While yes my mind was blown, it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I spent the entire video trying to remember just where I have heard that voice. Who the fuck narrated that thing, eh?
While yes my mind was blown, it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I spent the entire video trying to remember just where I have heard that voice. Who the fuck narrated that thing, eh?
[quote user=psidust42] While yes my mind was blown, it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I spent the entire video trying to remember just where I have heard that voice. Who the fuck narrated that thing, eh? [/quote]
While yes my mind was blown, it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I spent the entire video trying to remember just where I have heard that voice. Who the fuck narrated that thing, eh?
[quote user=aidorrocks] [quote user=psidust42]While yes my mind was blown, it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I spent the entire video trying to remember just where I have heard that voice. Who the fuck narrated that thing, eh?[/quote]
While yes my mind was blown, it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I spent the entire video trying to remember just where I have heard that voice. Who the fuck narrated that thing, eh?
When observing an electron, you have to send some sort of electromagnetic radiation to interact with it, thus changing its properties and energy states (the electron is small enough for the effect to be noticeable/drastic). The electron is not conscious, there is an underlying physical phenomenon that causes the electron to behave a certain way. I think the interaction I mentioned earlier is the root of all evil. I can't prove this is actually the case in the quantum world, but I can see the electron being in the two wave and particle states, like superposition (similarly to tautomerization in biochemistry). But the introduction the photon from a microscope breaks this superposition of wave particle duality, causing only one state to manifest.
When observing an electron, you have to send some sort of electromagnetic radiation to interact with it, thus changing its properties and energy states (the electron is small enough for the effect to be noticeable/drastic). The electron is not conscious, there is an underlying physical phenomenon that causes the electron to behave a certain way. I think the interaction I mentioned earlier is the root of all evil. I can't prove this is actually the case in the quantum world, but I can see the electron being in the two wave and particle states, like superposition (similarly to tautomerization in biochemistry). But the introduction the photon from a microscope breaks this superposition of wave particle duality, causing only one state to manifest.
Yeah, there are different ideas on what causes the collapsing of the wave function. Something probably happens when the macro-scale interacts with the quantum. I think in the 70s, a bunch of new-age crazies interpreted this to mean the Universe only works when consciousness measures things, but there is no evidence consciousness has anything to do with it.
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. You can use entanglement tricks to even create this experiment, and "erase" the detection, restoring the wave properties.
Yeah, there are different ideas on what causes the collapsing of the wave function. Something probably happens when the macro-scale interacts with the quantum. I think in the 70s, a bunch of new-age crazies interpreted this to mean the Universe only works when consciousness measures things, but there is no evidence consciousness has anything to do with it.
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. You can use entanglement tricks to even create this experiment, and "erase" the detection, restoring the wave properties.
[quote user=deokanon] I think the interaction I mentioned earlier is the root of all evil.[/quote] [quote user=EricManning] An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. [/quote]
owned
deokanon wrote:
I think the interaction I mentioned earlier is the root of all evil.
EricManning wrote:
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit.
[quote user=EricManning]An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. [/quote]
I can only speculate about this to try and find the justification for this. I won't pretend I understand all the physics or even assume I'm the first one who has ever said this. But here goes:
Statistically speaking, the photons coming from the detectors are more likely to interact strongly with the electron-wave in the area facing directly the slit. Why? Because of the this picture below. The middle pattern is more pronounced than the others. The pattern always differs depending on the number of slits, meaning the wave retain the information of the kind of slit(s) it went through.
Think of it like a bedsheet held in the air all spread out and you throw a ball at it. It should collapse as if it's imploding towards the point of impact. Now the ball won't make the bed sheet do much if it hits near the corners. But if it's in the middle then the ball should have more of an effect of implosion towards the point of impact.
Now the wave is like the bedsheet and the ball is the photon coming from the detector. The photon is more likely to interact in the area where the wave has the most intensity. So when the photon hits the wave, it will most likely collapse at that area, thus causing it to manifest more like a particle. The final result is the band like pattern produced by firing particles through slits which also seems like electron-wave effectively went back in time to figure out what kind of slits it went through. The bands were just in the area where the photon had the most probability to interact with the electron wave.
