Quantum Double Slit Experiment

[Anonymous No.9762240]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Can somebody explain this to me? I have trouble understanding from 2:35. Where can I find the actual experiment itself? What counts as an observer? I'm confused at the observer portion and electrons being shot one by one. In what case is there an interference pattern and in what case is there not and why?

[Anonymous No.9762274]

The particle starts at A and touches the 'wall' at its end point B.

There are finite different possible end points B, but only one becomes reality

The probability of the particle to land at a more specifically predictable end point B increases when a conscious observers expectations interfere with the process

[Anonymous No.9762278]

>>9762240
The position and momentum of a particle is bound in the region of the slit.
By heisenberg uncertainty principle, we're limited in the accuracy of our observation of the slit.

When we measure the particle going through the slit, we measure the position, therefore the momentum is free to change, resulting in a pattern. This is what is meant by observer.

When no measurements are made, the particle momentum is confined so that no pattern is made.

[Anonymous No.9762300]

before the measurement you have two energy fields each occupying four times the volume of space than where it originated from. Only now when you measure the one energy field you “ADD ENERGY TO IT WHICH IS INEVITABLE” and as such you once again reduce the volume of space which one of the frequency waves occupies

[Anonymous No.9762305]

>>9762274
>The probability of the particle to land at a more specifically predictable end point B increases when a conscious observers expectations interfere with the process
This is what confuses me. Where can I see the experiment that proves this claim?

>>9762278
>When we measure the particle going through the slit, we measure the position, therefore the momentum is free to change, resulting in a pattern. This is what is meant by observer.
>When no measurements are made, the particle momentum is confined so that no pattern is made.
Hmmm this does give me a better perspective but I'm still confused. What justifies a measurement? Where can I find an example of both results?

[Anonymous No.9762324]

>>9762305
There is none and to our confusion, some people interfere with the patterns while most people don't.

In a nutshell, the energy of the laser is a wave until it is being observed, then it becomes a particle.

If your first observation happens when the wave hits the background, it had time to act in its natural wave-form and creates the former pattern.

If your first observation/measurement happens at the slit itself, you interfere with the wave-function and the end points form the second patterns

Awareness/observation/measurement is energy, which is directed at the wave

[Anonymous No.9762344]

>>9762305
> he doesn't know that quantum physics is all about a probability distribution
You don't give a fuck about a single particle.
You only care about the wave function and the squared absolute value of it. This gives you a probability distribution of where the particles should land with a certain probability.
The experiment is not the same if you measure the position of the particle at the slit.
Your experiment changed, instead of looking at the screen where your electron lands you only look a the slit (just imagine a screen at the slit then).

[Anonymous No.9762356]

>>9762324
wtf is that bullshit ?
>In a nutshell, the energy of the laser is a wave until it is being observed, then it becomes a particle.
Do you even know a cavity QED experiment ?
this is just plain wrong and it's not so easy to simple put it in a nutshell
> Awareness/observation/measurement is energy?
wtf do you even study physics ?

[Anonymous No.9762357]

>>9762324
There is no experiment? Okay, I was always under the impression that it was conducted and exists. But then this seems to be a contradictory statement then:
>There is none and to our confusion, some people interfere with the patterns while most people don't.

[Anonymous No.9762365]

>>9762305
>What justifies a measurement?
A photon hitting the electron

[Anonymous No.9762374]

>>9762356
It's an interaction between observer and particle, leading to the collapse of the wave function.
An interaction always involves energy, brainlet

[Anonymous No.9762375]

>>9762357
oh man, this experiment exists, but it's hard to pull off properly because the electrons have an extremely small matter wavelength (de brogile wavelength) and the intensity of the signal is also pretty shit. Papers are available online so I won't post some here.
Actually this is a Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, which is the Fourier transform of the slits.

[Anonymous No.9762379]

The laws of physics break down when they can't be observed (ie goes beyound the limit of the uncertainty principle) - if it cannot be observed to be breaking the laws of physics, it's not breaking the laws of physics.

[The Lord No.9762380]

section 4.6 of this book is dedicated to this experiment, and I am totally not not its author. Not only does the author, who isn't someone besides me, explain the issues, he resolves them as well
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[Anonymous No.9762385]

>>9762374
you said
> Awareness/observation/measurement is energy?
and not
>An interaction always involves energy
It's not directly energy, but involves exchange particles which have some energy.

