/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15286763]

>The single electron goes through both slits.
How many times have you heard this? Look at vid related. This is how it's proposed the single electron goes through both slits. You see that portion of the wave reflecting backward? This generates a testable claim: if Copenhagen interpretation is the correct one, we should be able to put a screen behind the electron gun, and measure an interference pattern.
>But anon, the intensity would be too small!
Then put the gun closer to the slits. Also, I disagree. It will be small, but surely measurable over a very, very long time.

Can this Copenhatin shit finally be put to rest?

[Anonymous No.15286771]

>This generates a testable claim: if Copenhagen interpretation is the correct one, we should be able to put a screen behind the electron gun, and measure an interference pattern.
pic rel.

[Anonymous No.15286822]

>>15286763
>Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected.
took the above from the same wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.15286827]

>>15286822
correct, but that isn't what this post is about. everyone agrees an interference pattern appears when electrons are fired one-by-one. the copenhagen interpretation of qm says that the single electron travels through BOTH slits. yet, not a single experiment has ever attempted to find an interference pattern from back scattering due to a SINGLE ELECTRON (because it doesn't happen).

[Anonymous No.15286830]

>>15286763
>throw things at hole in wall
>some of the things miss and bounce back
Wow, atheists btfo.

[Anonymous No.15286841]

>>15286827
yes, the quote i just gave states that. i agree. but confusingly the wikipedia article seems to also suggest otherwise:

>In 1974, the Italian physicists Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi repeated the experiment using single electrons and biprism (instead of slits), showing that each electron interferes with itself as predicted by quantum theory.
the wikipedia article seems to contradict itself...

[Anonymous No.15286845]

>>15286841
Experimental error perhaps. You would need to know exactly how they confirmed only a single electron release.

[Anonymous No.15286851]

>>15286845
what is your preferred interpretation of qm?

[Anonymous No.15286854]

>>15286763
i don't think this is how it works. a measurement apparatus will change the behavior. if you try to measure back scatterings then the wave function will change. same as when someone tries to measure which slit actually has the electron.

[Anonymous No.15286859]

>>15286854
The screen is a passive device like the plate the electrons hit.

[Anonymous No.15286867]

>>15286851
I don't have one. I'm content to observe reality and remark only on what can be experimentally proven.

[Anonymous No.15286869]

>>15286841
So why aren't electrons interfering with themselves everywhere all the time

[Anonymous No.15286872]

>>15286869
they would probably claim that they are. it smells like bs to me

[Anonymous No.15287073]

>>15286827
>correct, but that isn't what this post is about. everyone agrees an interference pattern appears when electrons are fired one-by-one
I'm honestly not quite sure what your post is about.
>>15286869
...They do. Can. Whichever way you want to interpret that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)#Quantum_coherence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
The less energy in a system the more this behavior is possible (see reference to superconductivity).

Other than that I don't know what you're asking with respect to OP.

[Anonymous No.15287769]

>>15287073
my argument is simple. if the single electron goes through both slits (as copenhagen asserts, as visualized in the webm in the op), then we should observe with some finite probability the electron hitting a screen behind the electron gun (as shown in the pic rel here)
>>15286771
such interference pattern doesn't exist. here's another way to think about it. the whole electron appears on the measurement screen. how does the electron reconstruct itself in its entirety after passing through both slits? my argument is copenhagen interpretation is bunk

[Anonymous No.15287797]

>>15287769
of course it's bunk

[Anonymous No.15287803]

>>15287797
and yet people still buy it.

[Anonymous No.15287807]

>>15287073
>Other than that I don't know what you're asking with respect to OP.
Nothing, I just don't see how this proposed self-interference is possible yet isn't observed anywhere, take photons for example, if these photons act like waves and can act constructively/destructively, then why aren't we observing these patterns literally anywhere, why doesn't my flashlight produce interference patterns if the photons should be interfering with eachother and themselves

[Anonymous No.15287813]

>>15287807
you actually do observe this if the photon's wavelengths are long enough (e.g., radio waves). you get interference between radio stations. the reason your flashlight isn't causing interference patterns with itself is that it releases visible light (wavelengths from 400-700 nm). in order to interfere, they need to interact with objects of approximately the same size, which you can't see with your eye.

[Anonymous No.15287821]

>The single electron goes through both slits.

No, it goes through one of the slits or bounces back. The memetic complex valued wave function extends to everywhere and its real valued square gives the probability space.

[Anonymous No.15287833]

>muh wave function
nothing but electric field

[Anonymous No.15287836]

>>15287813
>in order to interfere, they need to interact with objects of approximately the same size, which you can't see with your eye.
That makes no sense, why would it have to interact with anything but itself if it can self-interact, electrons and photons should be annihilating themselves all the time

[Anonymous No.15287853]

>>15287803
many imbeciles in the field.

