High School Exploring Double Slit Experiment in Space

[lkrustev]

So the consciousness is affecting the physical world and this is the reality, so how you can do physics – there is no point to measure anything if this is true :)

 

[DrChinese]

So the consciousness is affecting the physical world and this is the reality, so how you can do physics – there is no point to measure anything if this is true :)

No, we are saying the opposite: consciousness has no known role whatsoever.

 

[Nugatory]

So the consciousness is affecting the physical world and this is the reality, so how you can do physics – there is no point to measure anything if this is true :)

You are misunderstanding something, as the conclusion you should be drawing from the above is that consciousness is completely irrelevant to whether an interference pattern forms or not.

Either there is a physical interaction that ensures that only paths through one slit can be active so there is no interference pattern; or there is not such an interaction so both paths are active and there is an interference pattern. Whether any conscious observer ever bothers to look at the experiment has nothing to do with the real fact that either there is an interference pattern or there isn't.

(One warning: Be aware that "can be active" above is a vague and dubious English-language description of what's going on. Precision comes from doing the math, and natural language is a poor substitute for mathematics.)

 

[lkrustev]

Thank you, but if this is true then the popular understanding "put detectors in the system and record data=no interference, then leave the detectors working but not record=interference" should be wrong, because you say "if there is any way to detect the path there is no interference". Thank you for the patience! As well what do you think about this:



and this:

 

[Nugatory]

if this is true then the popular understanding "put detectors in the system and record data=no interference, then leave the detectors working but not record=interference" should be wrong

That popular understanding is wrong. It's one of those things that people who have never studied quantum mechanics have heard and pass on as a fact without checking first.

As well what do you think about [links to two videos]

If you want to learn quantum mechanics, don't waste your time with them. Find a decent textbook that will give you the real thing. Be prepared to put some work into it - this is stuff that several generations of some of the smartest people who ever lived worked on for more than a century, so don't kid yourself that you'll get understanding from a few hours of reading fun stuff or watching cool videos.

If you lack the math background to take on an intro QM textbook (two years of calculus including multivariable and differential equations, and a smattering of linear algebra) you could give Giancarlo Ghirardi's book "Sneaking a look at God's cards" a try.

 

[houlahound]

In fact the effect of magnetic & electric fields, radiation, gravity...etc on the two slit experiment for photons would be very easy to do.

Electrons however do couple to gravitational, electric & magnetic fields so those variables will impact on the interference pattern.

 

[lkrustev]

There are a lot of contradictions and the interpretations of the experiments are not clear. All experiments done are black box like for the people which are not involved directly.

[Mentor's note: Link to unsatisfactory video reference removed]

 

[DrChinese]

There are a lot of contradictions and the interpretations of the experiments are not clear. All experiments done are black box like for the people which are not involved directly. So we have to accept that the reality is not objective. And as example the "put detectors in the system and record data=NO interference, then leave the detectors working but not record=interference" interpretation is from Jim Al-Khalili which is currently Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey
.

Sorry, that statement is simply wrong. As mentioned previously, the recorder makes no difference. Consciousness makes no difference. You only need to turn on or off the recorder to see that it does nothing to the resulting pattern.

And your video reference falls far short of a suitable reference. You will need to post more substantive than that - a peer-reviewed paper would be appropriate to support assertions of non-standard science.

 

[lkrustev]

I do not make statements. I am just trying to filter the junk information with your help. So, I thank you! In fact your statement makes more sense to me. For me it means that there is a chance even a slight one, that the detection system is destroying the interference, which supports the objective reality instead the crazy consciousness-observer related paradoxes. Thank you one more time!

 

[DrChinese]

For me it means that there is a chance even a slight one, that the detection system is destroying the interference, which supports the objective reality instead the crazy consciousness-observer related paradoxes.

Whether there is objective reality or subjective reality is an open question in quantum physics. It is answered differently by each "interpretation" of QM.

Subjective reality - in contradiction to pop explanations - does not require a conscious observer. The "observer" is the context of the experimental setup itself, not a person (or recorder). To be specific: The EPR Paradox essentially points out that the reality of an object "here" is dependent on the nature of a measurement (observation) "there" (if you assume no action at a distance). This is a definition of subjective reality. With objective reality, each element of reality exists independently of the act of observation.

So removing consciousness from the equation does not change the debate between subjective vs objective realism in physics. There is no evidence at this time to distinguish these views as your interpretation guides your viewpoint. In Bohmian Mechanics, for example, there is objective realism.

 

[Nugatory]

Further discussion should go into a new thread - this one has reached a natural stopping point.
It is now closed.