The Human Eye as a Detector in Double-Slit Experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of the human eye as a detector in the double-slit experiment, particularly in relation to its ability to detect light as a wave versus a particle. Participants explore the implications of a 2016 study that suggests the human eye may detect interference patterns but not individual photons, raising questions about the differences between biological and mechanical detection methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the human eye could replace mechanical detectors in the double-slit experiment, referencing a study that indicates the eye detects light as a wave but not as a particle.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that the human eye can detect light as a particle, arguing that the definition of "detect it as X" is unclear and that photons exhibit properties of both waves and particles.
  • A participant with experience in human light perception experiments notes that while detecting a single photon is theoretically possible, it is limited by various factors such as intensity and coherence, and questions the calibration of the human eye in such experiments.
  • Some participants reference investigations suggesting that the human eye, along with brain processing, may be sensitive to single photons, but express skepticism about the reliability of human perception as a measurement tool.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the variability and unpredictability of human subjects compared to standardized sensors, with one participant emphasizing the advantages of using calibrated devices for scientific measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and reliability of using the human eye as a detector in the double-slit experiment. There is no consensus on whether the human eye can effectively detect light as a particle or the implications of such detection.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the calibration of human perception, the variability of biological systems, and the challenges of defining detection in the context of quantum mechanics.

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