This is my way of making sense of the double slit experiment. But I am sure there are other considerations I have omitted (not by choice).
Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.
EricManning wrote:
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit.
I can only speculate about this to try and find the justification for this. I won't pretend I understand all the physics or even assume I'm the first one who has ever said this. But here goes:
Statistically speaking, the photons coming from the detectors are more likely to interact strongly with the electron-wave in the area facing directly the slit. Why? Because of the this picture below. The middle pattern is more pronounced than the others. The pattern always differs depending on the number of slits, meaning the wave retain the information of the kind of slit(s) it went through.
Think of it like a bedsheet held in the air all spread out and you throw a ball at it. It should collapse as if it's imploding towards the point of impact. Now the ball won't make the bed sheet do much if it hits near the corners. But if it's in the middle then the ball should have more of an effect of implosion towards the point of impact.
Now the wave is like the bedsheet and the ball is the photon coming from the detector. The photon is more likely to interact in the area where the wave has the most intensity. So when the photon hits the wave, it will most likely collapse at that area, thus causing it to manifest more like a particle. The final result is the band like pattern produced by firing particles through slits which also seems like electron-wave effectively went back in time to figure out what kind of slits it went through. The bands were just in the area where the photon had the most probability to interact with the electron wave.
This is my way of making sense of the double slit experiment. But I am sure there are other considerations I have omitted (not by choice).
Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.
I was also wrong earlier... Apparently physical objects cannot be simultaneously wave and particle. They are either in one state or another, never both at the same time.
I was also wrong earlier... Apparently physical objects cannot be simultaneously wave and particle. They are either in one state or another, never both at the same time.
[quote user=deokanon] Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior. [/quote] [quote user=EricManning] An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. [/quote] owned
deokanon wrote:
Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.
EricManning wrote:
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit.
I wonder if this is the same phenomenon that causes light to bend around corners (eg like a door cracked open). If thats the case, could you use one of these detectors to force the light into a straight line?
I wonder if this is the same phenomenon that causes light to bend around corners (eg like a door cracked open). If thats the case, could you use one of these detectors to force the light into a straight line?
Deo, I don't think this experiment can be explained by classical means. That's why they invented quantum mechanics.
If you think the experiment I described is weird, you should see some of the other variations. Detecting photons from a star thousands of light-years away should also have the same effect... even though our measurements seem to be forcing an event (collapsing of wave) that already happened centuries ago.
There's also some experiments that force the electron back into a "wave" pattern, by erasing the measurement *after* it hits the screen.
I'm personally okay with that... there's no reason I should force reality to follow the laws my brain has evolved to expect.
EDIT: Yeah, you can think of the wave function as a statistical function. But I think your description has the experiment a little confused, as detecting the electron causes the bands to go away. If we detect the electron, then it acts like a normal, solid particle that doesn't interfere with itself.
Deo, I don't think this experiment can be explained by classical means. That's why they invented quantum mechanics.
If you think the experiment I described is weird, you should see some of the other variations. Detecting photons from a star thousands of light-years away should also have the same effect... even though our measurements seem to be forcing an event (collapsing of wave) that already happened centuries ago.
There's also some experiments that force the electron back into a "wave" pattern, by erasing the measurement *after* it hits the screen.
I'm personally okay with that... there's no reason I should force reality to follow the laws my brain has evolved to expect.
EDIT: Yeah, you can think of the wave function as a statistical function. But I think your description has the experiment a little confused, as detecting the electron causes the bands to go away. If we detect the electron, then it acts like a normal, solid particle that doesn't interfere with itself.
[quote user=GanjAmigo] [quote user=deokanon]Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.[/quote] [quote user=EricManning]An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit.[/quote] owned
[/quote]
I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle. I still suspect this equation is real though as every slit experiment with detectors do not end in wave interference, but instead in particle band patterns whereas the experiment would have shown interference without detectors. I just thought it was an natural occurrence, much like Oxygen + 2 Hydrogen = H2O. My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves and according to rules of statistics and physical interactions at the quantum level. The wave has higher probabilities to interact with the photons in a way they'd produce a band pattern of particles as though the resulting particles passed through the slit. Simply because the particle was created in the area directly in front of the slit where the wave is most intense, the location where it is most likely to collapse (as I have detailed in my previous comment). Since the wave was moving forward away from the slit, the resulting particle will do the same (conservation of energy and momentum etc) creating the illusion the electron passed through the slit as a particle. Particle before slit scenario would be counter intuitive in fact because we know that the slit experiment always has wave interference without detectors. Now I'd have to immerse myself more in physics to find out if I'm right on the money. I can easily be refuted if the equation I wrote earlier is erroneous.
