Understanding the Uncertainty Principle

[kenewbie]

I just wanted to jump in with a simple question about the double slit experiment:

Has this ever been done in an environment where care has been taken to remove everything (including things which are not considered to act on a particle) else? By everything I mean doing the experiment in a vacuum at 0 kelvin in a led box blocking out gamma rays, removing magnetic fields, preferably at 0 g, and so on.

If this has been done, did it affect the result at all?

I can't stop looking the unknown variable in this experiment, because I don't understand the math / underlying physics of it (yet).

k

 

[ZapperZ]

I just wanted to jump in with a simple question about the double slit experiment:

Has this ever been done in an environment where care has been taken to remove everything (including things which are not considered to act on a particle) else? By everything I mean doing the experiment in a vacuum at 0 kelvin in a led box blocking out gamma rays, removing magnetic fields, preferably at 0 g, and so on.

Can you show an argument or derivation on why this would matter?

Please also note that the double-slit experiment is testing a more general principle of QM, which is the principle of superposition of orthogonal states. The experiments that tests this principle come in many different types, not just the double slit. I've mentioned the Delft/Stony Brook experiments many times on here which illustrates this principle even MORE dramatically than the double-slit. Those are done on a "robust" system at very low temperature (0 Kelvin is unrealistic especially when no one has achieve it) that was "immune" to such external factors that you described (superconductivity is a "quantum protectorate" state).

So doing what you wanted would not change anything.

Zz.

 

[kenewbie]

I certainly cannot show or make it logically follow that any of the criteria I mentioned has any impact. My only argument would be that historically there has been cases where "obvious" non-relevant factors turned out to have an impact after all, once they were removed.

So, if I where to do a follow-up to the original experiment (which had a result which seemed counter-intuitive at least at that point) I would go the extra mile and remove as much as possible.

I will take a look at the Delft/Stony Brook experiments, thanks a lot for the pointer.

k