/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3859024]

The double slit experiment, I have been trying to find this out with no luck, but does the interference pattern break down when equipment is monitoring it or if a human is observing/going to observer the information obtained by the equipment.

What I mean by this, if you were doing the double slit experiment and added equipment to observe and record which slit the photons travel through but were never going to watch the recorded video and were going to destroy the recorded video of what the photos were doing before anyone watched it, would the interference pattern stay or break down?

[TN5 !/sci/TN5.. No.3859057]

The problem with this question is that you seem to be wondering what "really" happens (not what current theories tell), and your experiment requires that we don't know what happens.

I think I've heard /read that the observer doesn't have to be human (or conscious) for interferences to disappear, but hell, how could we ever be sure of that? It's clear that if the direct observer isn't human but that a human checks the answer at some point, the interferences disappear. Did they disappear before he checked the results? I don't think anyone can tell.

[Anonymous No.3859082]

The thing is, you cannot "watch" particles going through the slits without "touching" them. There's no such thing as gaining information without interaction.

[Anonymous No.3859088]

>>3859057

Surely we could tell by just destroying the recorded data before it is viewed? Yet still see the results of if the photos pattern.

[Anonymous No.3859090]

congratulations observes, you have just been a victim of God trolling you.

[Anonymous No.3859092]

modern physics has gone to shit since people misunderstood how light behaves b/c of this experiment.

don't bother trying OP. it's not correct. modern physics can not even model why shadows behave like they do.

[Anonymous No.3859096]

>>3859088

Sure. Just do it and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.3859102]

>>3859092

Im not really trying to understand it particularly just trying to find out if it is equipment that changes the photons or the observer who will watch the equipment.

[Anonymous No.3859103]

>>3859102

Short answer: it's the equipment.

[Anonymous No.3859106]

>>3859102
The equipment. In order to "observe" or measure something you have to interact with it. Observer in this case is not what you think.

[Anonymous No.3859107]

>>3859102
>Im not really trying to understand it
get out, you're a homo engineer.

[TN5 !/sci/TN5.. No.3859109]

>>3859082
Google something like "non-destructive measurement" "double slit"

[Anonymous No.3859165]

>but does the interference pattern break down when equipment is monitoring it or if a human is observing/going to observer the information obtained by the equipment.

NEITHER.
You take the conclusion to banally.
The "observer" is not the human or the equipment, the observer is more like interaction between photons, electrons and other particles.
When you say that you observe something in other words it's meant that if you do not meddle with the particles you can't measure them.
Also the point is you can't know the position of the particle and it's speed at the same time.
If you still don't understand try to think of it this way.
If you see something that means that those photons came into your eye.
(no pun intended)
Which means you altered their course.
If you let them go you will not see them but if you see them you have to "destroy" them by catching them with your eye (or a camera, film or some other apparatus) and thus change their intended destiny.
Since this is happening at the speed of light some strange things happen.
For instance light has sometimes shown behavior like it knows where it will go. (no source on this sorry I read that years ago somewhere but it was a scientific article).
So now when you apply similar ideas to electrons and interaction of other particles you get sometimes similar results and much more we don't fully understand yet.
The double slit experiment is not so much about this but rather about interference and how it shows the dual nature of light.
It behaves both as a wave and a particle.
Now when they say and conclude that the observer has "collapsed" it's reality it only means that by act of measuring you always act on the photon and there by making it decide whether it will act as a particle or wave where as theoretically if you didn't observe it it may have acted differently.
So recording it makes no difference because the act of observing is happening on the quantum scale with particles interacting.

[Anonymous No.3859164]

>>3859107

Astrophysicist but close.

Basically in my research the double slit experiment has popped up in a manner of speaking and I need to work with/around it.

[Anonymous No.3859175]

>>3859024
what happens is that when you release the electrons or whatever you shoot through the slits, they become a wave of possibilities, which is why you get the interferance pattern
but if you were to mesasure the electrons at any point they are no longer a wave of possiblities, they are either 1 state or the other, namely slit 1 or slit 2, doing this ruins the interferance pattern, the wave of possibilities then starts to reform, but originating from the slit that the electron was measured to have gone through
measurment has nothing to do with human interaction, the interaction between th electron and the detector is what collapses the wave function
if the material that had the slits in it was sufficiently light that an electron hitting it chaged it's momentum enough then even that would ruin the interferance pattern

[Anonymous No.3859186]

>>3859175
True but you said again interaction beetwen the electron and detector. That is basically wrong.
It's not the objects property like detectors can collapse the wave function and humans can't.
Humans do that too by seeing things.
The point is that interaction is between electrons and electrons, between photons and electrons, between particles.
It's always on the quantum scale no matter what the objects design or purpose is.

[Anonymous No.3859190]

same logic as schodinger's cat op, the cat is never "pseudo-dead" it's always either dead or alive. light chooses to be a wave or a particle based on the things that happen to it. it just so happens that using this equipment to measure and analyze it causes it to make that choice as well

[Anonymous No.3859319]

>>3859186

no, seeing things doesn't do anything
the interaction beween the photon that reflects off something that lands on our eye might, but the act of 'seeing' does not

[Anonymous No.3859356]

>>3859319
That's what I meant.
Or you think there are no electrons in your eye?
What do you think happens in the eye on the atomic scale when the photon hits it?
The photon gives energy via electrons to a molecule which thus detects a signal and sends it to the brain.
It happens everywhere where there is interaction.
I didn't mean the eye magically collapses the wave function but it certainly interacts with the photon and thus should collapse it even though we can't measure that.

[Anonymous No.3859365]

OP, it is possible that the recording of the state of the photon also reflects the wave-particle duality and watching it leads to a cascade of effects on the recordings which makes their states collapse and look like the interference pattern was already broken by the measurement.
Im not saying human consciousness has something special about it, as an observer, but that it might be the last ring in the causal chain which makes all the states collapse. Why shhould we assume that the recording itself is not in a state of interference until observed?

[Merc Law !ErqpM2lDcc No.3859390]

To everyone saying that the measurement/observation is obstructing the results: NO.

Having done my dissertation on this I can confirm that the method of observation/measurement of results does NOT intervene with the experiment itself.

The answer is currently inconclusive, all you internet genius' who think you've outsmarted quantum physicists are hilarious.

[Anonymous No.3859415]

>>3859365
completely wrong
>>3859390
that's not the point.
the point is that in order to detect or measure something you have to interact with it since we still can't measure particles telepathically.
Hence, when you interact you do change the course it would be going on it's own and thus it is reasonable to believe that there is a possibility of changing the outcome.
Or rather that the result of the measurement is different because you interacted with it.

[Anonymous No.3859436]

>>3859390
the point of science is not to outsmart people or to establish your supposed level.
The point is to come to the understanding of the universe around us as correctly as we can.

[Anonymous No.3859483]

>>3859024
Uncertainity on QM does not arise because of measurment system.

\thread

[IDontEven No.3859521]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc&feature=sub
/thread

Mind. blown.