High School Questions about measurement devices in the double slit experiment

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the role of measurement devices in the double slit experiment and their impact on wave function collapse. It is clarified that devices which detect which slit a particle passes through do not cause wave collapse unless they record the measurements. The presence of detectors, even without observation, eliminates the interference pattern, indicating that the act of detection itself alters the particle's behavior. The misconception that a conscious observer is necessary for wave function collapse is debunked, emphasizing that the interaction with measurement devices is what matters. This topic has been settled in quantum mechanics, contrary to popular belief.
UnderstandingQT
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
How did you find PF?: Google

Is it true that the devices that quantify which slit do NOT produce wave collapse unless they actually record the light measurements rather than just detect them without recording?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
UnderstandingQT said:
How did you find PF?: Google

Is it true that the devices that quantify which slit do NOT produce wave collapse unless they actually record the light measurements rather than just detect them without recording?
:welcome:

What might "detect without recording" mean?
 
  • Like
Likes Omega0
UnderstandingQT said:
Is it true that the devices that quantify which slit do NOT produce wave collapse unless they actually record the light measurements rather than just detect them without recording?

It is possible to place polarizers over each of the 2 slits. In cases where the slits are aligned perpendicular, there will be no interference. And yet there is nothing being recorded in any fashion to indicate which slit the light goes through, even though in principle that is possible.

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...-demonstrations/files/single_photon_paper.pdf

Is that the scenario you are envisioning?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
UnderstandingQT said:
How did you find PF?: Google

Is it true that the devices that quantify which slit do NOT produce wave collapse unless they actually record the light measurements rather than just detect them without recording?
You can record which slit they went through and in that case there would be no interference pattern.
 
DrChinese said:
It is possible to place polarizers over each of the 2 slits. In cases where the slits are aligned perpendicular, there will be no interference. And yet there is nothing being recorded in any fashion to indicate which slit the light goes through, even though in principle that is possible.

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...-demonstrations/files/single_photon_paper.pdf

Is that the scenario you are envisioning?
When they launch the particle, where do they aim specifically?
 
omie said:
When they launch the particle, where do they aim specifically?

At the slits! Where else?
 
omie said:
When they launch the particle, where do they aim specifically?
The slits are close enough together that they're both equally likely to be hit. It's possible to do the experiment with the slits more widely separated (which has the effect of weakening the interference pattern and making it asymmetrical) but that just complicates the calculation without introducing any new physics.
 
  • Like
Likes omie
I have a similar and (maybe the same?) question as UnderstandingQT. If you fire electrons toward the two slits, and you have electron detectors at each slit that are turned off, then you will get an interference pattern. If you turn the detectors on and observe the results, you will not get an interference pattern. If you turn the detectors on but do not observe or record the results, will you get an interference pattern? The question, of course is trying to sort out whether the interference pattern vanishes because 1) a conscious observer was aware of which slit the electron passed through or 2) whether the mere physical process that permitted detection of the electron caused the electron to behave as a particle. Surely this obvious high-school level question has been definitively settled.

Sorry, Understanding QT, if this is not what you were getting at.
 
Cato said:
If you turn the detectors on but do not observe or record the results, will you get an interference pattern?
No. It's the interaction with the detectors that makes the difference.

This was definitively settled many decades ago. Unfortunately by then the idea that a conscious observer was involved had made it into the popular imagination where it lives on as a sort of urban legend, one of those things that everyone has "just heard somewhere"

A pretty good layman friendly reference is David Lindley's book "Where did the weirdness go?"
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Thank you! So all the talk about the importance of "observation" is mistaken. Nice to have that that settled.
 
  • #11
If someone were able to explain single/definite outcomes(why certain outcomes and not others), he'd surely have gotten a Nobel prize.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Single vs. Double slit coherence clarification please
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
572
Undergrad Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Double-slit experiment and time
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
High School Yet another double slit thought experiment...
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
High School How is the measurement done for the double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School What is causing destructive interference in double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
High School Double Double Slit Experiment -- Question about Variations
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Measurement and Thermal Effects Similar?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad Does a qubit break interference in the double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
823