[Anonymous No.9762395]

>>9762385
You are right, I'm the fool for wording it the way I did

[Anonymous No.9762400]

>>9762240
watch
https://youtu.be/p-MNSLsjjdo
instead

then see https://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs

[Anonymous No.9762403]

>>9762375
>oh man, this experiment exists, but it's hard to pull off properly because the electrons have an extremely small matter wavelength (de brogile wavelength) and the intensity of the signal is also pretty shit. Papers are available online so I won't post some here.
Can you give me a name?
>Actually this is a Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, which is the Fourier transform of the slits.
Didn't know what picture to post.
I was going to ask a question related to this but seems like it's not needed at the moment.

[Anonymous No.9762432]

>>9762380
You brilliant sonofabitch. I'll read more into it when I have a bit more time.
>>9762400
I'll check it out
>>9762379
>The laws of physics break down when they can't be observed (ie goes beyound the limit of the uncertainty principle) - if it cannot be observed to be breaking the laws of physics, it's not breaking the laws of physics.
Meaning ghosts and stuff?

[Anonymous No.9762452]

>>9762240
A particle is "observed" when it interacts with something else. It hits the screen and changes the chemistry thereof.
WHERE it hit the screen is then a fixed fact.
No human observer is necessary. "Consciousness" doesn't enter into it.

IF the apparatus is such that you can't tell which slit the electron went through, then you get an interference pattern. The electron exhibits wave-like properties and it's perfectly natural for a wave (which is distributed in space) to go through both slits.
If you block one of the slits, then you KNOW the electron went through the open one and it behaves like a particle and there's no interference.

>>9762357
The experiment is real and have been done countless times. Anyone who claims "it works for some people and not for others" is pulling your leg. The only reason it can fail is lousy lab technique.

More interesting is the so-called "delayed choice" experiment. This version uses photons, one at a time. Both slits are open but are covered with polarizers set 90 degrees apart. After passing the slits, each photon hits the screen. You COULD tell, from the polarization of a photon, which slit it went through. Therefore, there is no interference pattern. It doesn't matter if you actually check the polarization.
Now, suppose you put another polarizing sheet in between the slits and the screen. The photons have already passed the slits and (in a common-sense world) would be on some trajectory, the point where they're going to hit the screen already determined.
But passage through the 2nd polarizer "erases" any information about which slit the photon went through. The interference pattern returns.
That sounds crazy, but that's what happens.

Ignore >>9762380
He shills his nutty notions on half the threads on /sci/ and whines that serious scientists and peer-reviewed journals won't recognize his brilliance. If you stick around you'll learn to recognize him even without his "signature".

[Anonymous No.9762463]

>>9762432
no, meaning things can be in two places at once and things can, from our point of view, 'teleport'.

It can only be related to the parameters you can't directly measure past certain points - energy, time, momentum and position.

[Anonymous No.9762466]

>>9762240
They "conveniently" fail to stress that "observing" the particles, ALTERS them. They make it seem like magic, but the act of "observing" is actually altering the particles. So no wonder they behave differently when being observed and not observed.

[Anonymous No.9762479]

>>9762403
Literally the first result on google: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018
Diffraction is an effect of wave optics, it's very important for optics as you almost always have some effects from dust on mirrors for example
>>9762452
Something to add to the delayed choice experiment: it's really mind bending, but it's important to always take into account WHAT you actually want to observe, what you really observe and what you could observe in an experiment.

[Anonymous No.9762521]

>>9762466
OK... to observe something you MUST receive some information about the thing being observed.

A particle wave just by you, if you want to observe it you MUST pull some information from it.
Quick aside in advanced physics everything is information. The speed of light is a moronic name for the speed of information transference.

In the double slit experiment you get different result if you pull information from the wave or not.
There is no magic, to observe something you must alter it, so things act differently if you observe them or not.

Note we live in space TIME continuum, so you can get result that act through time as well. Again this is only freaky if you see time as a constant which we 100% know it is not (Your GPS would not be as accurate if we did not take in the difference in atomic clocks on eart and orbiting earth).

[Anonymous No.9762524]

>>9762240
this experiment is a fraud

[Anonymous No.9762530]

>>9762452
This makes much more sense to me. So it can behave as a wave or a particle but not both?

>>9762479
Somehow was getting different results

[Anonymous No.9762541]

>>9762240
no fucking way youcan shoot an electron and expect it go exactly through damn slit.