GanjAmigo wrote:
deokanon wrote:
Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.
EricManning wrote:
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit.
owned
I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle. I still suspect this equation is real though as every slit experiment with detectors do not end in wave interference, but instead in particle band patterns whereas the experiment would have shown interference without detectors. I just thought it was an natural occurrence, much like Oxygen + 2 Hydrogen = H2O. My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves and according to rules of statistics and physical interactions at the quantum level. The wave has higher probabilities to interact with the photons in a way they'd produce a band pattern of particles as though the resulting particles passed through the slit. Simply because the particle was created in the area directly in front of the slit where the wave is most intense, the location where it is most likely to collapse (as I have detailed in my previous comment). Since the wave was moving forward away from the slit, the resulting particle will do the same (conservation of energy and momentum etc) creating the illusion the electron passed through the slit as a particle. Particle before slit scenario would be counter intuitive in fact because we know that the slit experiment always has wave interference without detectors. Now I'd have to immerse myself more in physics to find out if I'm right on the money. I can easily be refuted if the equation I wrote earlier is erroneous.
[quote user=deokanon]I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle.[/quote]
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
[quote user=deokanon]My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves...[/quote]
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
deokanon wrote:
I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle.
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
deokanon wrote:
My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves...
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
[quote user=InSOmnIaC] I wonder if this is the same phenomenon that causes light to bend around corners (eg like a door cracked open). If thats the case, could you use one of these detectors to force the light into a straight line? [/quote]
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
InSOmnIaC wrote:
I wonder if this is the same phenomenon that causes light to bend around corners (eg like a door cracked open). If thats the case, could you use one of these detectors to force the light into a straight line?
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=InSOmnIaC]I wonder if this is the same phenomenon that causes light to bend around corners (eg like a door cracked open). If thats the case, could you use one of these detectors to force the light into a straight line?[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays.... [/quote]
Ahh ok. Damn
proofinlife wrote:
InSOmnIaC wrote:
I wonder if this is the same phenomenon that causes light to bend around corners (eg like a door cracked open). If thats the case, could you use one of these detectors to force the light into a straight line?
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
[quote user=EricManning] [quote user=deokanon]I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle.[/quote]
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
[quote user=deokanon]My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves...[/quote]
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all. [/quote]
Another way of looking at it, is that detectors are somehow configured (intentionally or not) to sense particles therefore the data collected will be consistent with particle behavior. In any case, erasure of the path's information restores wave interference, but putting back the detectors eliminates interference. But there is still a hick, why the wave suddenly become particle especially considering the nature of the particle detectors. What I've read is that the particle don't actually shoot photons, but rather an apparel that just lights up when the wave-particle pass through it (it's more complicated than that but that's the concept really). So question remains, why would the wave behave like a particle suddenly though... WTF??? Is it traveling back in time lol?
EricManning wrote:
deokanon wrote:
I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle.
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
deokanon wrote:
My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves...
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
Another way of looking at it, is that detectors are somehow configured (intentionally or not) to sense particles therefore the data collected will be consistent with particle behavior. In any case, erasure of the path's information restores wave interference, but putting back the detectors eliminates interference. But there is still a hick, why the wave suddenly become particle especially considering the nature of the particle detectors. What I've read is that the particle don't actually shoot photons, but rather an apparel that just lights up when the wave-particle pass through it (it's more complicated than that but that's the concept really). So question remains, why would the wave behave like a particle suddenly though... WTF??? Is it traveling back in time lol?
