/sci/ - Science & Math

I honestly don't know. There might be some kind of underlying mechanism that we don't fully understand yet in the field of physics that might explain the phenomenon.

Just because one model explains 99 things, but cannot mathematically hold up against 1, doesn't mean there isn't another model that explains 99 + 1.

Perhaps It's because of how different us and the cells of quantum physics

>>5536563
>There might be some kind of underlying mechanism that we don't fully understand yet in the field of physics that might explain the phenomenon.

wait are you being serious? this has been explained for what like 80 years?

>>5536569
Could you explain it to me like I am 5?

Isn't it the light particles interacting with the electrons that causes the change?

You mentioned neutrons specifically. Do you have a reference for a neutron double-slit experiment where they measured which path the neutrons took? I know it's been done with photons.

>>5536606
No.

>>5536593
When an electron flies from the source to the screen it actually takes all possible paths and "interferes with itself"...unless it is being observed. Being observed forces it into one path (wave function collapse).

>>5536657
Thanks!

I understand that, but I do not understand how the observation of the event changes the outcome from an interference pattern to a diffraction pattern.

>>5536569
the wavefunction is like dark matter/energy. it's just shit we make up to compensate for our ignorance and because it somewhat works. doesn't mean it's answered.

>>5536667
Its part of the weirdness of QM. Here is an advanced version of the double slit experiment that makes even less sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

>>5536606
Nonono, I meant when you observe the actual event a photon must interact with the electron which changes the system. The particle, without direct observation (no photons), will interfere with itself like you said.

>>5536702
It's a little more subtle than that.

>>5536709
How so?

>>5536702
Probably better to talk about real experiments rather than thought experiments. Let's go with arXiv:quant-ph/9903047. After the *photon* passes through the double slit apparatus, it is split into two lower-energy photons by a BBO crystal. The second photon measures which slit the first photon went through, and this measurement process necessarily disturbs the first photon enough to destroy the double-slit pattern it would make. However, if the second photon is observed appropriately, it is possible to recover the double-slit pattern. You can either (a) use the second photon to measure which slit the first photon went through or (b) measure how much the creation of the second photon screwed up the first photon's phase, recovering the double-slit pattern but destroying the which-slit information.

>>5536540
Well, since we can rule out protons interfering with the experiment, a mechanical error is not the explanation for the bizarre results.

At the end of the day, the results conducted at least 100 years ago are "It is what it is"

What this means though is that by thought alone we can not just influence reality but transform its form by sheer will of the mind alone.

>>5536788
>protons interfering with the experiment
Now protons? What experiment are you talking about here?

>a mechanical error is not the explanation for the bizarre results.
The results are perfectly in line with mechanics -- quantum mechanics, but mechanics nonetheless. Anything that measures which slit a particle goes through necessarily disturbs the particle enough to destroy the interference pattern -- although the pattern can in some cases be recovered via the appropriate analysis of your measuring instrument. The manner in which your measurement device disturbs the particle may depend on what you do to that measurement device after it has interacted with the particle. But it is your measurement device that is fucking with the particle. You do not have telekinetic powers.

There is no quantum mechanics experiment ever where the results depended on what was going on in some filthy bag of water's brain without him touching the controls.

>>5536805
when i said mechanical i meant the way the experiment is set up

>But it is your measurement device that is fucking with the particle. You do not have telekinetic powers.

if the measurement device interfered with the particle it would only nudge it not fucking transform it from a particle pattern to a wave pattern

Plus when they observed the experiment up closer, the particles appeared to time travel.

>>5536824
>if the measurement device interfered with the particle it would only nudge it
This is exactly what happens. Pic very related.

>not fucking transform it from a particle pattern to a wave pattern
This is not what happens. This is a misconception propagated by pseudoscience documentaries.

>>5536667
because to observe it photons or other particles had to hit what you were observing and then hit your retina

>>5536851
The observation of the wave/particle event is not done with our eyes, but instrumentation.

>>5536851
Actually this is called the observer effect, and is not the same phenomenon. For example when testing the temperature of a beaker of hot water, some of the heat from the water flows to the thermometer, thus slightly cooling the beaker. Therefore the temperature of the beaker is lower than its previous state, and we cannot find out that state with 100% accuracy.

The uncertainty principle, which becomes significant at the quantum scale, is a different effect that postulates there is a sheer limit on the precision between two quantities can be known simultaneously. The two quantities are linked such that they multiply to give the action of the system (e.g. position and momentum, or time and energy).

Simulation. That's the only answer, sorry /sci/.

Almost everything about the double slit is entirely mundane if you can do the math to analyze it.