[Anonymous No.9762601]

>>9762541
Then explain the pattern if this cannot happen.

[The Lord No.9762604]

>>9762395
What's in my pocket?
t. Bilbo Baggins

[Anonymous No.9762647]

>>9762240
Basically, when you observe it you impart energy into the system and it fucks with the reading.

[Anonymous No.9762650]

>>9762524
>this experiment is a fraud
prove it and you'll be more famous than Einstein

but you wont, because its not wrong.

[Anonymous No.9762679]

>>9762530
Exactly. No one has conceived of an experiment where you can SIMULTANEOUSLY get wave-like and particle-like behavior.

QM makes extremely accurate (through probabilistic) predictions for any experiment but what the equations "mean" is still being debated. You have to accept that, at those scales, matter and energy are neither waves nor particles. Our macroscopic ideas of "common sense" just don't apply.

"Somehow getting different results" doesn't mean that you can get either wave OR particle behavior from an apparatus, depending on how you choose to regard it. The experimental set-up determines what you measure. Once that's done, attitude and expectations don't matter.

[Anonymous No.9762760]

>>9762679
And just to make sure, "observing" and "altering" are the same thing yes? Still have a bit of confusion regarding this.

If you don't observe, it behaves as a wave, if you do observe, it behaves as a particle. So does this mean that photons start off with wave like behavior and then they exhibit particle like behavior? Can they switch between the two repeatedly? What would be the implications and how could they be utilized in practical applications?

[Anonymous No.9763414]

>>9762452
>No human observer is necessary. "Consciousness" doesn't enter into it.
Completely wrong. Consciousness is entirely necessary.

[Anonymous No.9763437]

>>9762647
How does that work? I am not an expert but as far as I know when humans see something we don't impart any energy we just take in the energy. Why can't we observe it without imparting energy?

[Anonymous No.9763439]

To all the people saying observing is just interfering with it and changing the results. Why does that matter then? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of science? If you want to study something you don't fuck up the experiment and then act surprised when the results are fucked up. To me it sounds like there was no possible way they could have interfered when they did this experiment yet it still turned out this way, if that isn't the case then these scientists are hack frauds.

[Anonymous No.9763444]

>>9762240
You should read this book, it explains the experiment in detail as well as the implications

[Anonymous No.9763446]

>>9762240
Is this just the same type of lazy expression evaluation found in video game engines? When nobody's watching a cheaper heuristic is used, then if you zoom in it uses more detailed modelling techniques

People call me a brainlet for saying this but I haven't seen anyone refute it

[Anonymous No.9763447]

>>9763439
The camera at the slit interefered.

It's not clear why the uncertainty principle holds, but it does.

Unfortunately your claim that conciousness is responsible is not falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.9763450]

>>9763447
>The camera at the slit interefered
Okay then the results are meaningless. But is it actually the case it interfered or are you just using that as a bandage because it shouldn't be possible.

[Anonymous No.9763570]

>>9763450
In order for a camera to record the particle, it has to interact with it. That's the definition of interference.

It wouldn't matter if it were people or animals or automated robots, there would still be interference.

Unfortunately, the rebuttal will always be that it's our conscious decision to use cameras,robots,etc.. and that that is the collapse. Therefore, no meaningful discussion can be had, because it's not possible to test unconsviously.

[Anonymous No.9763598]

>>9762240
Huygen's principle mongo

[Anonymous No.9763612]

If electrons or photons or whatnot are shot through a single slit, you get what you'd expect to see from little particles going through. If you let a bunch of them go through one slit, then cover it up and let them through an adjacent slit, it just looks like particles going through two slits.

However, if electrons or photons or whatnot are shot through two slits, the interference pattern emerges. You'd expect it to look just like the two particle patters from before added up, but now you get the exact interference pattern you'd see from waves interfering through the slits and onto the screen.

Some videos worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U&ab_channel=Veritasium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuaHY5lj2AA&ab_channel=PeteGravell

[The Lord No.9763620]

INTERESTING IS THIS:
If you measure which slit the particle goes through, then the behavior is like particles.
If you don't measure, it is like waves.
If you measure it indirectly, so that the detector at the slits writes to hard drive but doesn't directly tell the scientist what happened, then the behavior is like particles.
However, even if you make the measurement at the slits, exactly like what produces particles, but then disable the write function on the hard drive, the behavior is like waves.
They did this.
This is how it works.