You should look at the experiment I linked to in the last post. Basically, they use a series of mirrors so there is only a 50% chance of detecting which slit the photon went through. Half of the time, the photon could hit the mirrors in such a way that it could have come from either slit.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
You should look at the experiment I linked to in the last post. Basically, they use a series of mirrors so there is only a 50% chance of detecting which slit the photon went through. Half of the time, the photon could hit the mirrors in such a way that it could have come from either slit.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
[quote user=EricManning] You should look at the experiment I linked to in the last post. Basically, they use a series of mirrors so there is only a 50% chance of detecting which slit the photon went through. Half of the time, the photon could hit the mirrors in such a way that it could have come from either slit.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again. [/quote]
thank you for hammering this into dookies head, his level of wrong understanding was quite bothersome
EricManning wrote:
You should look at the experiment I linked to in the last post. Basically, they use a series of mirrors so there is only a 50% chance of detecting which slit the photon went through. Half of the time, the photon could hit the mirrors in such a way that it could have come from either slit.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
thank you for hammering this into dookies head, his level of wrong understanding was quite bothersome
[quote user=EricManning] You should look at the experiment I linked to in the last post. Basically, they use a series of mirrors so there is only a 50% chance of detecting which slit the photon went through. Half of the time, the photon could hit the mirrors in such a way that it could have come from either slit.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again. [/quote]
We are essentially talking about the same things, but I somewhat disagree with some parts of your comments (underlined). I did look at the experiment before you submitted your comment. From what I understood (and hopefully I understood it... But it's quantum physics, so not really), is that particle behavior always depends whether or not the path information has been determined by detectors. Erasure of path information restores wave interference. As the beam splitter experiment demonstrated, interference is not something that emerges half of the time, but only when erasure of information has occurred, every single time. The only real mystery here is why the photon seems to choose how to behave according to future events.
The eraser experiments are just very sophisticated versions of the double slit experiment. There are many phases in the detection process, each phase is very different than the other and each detector has a very distinct purpose. Some detectors know which slit the photon/electron passed through specifically; others do not as they essentially receive the light/electron that could have come from either slit. With the detectors that determines the path, there is no interference, in the other scenario there is interference. Having detectors which do not "determine" which path the electron went through is practically the same as not setting up detectors in the first place since the whole point of detectors is to know which slit the photon/electron passed through. But the eraser experiments do raise one point though, detectors are logically (probably) not the culprits behind the mystery. If detectors did play the role as I elaborated in my previous posts, then it wouldn't have mattered whether or not the information of path was known, they would have created the particle pattern. This is obviously not the case in the eraser experiments. This leaves the inevitable conclusion that the photon/electron 'knows' it's going to be detected then it 'chooses' to behave like a particle when its path is known. This is wild and practically insulting.
Quantum physics make no sense.
EricManning wrote:
You should look at the experiment I linked to in the last post. Basically, they use a series of mirrors so there is only a 50% chance of detecting which slit the photon went through. Half of the time, the photon could hit the mirrors in such a way that it could have come from either slit.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
We are essentially talking about the same things, but I somewhat disagree with some parts of your comments (underlined). I did look at the experiment before you submitted your comment. From what I understood (and hopefully I understood it... But it's quantum physics, so not really), is that particle behavior always depends whether or not the path information has been determined by detectors. Erasure of path information restores wave interference. As the beam splitter experiment demonstrated, interference is not something that emerges half of the time, but only when erasure of information has occurred, every single time. The only real mystery here is why the photon seems to choose how to behave according to future events.
The eraser experiments are just very sophisticated versions of the double slit experiment. There are many phases in the detection process, each phase is very different than the other and each detector has a very distinct purpose. Some detectors know which slit the photon/electron passed through specifically; others do not as they essentially receive the light/electron that could have come from either slit. With the detectors that determines the path, there is no interference, in the other scenario there is interference. Having detectors which do not "determine" which path the electron went through is practically the same as not setting up detectors in the first place since the whole point of detectors is to know which slit the photon/electron passed through. But the eraser experiments do raise one point though, detectors are logically (probably) not the culprits behind the mystery. If detectors did play the role as I elaborated in my previous posts, then it wouldn't have mattered whether or not the information of path was known, they would have created the particle pattern. This is obviously not the case in the eraser experiments. This leaves the inevitable conclusion that the photon/electron 'knows' it's going to be detected then it 'chooses' to behave like a particle when its path is known. This is wild and practically insulting.
[quote user=deokanon]Having detectors which do not "determine" which path the electron went through is practically the same as not setting up detectors in the first place since the whole point of detectors is to know which slit the photon/electron passed through.[/quote]
Well, as I understand the experiment, the detector operates as normal... but the splitter / mirrors are setup in such a way that the photon could have reached that detector from either direction. They more or less cause the paths of both slits to "overlap" half of the time, so you can't tell which direction it came from. I think you came to this conclusion anyway, but I am just pointing out that this "erasure" mechanism is not the same as refusing to detect the photon. If just detection was the problem (throwing a photon at it), then this shouldn't ever see an interference pattern.
Basically, the photon interferes with itself when it reaches the final detector and it could have found alternate paths to get there.
QM probably makes as much sense as Classical reality. We are just used to the assumptions of the classical world, so we predict the future based on how laws have performed in the past.
deokanon wrote:
Having detectors which do not "determine" which path the electron went through is practically the same as not setting up detectors in the first place since the whole point of detectors is to know which slit the photon/electron passed through.
Well, as I understand the experiment, the detector operates as normal... but the splitter / mirrors are setup in such a way that the photon could have reached that detector from either direction. They more or less cause the paths of both slits to "overlap" half of the time, so you can't tell which direction it came from. I think you came to this conclusion anyway, but I am just pointing out that this "erasure" mechanism is not the same as refusing to detect the photon. If just detection was the problem (throwing a photon at it), then this shouldn't ever see an interference pattern.
Basically, the photon interferes with itself when it reaches the final detector and it could have found alternate paths to get there.
QM probably makes as much sense as Classical reality. We are just used to the assumptions of the classical world, so we predict the future based on how laws have performed in the past.
34
| 294 views | www.wimp.com
[/quote]
John Astin (addams family)
John Astin (addams family)
[/quote]
It always sounds smarter when Morgan Freeman is telling it to you.
It always sounds smarter when Morgan Freeman is telling it to you.
It always sounds smarter when Morgan Freeman is telling it to you.
[/quote]
it's the only way to get these dumbasses to actually listen to it
It always sounds smarter when Morgan Freeman is telling it to you.
it's the only way to get these dumbasses to actually listen to it
[/quote]
that's called a chick who loves the backdoor being kicked in every night.
that's called a chick who loves the backdoor being kicked in every night.
John Astin (addams family)
[/quote]
Ah yes! Thank you man.
John Astin (addams family)
Ah yes! Thank you man.
[/quote]
you outnumbered 2 to 0
you outnumbered 2 to 0
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. You can use entanglement tricks to even create this experiment, and "erase" the detection, restoring the wave properties.
An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. You can use entanglement tricks to even create this experiment, and "erase" the detection, restoring the wave properties.
[quote user=EricManning] An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. [/quote]
owned
owned
I can only speculate about this to try and find the justification for this. I won't pretend I understand all the physics or even assume I'm the first one who has ever said this. But here goes:
Statistically speaking, the photons coming from the detectors are more likely to interact strongly with the electron-wave in the area facing directly the slit. Why? Because of the this picture below. The middle pattern is more pronounced than the others. The pattern always differs depending on the number of slits, meaning the wave retain the information of the kind of slit(s) it went through.
Think of it like a bedsheet held in the air all spread out and you throw a ball at it. It should collapse as if it's imploding towards the point of impact. Now the ball won't make the bed sheet do much if it hits near the corners. But if it's in the middle then the ball should have more of an effect of implosion towards the point of impact.
Now the wave is like the bedsheet and the ball is the photon coming from the detector. The photon is more likely to interact in the area where the wave has the most intensity. So when the photon hits the wave, it will most likely collapse at that area, thus causing it to manifest more like a particle. The final result is the band like pattern produced by firing particles through slits which also seems like electron-wave effectively went back in time to figure out what kind of slits it went through. The bands were just in the area where the photon had the most probability to interact with the electron wave.
This is my way of making sense of the double slit experiment. But I am sure there are other considerations I have omitted (not by choice).
Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.
I can only speculate about this to try and find the justification for this. I won't pretend I understand all the physics or even assume I'm the first one who has ever said this. But here goes:
Statistically speaking, the photons coming from the detectors are more likely to interact strongly with the electron-wave in the area facing directly the slit. Why? Because of the this picture below. The middle pattern is more pronounced than the others. The pattern always differs depending on the number of slits, meaning the wave retain the information of the kind of slit(s) it went through.
Think of it like a bedsheet held in the air all spread out and you throw a ball at it. It should collapse as if it's imploding towards the point of impact. Now the ball won't make the bed sheet do much if it hits near the corners. But if it's in the middle then the ball should have more of an effect of implosion towards the point of impact.
Now the wave is like the bedsheet and the ball is the photon coming from the detector. The photon is more likely to interact in the area where the wave has the most intensity. So when the photon hits the wave, it will most likely collapse at that area, thus causing it to manifest more like a particle. The final result is the band like pattern produced by firing particles through slits which also seems like electron-wave effectively went back in time to figure out what kind of slits it went through. The bands were just in the area where the photon had the most probability to interact with the electron wave.
This is my way of making sense of the double slit experiment. But I am sure there are other considerations I have omitted (not by choice).
Edit: I cannot explain why electron-wave becomes electron-particle in the presence of detectors (or more precisely photons). I just assumed that's how it is in nature, since detectors always somehow eliminate wave-interference in favor of particle behavior.
[quote user=EricManning] An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit. [/quote]
owned
owned
If you think the experiment I described is weird, you should see some of the other variations. Detecting photons from a star thousands of light-years away should also have the same effect... even though our measurements seem to be forcing an event (collapsing of wave) that already happened centuries ago.
There's also some experiments that force the electron back into a "wave" pattern, by erasing the measurement *after* it hits the screen.
I'm personally okay with that... there's no reason I should force reality to follow the laws my brain has evolved to expect.
EDIT: Yeah, you can think of the wave function as a statistical function. But I think your description has the experiment a little confused, as detecting the electron causes the bands to go away. If we detect the electron, then it acts like a normal, solid particle that doesn't interfere with itself.
If you think the experiment I described is weird, you should see some of the other variations. Detecting photons from a star thousands of light-years away should also have the same effect... even though our measurements seem to be forcing an event (collapsing of wave) that already happened centuries ago.
There's also some experiments that force the electron back into a "wave" pattern, by erasing the measurement *after* it hits the screen.
I'm personally okay with that... there's no reason I should force reality to follow the laws my brain has evolved to expect.
EDIT: Yeah, you can think of the wave function as a statistical function. But I think your description has the experiment a little confused, as detecting the electron causes the bands to go away. If we detect the electron, then it acts like a normal, solid particle that doesn't interfere with itself.
[quote user=EricManning]An interesting alteration of this experiment is to put detectors up after the electron-wave has gone through the slit. You still get the collapsing of the wave... even though it would seemingly need to go back in time and decide to become a particle before it entered the slit.[/quote]
owned
[/quote]
I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle. I still suspect this equation is real though as every slit experiment with detectors do not end in wave interference, but instead in particle band patterns whereas the experiment would have shown interference without detectors. I just thought it was an natural occurrence, much like Oxygen + 2 Hydrogen = H2O.
My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves and according to rules of statistics and physical interactions at the quantum level. The wave has higher probabilities to interact with the photons in a way they'd produce a band pattern of particles as though the resulting particles passed through the slit. Simply because the particle was created in the area directly in front of the slit where the wave is most intense, the location where it is most likely to collapse (as I have detailed in my previous comment). Since the wave was moving forward away from the slit, the resulting particle will do the same (conservation of energy and momentum etc) creating the illusion the electron passed through the slit as a particle. Particle before slit scenario would be counter intuitive in fact because we know that the slit experiment always has wave interference without detectors. Now I'd have to immerse myself more in physics to find out if I'm right on the money. I can easily be refuted if the equation I wrote earlier is erroneous.
owned
I meant to say I cannot explain why electron wave + photon = electron-particle. I still suspect this equation is real though as every slit experiment with detectors do not end in wave interference, but instead in particle band patterns whereas the experiment would have shown interference without detectors. I just thought it was an natural occurrence, much like Oxygen + 2 Hydrogen = H2O.
My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves and according to rules of statistics and physical interactions at the quantum level. The wave has higher probabilities to interact with the photons in a way they'd produce a band pattern of particles as though the resulting particles passed through the slit. Simply because the particle was created in the area directly in front of the slit where the wave is most intense, the location where it is most likely to collapse (as I have detailed in my previous comment). Since the wave was moving forward away from the slit, the resulting particle will do the same (conservation of energy and momentum etc) creating the illusion the electron passed through the slit as a particle. Particle before slit scenario would be counter intuitive in fact because we know that the slit experiment always has wave interference without detectors. Now I'd have to immerse myself more in physics to find out if I'm right on the money. I can easily be refuted if the equation I wrote earlier is erroneous.
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
[quote user=deokanon]My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves...[/quote]
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
[/quote]
Ahh ok. Damn
I'm pretty sure the light bending around corners can be pretty well explained by light reflection/refraction. Unless that wooden surface is a 100% black hole, light is going to reflect, and considering all doors are painted nowadays....
Ahh ok. Damn
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
[quote user=deokanon]My real point is that the electron never traveled back in time, and the photons originating from detectors can change the properties of waves...[/quote]
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
[/quote]
Another way of looking at it, is that detectors are somehow configured (intentionally or not) to sense particles therefore the data collected will be consistent with particle behavior. In any case, erasure of the path's information restores wave interference, but putting back the detectors eliminates interference. But there is still a hick, why the wave suddenly become particle especially considering the nature of the particle detectors. What I've read is that the particle don't actually shoot photons, but rather an apparel that just lights up when the wave-particle pass through it (it's more complicated than that but that's the concept really). So question remains, why would the wave behave like a particle suddenly though... WTF??? Is it traveling back in time lol?
I think I get what you are talking about, and I completely agree that "interacting" with an "electron wave" will force it into a classical electron state. However, I think there's a lot more to it than just a photon. Detecting the particles can be a lot more subtle than throwing light around.
I can't say I really am sure I understand your complete theory, so I don't know what experiments might test the consequences... but how might it address the more extreme retro-causality issues in the more modern experiments?
I think the latter part of your statement may be challenged with eraser experiments, but I can comment to this.
I've heard several different theories on consequences of QM, but none are truly testable. Some argue time is not an issue for entanglement and actions really can impact particles in the past. I've heard such waves might be able to simultaneously test all possibilities, even into the future, and "see" what is going to happen. Others speculate infinite universes, and our measurements simply force us into one such dimension, so everything we then measure about the past is consistent.
Since it's not really testable, I don't think it matters at all.
Another way of looking at it, is that detectors are somehow configured (intentionally or not) to sense particles therefore the data collected will be consistent with particle behavior. In any case, erasure of the path's information restores wave interference, but putting back the detectors eliminates interference. But there is still a hick, why the wave suddenly become particle especially considering the nature of the particle detectors. What I've read is that the particle don't actually shoot photons, but rather an apparel that just lights up when the wave-particle pass through it (it's more complicated than that but that's the concept really). So question remains, why would the wave behave like a particle suddenly though... WTF??? Is it traveling back in time lol?
Sorry deo just had to do it :(
Sorry deo just had to do it
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
[/quote]
thank you for hammering this into dookies head, his level of wrong understanding was quite bothersome
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
thank you for hammering this into dookies head, his level of wrong understanding was quite bothersome
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
[/quote]
We are essentially talking about the same things, but I somewhat disagree with some parts of your comments (underlined). I did look at the experiment before you submitted your comment. From what I understood (and hopefully I understood it... But it's quantum physics, so not really), is that particle behavior always depends whether or not the path information has been determined by detectors. Erasure of path information restores wave interference. As the beam splitter experiment demonstrated, interference is not something that emerges half of the time, but only when erasure of information has occurred, every single time. The only real mystery here is why the photon seems to choose how to behave according to future events.
The eraser experiments are just very sophisticated versions of the double slit experiment. There are many phases in the detection process, each phase is very different than the other and each detector has a very distinct purpose. Some detectors know which slit the photon/electron passed through specifically; others do not as they essentially receive the light/electron that could have come from either slit. With the detectors that determines the path, there is no interference, in the other scenario there is interference. Having detectors which do not "determine" which path the electron went through is practically the same as not setting up detectors in the first place since the whole point of detectors is to know which slit the photon/electron passed through. But the eraser experiments do raise one point though, detectors are logically (probably) not the culprits behind the mystery. If detectors did play the role as I elaborated in my previous posts, then it wouldn't have mattered whether or not the information of path was known, they would have created the particle pattern. This is obviously not the case in the eraser experiments. This leaves the inevitable conclusion that the photon/electron 'knows' it's going to be detected then it 'chooses' to behave like a particle when its path is known. This is wild and practically insulting.
Quantum physics make no sense.
It's interesting because they are still detecting every photon the same way, but the interference pattern only emerges half the time - when the photon travels a path that could have come from either slit. It seems the particle decides to stop being a wave when it follows a path that reveals its origin.
You seemed very interested in how experimenters "touch" the particle as the cause of the wave collapse, but this experiment seems to get either a particle or wave with the same detection process.
The second interesting fact is that this mirror setup is done after the particle has already emerged from the slit. It's the time-paradox issue again.
We are essentially talking about the same things, but I somewhat disagree with some parts of your comments (underlined). I did look at the experiment before you submitted your comment. From what I understood (and hopefully I understood it... But it's quantum physics, so not really), is that particle behavior always depends whether or not the path information has been determined by detectors. Erasure of path information restores wave interference. As the beam splitter experiment demonstrated, interference is not something that emerges half of the time, but only when erasure of information has occurred, every single time. The only real mystery here is why the photon seems to choose how to behave according to future events.
The eraser experiments are just very sophisticated versions of the double slit experiment. There are many phases in the detection process, each phase is very different than the other and each detector has a very distinct purpose. Some detectors know which slit the photon/electron passed through specifically; others do not as they essentially receive the light/electron that could have come from either slit. With the detectors that determines the path, there is no interference, in the other scenario there is interference. Having detectors which do not "determine" which path the electron went through is practically the same as not setting up detectors in the first place since the whole point of detectors is to know which slit the photon/electron passed through. But the eraser experiments do raise one point though, detectors are logically (probably) not the culprits behind the mystery. If detectors did play the role as I elaborated in my previous posts, then it wouldn't have mattered whether or not the information of path was known, they would have created the particle pattern. This is obviously not the case in the eraser experiments. This leaves the inevitable conclusion that the photon/electron 'knows' it's going to be detected then it 'chooses' to behave like a particle when its path is known. This is wild and practically insulting.
Quantum physics make no sense.
Well, as I understand the experiment, the detector operates as normal... but the splitter / mirrors are setup in such a way that the photon could have reached that detector from either direction. They more or less cause the paths of both slits to "overlap" half of the time, so you can't tell which direction it came from. I think you came to this conclusion anyway, but I am just pointing out that this "erasure" mechanism is not the same as refusing to detect the photon. If just detection was the problem (throwing a photon at it), then this shouldn't ever see an interference pattern.
Basically, the photon interferes with itself when it reaches the final detector and it could have found alternate paths to get there.
QM probably makes as much sense as Classical reality. We are just used to the assumptions of the classical world, so we predict the future based on how laws have performed in the past.
Well, as I understand the experiment, the detector operates as normal... but the splitter / mirrors are setup in such a way that the photon could have reached that detector from either direction. They more or less cause the paths of both slits to "overlap" half of the time, so you can't tell which direction it came from. I think you came to this conclusion anyway, but I am just pointing out that this "erasure" mechanism is not the same as refusing to detect the photon. If just detection was the problem (throwing a photon at it), then this shouldn't ever see an interference pattern.
Basically, the photon interferes with itself when it reaches the final detector and it could have found alternate paths to get there.
QM probably makes as much sense as Classical reality. We are just used to the assumptions of the classical world, so we predict the future based on how laws have performed in the past.