The Human Eye as a Detector in Double-Slit Experiment

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the double-slit experiment and the hypothesis that the human eye can serve as a detector for light, as tested in a 2016 study. The results indicated that while the eye detected an interference pattern, it did not register light as a particle, contradicting computational predictions. Participants debated the validity of using biological detectors like the human eye, emphasizing the complexities of human perception and the need for standardized mechanical detectors in scientific experiments.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality
  • Familiarity with the double-slit experiment methodology
  • Knowledge of human visual perception and its limitations
  • Experience with experimental design and calibration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the double-slit experiment on quantum mechanics
  • Explore the role of human perception in scientific measurements
  • Study the calibration methods for optical sensors in experimental physics
  • Investigate recent findings on human sensitivity to single photons
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, optical engineers, cognitive scientists, and anyone interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and human perception.

Graeme M
Messages
337
Reaction score
31
TL;DR
Experiemental evidence suggesting the human eye can detect light as a wave but not as a particle. Further experiements needed to clarify if this contributes to some insight into the double-slit experiement and its interpretation.
Trying to wrap my head around what the double-slit experiment is illustrating, it occurred to me that one could replace a mechanical detector with the human eye. I found that this was tested with what seems an elaborate test setup in 2016, and the result suggests that while an interference pattern was detected (and hence light existing as a wave seems to be indicated), light was not detected as a particle, despite a computational simulation of experimental parameters suggesting such detection should occur. The divergence between prediction and result might suggest some discrepancy between detection results using mechanical devices and biological devices.

At least, that is what I gleaned from a quick skim through the paper. I do not find any record of this paper being discussed here, though several threads about the concept exist. Has this paper been discussed? What are your thoughts about this paper and its results?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147464
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Graeme M said:
Experiemental evidence suggesting the human eye can detect light as a wave but not as a particle.
I don't know where you got that idea from but it is incorrect. "Detect it as X" is poorly defined anyway. A photon is a quantum object, it is neither a wave nor a particle, although it shares some properties with both.
it occurred to me that one could replace a mechanical detector with the human eye
You can and it makes no difference. There is nothing special about a human eye.

From a brief look at the publication: What it seems to forget is the optics in the human eye.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and PeroK
Klystron said:
Not apropos to interference or diffraction, many experiments have been conducted on human light perception. I volunteered as a human subject for a wide array of experiments while working at NASA and again at SRI International. The scientific consensus as I understand it was
See one photon if in total darkness? Possible but limited for intensity, wavelength, coherence (laser) and interference as you said.
I don't see why you would inject human subjectivity in that sort of an experiment.
How would you calibrate the eye before the test? Against what standard? A perfect FM hue 100? What age? Sex?
 
vanhees71 said:
There was some investigation hinting at the possibility that indeed the human eye (together with the brain as a processing tool) seems to be sensitive to single photons:

https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282
I don't doubt it but eyes and brains are messy, varied, unpredictable and cannot be calibrated.
You remove all that with a standardized, calibrated, sensor that has a defined spec that everyone can agree on.
Think how easy drug research would be if we were all perfect clones?
Edit How much 'easier'...
 
Last edited:
Sure, I also didn't get the merit in using the human eye + brain processing as a physical measurement device. I guess it's more interesting as an investigation on physiology than that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K