How accurate is this video? Double Slit experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy of a video related to the double-slit experiment, presented in an AP Physics B class. Participants express skepticism about the video's content, particularly regarding its conceptual and historical accuracy in explaining quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant critiques the video for describing particle detection as "just looking," arguing that this misrepresents the active interaction involved in detection, which alters the state of the particle.
  • Another participant notes that quantum mechanics (QM) does not assert that particles are always localized at a specific position, suggesting that the concept of "position" may not apply before detection.
  • A participant mentions that the Dr Quantum video is part of a film considered to contain pseudo-scientific content, although they acknowledge that the video accurately describes the results of the double-slit experiment.
  • There is a humorous exchange regarding the cultural context of educational terminology, with participants discussing the American educational system and its terminology, such as "AP Physics B" and its implications.
  • One participant provides a detailed explanation of what AP Physics B entails, distinguishing it from AP Physics C and clarifying its purpose in the educational system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the video's accuracy and the implications of its content. While some agree on the misleading aspects of the video's portrayal of quantum detection, there is no consensus on the overall validity of the video's explanations or interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to cultural differences in educational terminology and assumptions, which may affect how concepts are communicated and understood across different regions.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in quantum mechanics, educational methodologies in physics, and cultural perspectives on science communication may find this discussion relevant.

physicsdreams
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Today, my teacher showed us a video in class (AP physics B) as part of our quantum physics unit.



I'm really skeptical about the video, and I wanted to seek the opinion of people who are actually knowledgeable in this field. Is there anything wrong with the information provided (conceptually, historically, etc.)?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's pretty accurate, but it has one big flaw. It describes particle detection as "just looking", which suggests that it's a passive process that doesn't disturb the particle, and just "finds out" where the particle already is. This is very misleading, for two reasons:

1. Detection is an interaction between the particle and the detector that significantly changes the state of the particle. It's nothing like "just looking" in your apartment to find your pants.

2. QM doesn't say that particles are always localized at some specific position. In fact, it suggests that they're not. So it's pretty naive to think that "position" is even an attribute of the particle before detection.

By the way, the Dr Quantum video on the double-slit experiment was made for the movie "What the #$*! do we know!?". This is one of the worst pieces of pseudo-scientific new age garbage that you can find. This Dr Quantum video is the only part of it that isn't completely absurd. It describes the results of single-slit and double-slit experiments accurately enough, but is misleading in the explanation of what's actually happening.

The frustrating truth is that we don't really know what's actually happening to the individual particles in the double-slit experiment. QM tells us how to predict results of experiments, but there are many ways to interpret QM as a description of something that's "actually happening", and we don't even know if any of them is essentially correct.

I have no idea what "AP physics B" means. That just tells me that you're American. Not because I recognize it as American, but because experience tells me that only Americans assume that these things don't need to be explained.
 
Last edited:
Fredrik, your explanation is OK, but the best part was:
Fredrik said:
I have no idea what "AP physics B" means. That just tells me that you're American. Not because I recognize it as American, but because experience tells me that only Americans assume that these things don't need to be explained.
:smile:
Thank you for saying it! I always wanted to make a similar remark, but was afraid to. (By the way, I never asked you where are you from?)
 
Fredrik said:
experience tells me that only Americans assume that these things don't need to be explained.

It's not just us (which not to say that it's appropriate). I've seen many people refer to "A levels" and "GCSE" without further qualification. And then there are threads like this:

MSC in IIT (JAM)

:-p
 
Demystifier said:
Fredrik, your explanation is OK, but the best part was:

:smile:
Thank you for saying it! I always wanted to make a similar remark, but was afraid to. (By the way, I never asked you where are you from?)
Glad I could provide some entertainment. :smile: I'm from Sweden.
 
Fredrik said:
Glad I could provide some entertainment. :smile: I'm from Sweden.

I forget... is Sweden closer to Holland or the Netherlands?




(must be an American) :smile:
 
DrChinese said:
I forget... is Sweden closer to Holland or the Netherlands?




(must be an American) :smile:
Hah, I'm not falling for your trick question. The Netherlands is the fictional place where Tinker Bell and Peter Pan live.
 
DrChinese said:
I forget... is Sweden closer to Holland or the Netherlands?

(must be an American) :smile:
No, a true American would write:

I 4 get ... is Sw closer 2 Hl or Nt?
 
AP Physics B, for those wondering, is an Advanced Placement course, i.e. a nationally standardized high school course for advanced students designed to cover the material that would usually be covered in a college course, so that when they go to college they will be able to place out of those courses. Specifically, AP Physics B tries to mimic the non-calculus based one-semester introductory/survey course in physics that non-physics students would take in the beginning of college. This is to be distinguished from AP Physics C, which tries to mimic the calculus-based introductions to classical mechanics and classical electromagnetism that students majoring typically take in the beginning of college. And no, there is no AP Physics A.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K