[Anonymous No.9763630]

>>9763620
Very interesting. Source?

[Anonymous No.9763771]

>>9762650
that experiment is just some retards playing with lasers.
they do not want to explain results as is, but fit them into existing idealistic beliefs.

[Anonymous No.9763895]

>>9762463
So that means the multi verse is real?

[Anonymous No.9763943]

>>9763620
>If you measure it indirectly, so that the detector at the slits writes to hard drive but doesn't directly tell the scientist what happened, then the behavior is like particles.
That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.9765217]

>>9763570
>In order for a camera to record the particle, it has to interact with it.
That isn't true in the macro scale. A camera just has to interact with photons. Do you not see my point? If the scientists knew the reason the results changed because they were recording it was because of interference then there is nothing really special about this experiment. It just means we can't actually observe it at all we reached the threshold. However from the sound of it that doesn't seem to be the case it seems more like we can observe it but the laws of physics are very strange in the quantum level.

[Anonymous No.9765224]

>>9765217
It is absolutely true. If photons aren't emitted/reflected by the particle, then you can't see it. If conciousness mattered, you'd expect no interference with a camera at the slit turned off. Yet, there is one.

The universe doesn't care what you think.

[Anonymous No.9765225]

>>9765224
>It is absolutely true. If photons aren't emitted/reflected by the particle, then you can't see it.
Then why even perform the experiment? If it is fucking obvious you are going to interfere then there is no use even doing it, you will just skew the results. I thought scientists were smarter than that.

[Anonymous No.9765226]

>>9765217
The surprising thing is that there was no reason to suspect the momentum of the particles has the range to create the pattern in the first place. Generally, it doesn't matter if you look at something or not, it's not enough to change the trajectory. That we do is the surprising part, but it's not mysterious or metaphysical or anything.

[Anonymous No.9765230]

>>9765226
>Generally, it doesn't matter if you look at something or not, it's not enough to change the trajectory. That we do is the surprising part, but it's not mysterious or metaphysical or anything.
That sounds pretty mysterious though. Especially if we still have no reason to believe it should have changed trajectory but for some reason does.

Also I'm not even talking about if it is consciousness or whatever. First of all you can't even prove that anything happens without consciousness because in order to participate in a logical discussion you have to be conscious and even if you say a robot who is unconscious could prove something if no conscious person observes it it will never matter.

[Anonymous No.9765253]

>>9765230
Like I said, it's because of heisenberg uncertainty. That's it.

Back then, people were still on the field train because aether was still in mind.
Wavefunctions of particles are analogous to fields in classical em. They can never be observed or measured, and have mostly been abandoned except for convenience, but nobody really takes them as attributes of a physical system.

[Anonymous No.9765265]

>>9763414
So, by your lights, QM only came into existence with cavemen?
Where does "consciousness" begin?
On a descending scale: Humans? Cats? Bacteria? You?

[Anonymous No.9765274]

>>9763620
Wrong!
As usual.
Smashing the recorder makes no difference. Neither does running the experiment and, some time later, erasing the recorded data.

If you're going to claim otherwise, cite!!
We're all getting very tired of your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9765409]

Why do people always try to inject consciousness into this. All the double slit is about is how/if a measurement is made at the slit. In order to measure, you have to interact.

[Anonymous No.9765420]

The idea here is that the natural form is fundmentally wave-like. However, when something has high information strain, the wave-form collapses into a particle. One form of information strain is simply observance, but people know less of other forms.

[Anonymous No.9765436]

The point is that the story of a macro particle and the story of a macro wave doesn't fit the story of the behavior of the double slit experiment.

We reuse stories but the new story we make is not the sum of the old stories but a new story all its own.

Stop trying to make everything Platonic and just tell the story of quantum behavior as the unique story it is without regard to the stories of particles and waves of the macro story that have nothing to do with quantum stories.

We tell the quantum story with statistics and double slit experiments, and photon traps...
We do not tell the quantum story with scales and rulers and inclined planes....
A quantum wave is not a wave. A quantum particle is not a particle.

[Anonymous No.9765450]

>>9765274
Could you cite your claims?

[Anonymous No.9765456]

>>9763620
This is wrong (see the second answer): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339404/a-very-delayed-quantum-eraser

[Anonymous No.9765463]

>>9762240
The observer is the substance that is taking in the interference pattern. You are not the observer, only the object that is taking in the chemical change.