* which are the true fundamental "things" {elements of state} in the theory. Of course these are much less intuitive for human brains to understand, and even less intuitive is that they are elements in a functional Hilbert space which is not physical space. And that's where all the weirdness comes from.
Particle/no-particle is a sometime thing as one can see by creation/annihilation operators on the underlying fields (which are quantum mechanical wavefunctions of functions (the field)). Just depends on your basis. You don't even need to have a definite number of particles at any time, i.e. the wavefunction needn't be in an eigenstate of the particle number operator. If you took expectation you'd have a probability distribution of particle counts.
Edits: 06/04/15
Yes, I do.
"...I design quantum mechanics based products"
But you have no opinion WRT my question?
I'm sorry but that seems strange to me.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
At this point who gives a shit?
If you really know little about QP, but you say you design QP products, your customers might give a shit.
I would think someone who knows about QP would have some kind of answer to my question.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Good luck with that one Tre'.
Geofftrait is now in defense mode and going to hang himself.
He seems to enjoy that.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I did. What's your point? The single slit and double slit experiments are landmark WTF science experiments.
Edits: 05/21/15
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: