Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Double slit and measurement

  1. Nov 1, 2017 #1
    Let's say we do a double slit experiment with the standard laser/two slit setup with a screen to view the pattern.

    1. In the first run, we just turn on the laser and observe the screen with our unaided eyes. We see an interference pattern consistent with the wave-like nature of light, correct?

    2. In the second run, we place a video camera on the screen and start recording while we observe the laser light between the source and the two slits with our unaided eyes. When we view the recording from the camera we still see an interference pattern on the screen, correct?

    3. In the final run, we place a video camera on the screen and start recording while we observe the laser light between the two slits and the screen with our unaided eyes. When we view the recording from the camera we still see an interference pattern on the screen, correct?

    Would not this experiment show that the unaided human eye and brain (or consciousness if you want to use that term) have no effect on the laser light displaying wave-like behavior as opposed to particle-like behavior?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 1, 2017 #2

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The answer to all three of your questions is "yes, correct".

    No, because your human eye and brain still has to look at the recording from the video camera and observe that it shows an interference pattern. So a person who wanted to claim that only human consciousness collapses the wave function (or affects the wave-like vs. particle-like behavior of the light, or whatever) could still claim that, until the human looked at it, the video camera recording was actually in a superposition and had not yet collapsed.

    A better response to this kind of claim (i.e., a claim that only human consciousness can collapse the wavefunction, etc.) is that, since it is inherently untestable (I've just explained how it can explain away any possible test result you can imagine), it's not a scientific claim.
     
  4. Nov 1, 2017 #3
    How do you intend to observe the laser light before it hits the screen? In practice, there's some dust in the air which will cause the laser to scatter and be visible. Is that what you are talking about?
     
  5. Nov 1, 2017 #4
    I hadn't really thought about that. Can't you see some laser beams with the unaided eye?
     
  6. Nov 1, 2017 #5
    But would not the recording on the video camera then show two marks on the screen consistent with particle-like behavior, even if the result was delayed until I watched the video.
     
  7. Nov 1, 2017 #6
    Of course you can see the beam if you stick your eye in the beam. But you can't see the beam just looking at it from the side (except the parts that scatter on dust).
     
  8. Nov 1, 2017 #7
    Then if we had some fine particles in the air, like dust, in which to scatter the laser to view it from other angles, would this compromise our experiment?
     
  9. Nov 1, 2017 #8
    The dust helps you see the laser but it doesn't give you any which way information for individual photons hitting the screen, since the photons that hit the dust don't make it to the screen. You will see a double slit pattern.
     
  10. Nov 1, 2017 #9

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You can certainly see laser light that reflects in your direction from dust or gas or other particles the light encounters. But otherwise you would not see that light unless it was going straight into your eyes.
     
  11. Nov 1, 2017 #10

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Why? Particle-like behavior only happens if you have something at each slit that records which slit the light went through. Your description of the setup didn't include that, so I assumed it wasn't there. Putting it there changes the experiment.
     
  12. Nov 1, 2017 #11
    I am just trying to sort out what seems to be the claim that "observing" or "looking" at the laser light is enough to change the behavior from wave-like to particle-like. Some of the more reputable QM physicists that I have watched on different programs seem to be saying that experimental results change if we "look" or "observe". But if the "photons or waves" or whatever you want to call them in this superposition state never make it to your eyes, you have not "observed" them. So how do you "observe" a "photon or whatever" without interacting with it, and changing it's momentum or position?
     
  13. Nov 1, 2017 #12
    No, you are correct. I did not have such a device in this experiment.
     
  14. Nov 1, 2017 #13

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Then you need to point us at a reputable source (textbook or peer-reviewed paper) that makes the claim, so we can look at what it says. Pop science videos or articles or TV shows don't count. Physicists will say all kinds of things in such venues that they know they can't get away with in a textbook or peer-reviewed paper.
     
  15. Nov 1, 2017 #14
    Busted. I was hoping that Filipenko, Carroll, Greene, Susskind, and Weinberg from PBS Nova couldn't steer me wrong. :frown: Stupid pop-sci misinformation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
  16. Nov 1, 2017 #15
    How does such a device interact with the "light wave"?
     
  17. Nov 1, 2017 #16

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It depends on the device. The key point is that, with such a device present, the outcome of the experiment is now not "what is observed on the screen", but "what is observed on the screen, plus which slit's device registers the passage of a photon".
     
  18. Nov 1, 2017 #17

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To add to PeterDonis' answer: there are a number of approaches. I like one in which the slits have polarizers in front.

    a. Orient the polarizers PERPENDICULAR, and it is possible to identify which slit the light goes through by its polarization. Regardless of whether you check the light's polarization or not, there will be NO interference pattern on the screen.

    b. Orient the polarizers PARALLEL, and it is impossible to identify which slit the light goes through by its polarization. There WILL be an interference pattern on the screen.

    Obviously, it is a bit difficult to assert that the individual polarizer itself modified the momentum of each light particle so as to collapse the interference. Because there are polarizers present in both a. and b. It is only the relative orientation that is a factor.
     
  19. Nov 1, 2017 #18
    Thanks, I appreciate the responses. Is there a free paper online that you could recommend that discusses the different mechanisms for detection of said photons and what implications the mechanism may have on the nature of the light ray?
     
  20. Nov 1, 2017 #19
    Fascinating.
     
  21. Nov 1, 2017 #20

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Double slit and measurement
Loading...