[Anonymous No.15287865]

double clit experiment

[Anonymous No.15288072]

>>15286763
Woah almost like the electron can either:
1. fly through
2. bounce of corner of slit
3. bounce of inside wall of slit
4. gravitate towards slit via EM
WOAH, so random! literally a heckin probability wave!

[Anonymous No.15288073]

>>15287803
>copenhagen
>13
>none of the above
>18

sointits are clueless, just admit it already

[Anonymous No.15288102]

>>15286827
> single electron travels through BOTH slits
Maybe I'm retarded, but I always thought that this meant that the electron wave splits on encountering the double-slit (just like light), so that the associated electron has certain probabilities of having gone through either slit.

A single electron also has particle nature. And it is this nature which is relevant when it interacts with the detector. So, it can ultimately only be observed in one place (hence it only being observed as going through one slit at a time.

But the probability wave also exists, and interacts with itself. This wave is the relevant nature while the electron is traveling from the source to the screen, and it determines the probabilities with which an electron ends up at a spot and interacts (as a particle).

So, if you send a lot of electrons one-at-a-time, you get an interference pattern, even though each individual electron is arriving on the screen as a particle (after traveling to it as a wave).

[Anonymous No.15288109]

>>15288102
I'll admit that this doesn't explain the absence of back-scatter (assuming that the OP webm is legit, and that it is really not observed in practice)

>>15288073
Copenhagen is genuinely cool and interesting tho. May or may not be true, and we will have to accept reality either way, but I don't get the hate

[Anonymous No.15288393]

>>15286763
Quantum mechanics is a statistical approximation of nonlinear behavior in ensembles. All of the "paradoxes" in it come out of people attributing too much physical significance to the mathematical modelling and you end up with retards talking about "waves of probability" travelling through space and nonsense like that.

[Anonymous No.15288397]

>>15288393
are you a based superdeterminist? sounds like it

[Anonymous No.15288417]

>>15288393
thats what i thought too but QM is literally believing that this is how the world works, i guess the meaning was lost over years

[Anonymous No.15288439]

>>15288417
>thats what i thought too but QM is literally believing that this is how the world works, i guess the meaning was lost over years
NTA. There's a difference between instrumentalism and various asserted ontologies. So far as experiment would suggest, "particles" behave like waves when they're not being interacted with. Stands to reason if increasing energy states merely make said waves appear as modeling particles would predict, for example. So from one kind of thing, you can easily get the appearance of another kind of thing. I know of no experimental validation of any assertion claiming the nature of the thing has been shown beyond that. What >>15288393 said is basically what I'm saying on that score. Quite a lot of people confuse "the model" with "the thing". Since we cannot directly observe "the thing" without changing its energy, and so changing its behavior, instrumentally sofar as I know we as-yet cannot say much about "the thing".
>>15287769
Given passive detectors already detect such behavior as a wave I'm genuinely not sure what you expect to glean, or what you'd expect to be falsified. All the simulation in OP is showing is a simulation of that wave subsequently making an interference pattern.

Maybe the whole issue does stem from "confusing the model for the thing". I think instrumentally we can definitely say everything about it behaves like waves, and given some high energy state it looks and can be modeled as particles. In both cases this is just a descriptive model. What you choose to infer from that, absent further ability to test, is just... eh.

I'm not saying you couldn't in theory look at something like OP suggests. I'm just pointing out given all the evidence so far there's no reason to expect it'd behave otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15288493]

>>15286771
>>15286763
That has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. It is just basic quantum mechanics and all interpretations would agree. An experiment measuring the interference pattern on the back screen would be a fine thing to do if it's never been done before (I doubt this), but it is really testing whether the model of the slits (probably as an infinite potential barrier where the screen is) is correct. I fully expect that the interference pattern on the back screen would exist and it wouldn't change anything about interpretations.

[Anonymous No.15288514]

>>15286763
>electron goes
No anon, its the probability that crosses

[Anonymous No.15288591]

>>15286859
>the plate was a measurement device this whole time
Duuude

[Anonymous No.15288593]

>>15288397
Yes and no. I believe the Universe is chaotic: Deterministic, but also ridiculously, absurdly, incalculably nonlinear.