The thing that is confounding about this experiment (this applies to all quantum mechanics) is what constitutes a measurement. You can read more about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

At the moment, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular in physics because it is conducive to a visual mental model. You can imagine that the wave function is a real thing. Then you just imagine a "measurement" causes the wave function to shrivel up into a very narrow spike where the "measurement" happened. When people use the Copenhagen interpretation they don't suggest that this is actually what happens. No one knows what actually is going on. It's something you can actually imagine though, so it is convenient. You can visualize the particle as actually existing as this wave spread out on a pond passing through the slit. If you try to measure it, the measurement sucks all the waves up into one spot. At this point the experiment is actually intuitive because you have a comprehensible mental model of quantum mechanics. Intuition shouldn't be confused with genuine understanding though. You don't actually understand it, you just have a model that happens to work.

>>5536866
The instrumentation still has to interact with it to gather data. It is literally impossibly to gather data without interacting in some way

Personal opinion, time. electrons travel at the speed of light(inavacuum), this gives their timeline a higher frequency witch is always ahead of its lower frequency observer. When the quanta's probability is expanded spherically through two slits, a diameter and partial circumferential area of this sphere would be going through both slits at the same time and interfere with each other/itself on another parallel time line where it went through the other slit, since one particle cant be in two places at the same 'time'. What observing it could be doing is cause the probability of one timeline to instantaneously become more probable because of the electrons positron mirroring it constantly.

Im still learning calculus so compared to the majority of you on /sci/ likely I'm way off base, and if im not, or close, yay! ^^

>>5538224
Get out of here. You sound like a kid.

Conciousness affect the result.

>>5536829
Funny no one can reply to it, because they don't have a valid answer

I am not a Physics major.

But I am certain, at this atomic level, the photon used for measurement affects the electron.

We know without measuring the electron through the slit, it travels as a wave until it hits the wall. But the act of measuring, sending that photon to be absorbed by the electron, and a new photon emitted from the electron for us to measure, is what must cause this whole problem.

Don't shoot me down, but first is the photon emitted and absorbed the exact, and I mean to a very high level of accuracy the same energy of the photon emitted from the electron. If it's not is it possible that the photon, gives a small amount of energy to the electron, causing it to gain some mass and thus travel as a particle, or something along the lines of that?

why are you asking for opinions OP?

instrumentalism ey

Doesn't the wave function collapse when um... shit at a sub-plank scale interacts with shit on a larger scale?

Sorry for being dumb.

>>5538680
because that's all there is. there are no objective truths or infallible principles. it's all rhetorics.

>inb4 sophists were wrong

>>5538667
photons cannot gives 'a little energy'. It's all or nothing bro.

>>5538750
This isn't strictly true. You can have coherent photon pairs with resonances that can change, emitting or absorbing energy.

>>5538721
can someone answer this?

There is no scientific answer.
The only answer is that our consciousness has some un-explainable effect on the universe.

>>5538794
No, I'm pretty sure that wave function collapse is just normal shit. There was a much better thread on the subject in the past.

These threads prove how little /sci/ actually knows.

>>5538853
I didn't see you contribute anything

>>5536657
how does it know its being observed?

spooky action at a distance?

It's the interaction with the messy wider environment that destroys the pattern not an act of observation per se - I doubt that fundamental physics "knows" what an observation is.

>>5536886
>>5536886
>yfw we're living in a computer simulation

#DEFINE max_speed = 299 792 458 m / s

>>5538963

Sensible.

Captcha: Balls inmymouth

>> photon interacts with an electron, compton effect causes the electron to now have a different momentum.

>> if using a photon with wavelength small enough that it only hits electrons going through one slit, that means the electrons from each slit are now distinguishable due to different momentums hence different de broglie wavelengths.

>>if using photon with large enough wavelength that both slits are affected, electrons from both are affected and are then indistinguishable and you go back to wave nature/interference etc.

>>5538870
>Says the poster on an anonymous imageboard.

>>5539001
This is right, but not quite the whole story. If you're measuring which hole the electron goes through with a photon, then to determine whether the interference pattern is destroyed, you also have to know about the future of the photon. If I measure the momentum of the photon, I can know how much momentum it transferred to the electron, and I can recover the interference pattern. But this would destroy the information telling me which slit the electron went through.

uncertainty principle doesnt depend upon the measuring of the state. its inherent to every particle/wave, even if its is not observed.
the "strange behavior" of quantum states upon observation is postulated through the collapsing wave-function by von-neumann. it simply states what the experiments tell us, and cant be derived mathematically. Its an axiom of copenhagen-quantum-mechanics.