/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15556846
You ever notice how the double split experiment is always shown as dumb graphics instead of the actual experimental setup?

>>15556849
No?

>>15556849
That is just false.

your picture literally shows interference pattern in the reflected light.
it's just imperfect, as is the edge that's reflecting it.

>>15556893
Yes but the in the first setup the interference pattern should not exist because plastic is detecting the which way information.

>>155568979
You're not sentient (an NPC) therefore the waveform hasn't collapsed.

>>15556849
To gaslight NPCs like OP into believing it's real.

>>15556963
If OP is an NPC then would he even be able to collapse the waveform to begin with? You need a sentient observer to do so according to the mainstream explanation.

>>15556969
but since now we all saw his picture, shouldnt the sentient /sci/ observers collapse wave function in his experiment?

>>15557040
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm yes indeed anon

>>15556846
Your set up doesn't allow you to measure the split photons without interfering with them. The "detected" photons are no longer in superposition with photons going through the slits. You've collapsed the wave function to observe them in the first place.
Make your set up more clever and use some real optics next time

>>15556849
There are plenty of videos on YouTube

>>15556849
We did this shit in a lab my freshman year of college. Google how to do it, buy the shit to do it, and fuckin do it. Then if you can't get it to work, come back here and tell us so we can point and laugh at the barainlet that can't do something that was proven over 200 years ago.

>>15557114
how?

>>15557291
Did you just make an interference pattern? Or did you collapse the interference pattern with which way information. (That doesn't use polarized lenses) Because I could not find any set up that could be done on google.

>>15557580
I think you're a lil bit retarded. Those tests involve single photons.

>>15556849
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h53PCmEMAGo&t=7s

the second slit is called a bonus slit

>>15556849
sorry, I mean this video.
it's more complete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbXWc2Y9z1Y&t=0s

>>15557725
NTA, but thanks. Also how did you find that if its unlisted? Are *you* huygens optics?

>>15557745
It's not unlisted.
Just type in optics.
His videos popped up for me when looking for information on telescope mirrors.

>>15556891
Post actual photos.
While you are at it. Post photos of viruses.

>>15557745
It appeared as unlisted to me as well.

>>15557725
Sorry, but this video does not show the wave pattern collapsing into a particle pattern after being measured. It was more of a exploration of the wave pattern at a microscopic scale, the patterns shown in this video were exclusively wave.

>>15557808
It's the best I can do anon.

>>15557804
Maybe it appeared to me because I subscribed to the channel.

>>15557575
Your piece of plastic isn't a true beam splitter, you don't literally split a laser beam in half you mongoloid you use an element that partially reflects and transmits.
That's the whole point. Reflection and transmission are wave phenomena yet you can show under certain conditions light behaves as a discrete particle, but only if you know what wave and particle behaviors are
You're not proving anything by putting a laser pointer on a stack of books. Thomas Young's double slit probably had more consideration.

>>15557808
OP if your intention was to create this thread to try an disprove quantum mechanics with your brilliant alternative theory you might want to pay attention to that guy and his at max $50 set up which produced vastly superior results to yours

>>15556846
>So what happened? Why did this not work?
I think you might want to sit down for this one anon

>>15556846
Your slits are way too big. Generally, everything you do here should be accurate to a precision better than the wavelength. I doubt your "piece of wood" and "piece of plastic" are made with sub-micrometer precision.

>>15556846
None of your post makes any goddamn sense. How the fuck are you supposedly detecting "which way" information when all you're doing is scattering light around and observing where it ends up? All you are observing from any give photon is where it hit the target. Either there were multiple paths from the laser to that point or there were not.

>>15559587
You don't get it, he DELETED the information. It's gone now. Only he and god know which way the photon went, but the paper doesn't know. Or something like that is what OP thinks, but we shouldn't mock a kid for being a curious retard. I admire his spirit, but he should get proper equipment.

>>15559590
Of course the which way information is gone, he's only observing where the photon ends up. How the fuck would he still have information on the path the photon took to get there?

>>15559585
You can get a pretty clean interference pattern by just grazing the two shafts of a padlock with a laser beam. Not really the double slit experiment, but you can easily do things like calculate the wavelength of your laser beam. Double slit is also pretty easy to do at home with a laser, no special equipment required. Of course we're not talking about the quantum eraser experiments, which involve entanglement and single photon detectors.

>>15559593
It's a midwit take to expect LSD patterns just because you only look at where the light ends up.

>>15559604
Nigger you get LSD patterns trivially out of fucking around with a laser pointer. A single slit is enough to give you trippy patterns.

>>15559602
Yeah, because the padlock is crafted with high precision. You can also get cool patterns with CDs, DVDs or LCD screens. Even with a normal flashlight (maybe collimated). But talking about deleted information when your setup is a piece of wood and some tape...

>>15559613
You can get a double slit pattern with two slits made in cardboard. I've done it, it's not that hard.

>talking about deleted information
The error in OP is presuming there is some variant of his experiment in which the which way information is not deleted. But the OP is not clear enough to understand why he would think that.

>>15559620
I assume you can get micrometer slits with a scalpel, but not by taping some wood and some plastic together.

>>15559609
>A single slit is enough to give you trippy patterns.
or AIDS

I'm still not sure how OP thinks his experiment works, but it seems he has the idea that merely splitting the beam creates two entangled beams. It doesn't.

>>15559623
moar precision isn't going to fix anything in OP's experiment
and no, you don't need micrometer slits

Let's look at how the entangled photons are produced in the experiment in pic >>15559634 for example.
>In this experiment, the 351.1nm Argon ion pump laser beam is divided by a double-slit and incident onto a type-II phase matching [7] nonlinear optical crystal BBO (β −BaB2O4) at two regions A and B.

>>15556849
>>15556863
>>15556891
>>15557291
They always show you a detraction pattern. They never show you
>but if you observe the slits, then you only get two dots!
because that never actually happens. That's the part that's nonsense. There is always an interference pattern.

>>15557587
you get interference patterns even when you use "single photons". you never don't get interference patterns because light is........ a wave!

>>15556846
You are a not a consient observer
Self pwn by OP , love to see it

>>15559654
Exactly, some time ago I scoured the net for any experimental evidence of the scattered pattern and couldn't find any. Would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain why that's the case.

>>15559798
Double-slit experiments have been done with all sorts of particles, including photons, electrons, and whole molecules, and the fact that you still get an interference pattern even when there's only one particle at a time is a pretty interesting experimental result. But as the other anon said, measuring the particle as it goes through the slits isn't a part of these experiments.

The experiment typically described in pop-sci videos, where somebody measures the particle as it's passing through the slits, is not a real experiment. It's a thought experiment that Feynman liked to use to explain quantum mechanics to undergrads and laypeople, a variation on Heisenberg's microscope thought experiment. The pop-sci videos also frequently fuck it up and give results from the thought experiment that aren't even consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Probably the closest that's been done to making it into a real experiment are the "quantum eraser" experiments that use pairs of entangled photons instead of trying to measure the particle as it passes through the slits. For example https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf as shown in >>15559634. But this is still a very different experiment than the thought experiment.

>>15560176
Ah, that explains it - thank you a lot!

>>15556849
>diagrams and schematics aren't a thing