Physical systems exhibit a tendency to transition from regimes of linearity to nonlinearity and back again:
>Two photons interacting is linear; the system can be treated deterministically
>10^20 photons interacting is nonlinear; the system can only be treated statistically, which we do through the description of statistical constructs - electromagnetic "fields" between charged particles/molecules/etc.
>Two molecules interacting is linear; the system can be treated deterministically
>10^20 molecules interacting is nonlinear; the system can only be treated statistically, which we do through description of statistical construct - pressures, temperatures, velocity "fields", flow potentials, etc.
>Two thermally interacting materials is linear; the system can be treated deterministically
>etc. etc. etc.
The limit of any linear system as the number of interactions increases trends towards nonlinearity, and the limit of any nonlinear system as the number of interactions increases trends towards linearity - but if there is to be an answer to this chicken and egg conundrum, the foundation, the bedrock, must surely be deterministic rather than probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.15288988]

I carried out my own experiment I call the quantum erector experiment. I fired a single electron directly at my penis. The results were inconclusive

[Anonymous No.15289052]

>>15286763
>Can this Copenhatin shit finally be put to rest?
The copenhagen interpretation makes no claim about particles going through two slits. It's a positivist interpretation that speaks only of measurements or events. They had the view that the formalism was a a math tool to make predictions. It states nothing about the ontology of what waves or particles actually are or what they are doing beyond what data can be observed and quantified. They all CORRECTLY, somehow, intuited that the only thing related to the quantum world that need be rendered by the rendering engine rendering the VR called the physical world is the EFFECTS of the quantum world measured by devices or screens or computer memory. So there IS NO QUANTUM WORLD, (see pic).

[Anonymous No.15289076]

sorry chuds copenhagen Just Werks^TM
t. real physicist

[Anonymous No.15289090]

>>15286763
in addition to this
>>15289052
And the events or effects are rendered PROBABILISTICALLY. So the which way data of which slit the 'particle' goes through is determined by a random draw from a binary prob distribution, see pic (idealized a bit, there is no box that the probabilities get thrown into). So then the system just renders a little dot on the screen. Same with the interference pattern program. It's either a dot program or a wave program, two different kinds of data objects that get rendered according to how the players choose to conduct the experiments (quantum contextuality).
>Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. Any attempt to do so in a realistic hidden-variable theory leads to values that are dependent upon the choice of the other (compatible) observables which are simultaneously measured (the measurement context).
The whole thing can be done with a few different random draws. There are no 'particles' or 'waves' floating around through the air in some observer independent spacetime world. It's a render on demand universe (minimize computational complexity), so the rendering engine is not going to render a bunch of particles and waves that no one can see

[Anonymous No.15290014]

>>15289052
>>15289090
Schizobabble

[Anonymous No.15290035]

>>15286763
>if Copenhagen interpretation is the correct one
they are mathematically equivalent you fucking moron. hence "interpretation"

[Anonymous No.15290037]

>>15286763
>if Copenhagen interpretation is the correct one, we should be able to put a screen behind the electron gun, and measure an interference pattern.
Well yes we would see an interference pattern on this screen, why wouldn't we? You seem to think you have found a fatal flaw of the theory because you just assume without evidence that no backward reflection can exist. In reality it only shows your prejudice against the theory, there's no intellectual honesty in you when you say "Can this Copenhatin shit finally be put to rest?"

[Anonymous No.15290038]

>>15286771
There will always be a blind spot at least at the position of the gun, and thus things are the way they are

[Anonymous No.15290041]

>>15286763
>>The single electron goes through both slits.
Except the experiment is never done with a single electron, or photon, or any other single supposed particle. It is always done with several to get a statistically significant result.

[Anonymous No.15290044]

>>15289052
>there is no quantum world
True. It's classical all the way down. Now stop with the nihilism.

[Anonymous No.15290046]

[Anonymous No.15290054]

>>15290046
The later experiment is never done.

[Anonymous No.15290130]

>>15286763
if it goes through both slits they're not firing the electron accurately enough

[Anonymous No.15290135]

>>15290046
violation of statistical independence.

[Anonymous No.15290451]

I constantly hear how if you introduce an electric field that can differentiate which slot photons are passing through the interference pattern collapses, but I’ve never seen this experiment actually performed

[Anonymous No.15290478]

>>15290451
I think it's because the electric field can only measure electrons, not photons, so you can't do this with the classical visual double slit experiment. That's what is suggested here : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/286353/video-of-double-slit-experiment-observer-effect

[Anonymous No.15290531]

>>15287836
Through what mechanism would they “annihilate themselves”?

[Anonymous No.15291505]

>>15286872
what does electron even mean to you, other than "tiny ball"

[Anonymous No.15291515]

>>15290531
Destructive interference

[Anonymous No.15291789]

>>15290451
that doesnt make any sense because there are electric fields everywhere and their radius is infinite, the energy is lower over distance but it's still there

[Anonymous No.15291808]

>>15291515
Doesn’t actually work that way, especially for electrons. It’s called particle-wave duality for a reason: it’s both and neither. Read more

[Anonymous No.15291915]

Why just two slits? Why not other patterns to see what the result is?

What about a cascading experiment? Have the electrons trigger other electrons like dominoes down a line. Wave after wave after wave. And then see what happens when you mess around with the originating electron. I don't know, get creative.

[Anonymous No.15291930]

>>15291915
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_multiplier

Man, I thought this was one of the smarter boards

[Anonymous No.15292360]

>>15291930
/sci/ is the board for people who see themselves as smart and have a little pride about it. It's different from a board where people would actually be smart. Half the posters on /sci/ are genuinely flat-earthers level of schizo.

[Anonymous No.15292365]

>>15291808
>it’s both and neither
Pseud

[Anonymous No.15292397]

>>15291930
Don't be snide. You want people to learn. You don't want the schizos who refuse to learn. Being an ass about it when someone asks questions, without being a jerk about it, discourages good participation. The schizos will refuse to leave no matter how mean you are. People who want to learn, however, WILL leave if you're unprovoked about it.

That's how you get a board with no more smart people on it.

[Anonymous No.15292420]

>>15286771
What you're forgetting here is that the distribution is normalized over all the components of the probability distribution you see in that picture. A single measurement would only give you a single point of data. Either you would see a blip in your dectector after the slits, say 80% of the time which would the interference pattern on the right hand side of pic related or you see a blip on the other screen the other 20% of the time (the numbers are not accurate, just. You will never simultaneously measure the reflection and the transmission because an electron is either reflected or transmitted. There's nothing new here, just that pop-science explanations generally don't include reflection for simplicity.

The whole point here is that this proves that the mathematical description deterministically predicts how the wave function, that is to say the probability distribution of measurement outcomes, is correctly described by QM.

>>15286827
They do backscatter. Particle reflection at a potential barrier is one of the first things you learn in QM class, it's really not such an elusive concept as OP makes it out to be. This is just a more complex version of that.

Note by the way how there is clearly a reflection interference pattern before the screen too, meaning that the measured distribution at the 2nd screen is also a mix of reflection components.

>>15287807
Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment for light? We literally DO see it everywhere in the case of light, interference patterns form whenever there are suitible conditions (like a double slit). You should read up on optics anon.

>>15287836
That's not how that works anon

[Anonymous No.15292449]

>>15286763
your mistake is thinking that it is a physical wave, but it's not. it's a wave of probability.

[Anonymous No.15292716]

>>15292420
>They do backscatter
Evidence?

[Anonymous No.15292729]

>>15287833
Could you elaborate on that?

[Anonymous No.15292953]

>>15292716
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_backscatter_diffraction

>>15292397
You’re right, but it’s pretty tiresome when the answer is literally at people’s fingertips. If someone genuinely wants to learn the information is readily available.

[Anonymous No.15292960]

>>15292953
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_backscatter_diffraction
you realize that's not the same thing right? the op was asking about an interference pattern from backscattering (indicating wave-like backscattering). ctrl+f for "interfere" yields 0 results.

[Anonymous No.15292969]

>>15292960
You didn’t read the article. I’m out. Some people just can’t be helped.

[Anonymous No.15292975]

>>15292969
i don't need to read it. when i'm asking about interference, and that word doesn't even appear in the article, why should i read it? it's irrelevant. or did you forget what i was asking?

[Anonymous No.15293075]

Why do people endlessly speculate about this topic when there's no way to know the answer without extremely precise (and expensive) laboratory testing?
We still don't have an answer to this problem, and we won't until we have way more sophisticated experimental/measuring designs, which may be outside the limits of our current technology.

[Anonymous No.15293108]

>>15293075
Fuck off you malicious retard. I hate this board so much

[Anonymous No.15293320]

>>15292969
>REEEE HOW DARE SOMEONE DISAGREE WOTH ME
>IM REAVING >>15293075

[Anonymous No.15293463]

So has this been debunked or what? Because my latest info about the experiment is still that its not solved and any solution is actually Nobel Prize worthy.

[Anonymous No.15293532]

>>15291808
Almost like the interference patterns aren't caused by interference and it's just the atomic forces affecting the travel path or something

[Anonymous No.15293560]

>>15293532
Actually it's nothing like that whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.15293567]

>>15292953
In my experience people are genuinely that lazy. Yeah, it is tiresome. Sadly it'll never improve.

[Anonymous No.15293582]

>>15292975
>i don't need to read it.
Yes. Yes you do. The article itself does not contain the word "interference" but contains numerous concepts and terms directly pertaining to it, such as Bragg's law. Next time put up the bare minimum effort instead of acting like a smug asshole when you're the one who doesn't know anything about the topic.

[Anonymous No.15293751]

>>15293463
Which is surprising because nobody has done it.