Watching the double-slit experiment affects the results?

In summary, the conversation revolves around the double-slit experiment and its implications in quantum mechanics. The Dr. Quantum video states that the observer plays a role in the outcome of the experiment, which leads to confusion and debates among the participants. One person questions if the experiment has ever been conducted in reality, while another suggests that it has been done using an interferometer. The discussion also delves into the difference between a diffraction pattern and an interference pattern.
  • #36
OK, sorry, I must have mixed up a couple of videos in my mind.

This particular video only says that the decision to observe may be delayed AFTER the photon has passed the slits but BEFORE it hits the result screen.

around 17:27
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Jakaha said:
This particular video only says that the decision to observe may be delayed AFTER the photon has passed the slits but BEFORE it hits the result screen.

In fact its a demonstration of the modern view of observation and entanglement/decoherence being synonymous. All they show is in simple cases decoherence can be undone. If conciousness etc was actually involved you wouldn't expect that.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...and-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser.623648/

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes Jakaha
  • #38
bhobba said:
That's not true and in fact leads to conciousness being involved as quite absurd.

Imagine a double slit where the results is recorded to computer. The results are copied a million times into memory and separated by vast distances. If you adopt conciousness being involved you will have to say all those copies collapse the moment any of those results are viewed. You can probably create a consistent world view along those line - but a very very weird one.

Thanks
Bill

I'm not saying that consciousness is involved, nor do I say that collapse is real - the idea of "collapse" is still pure unexplained sci-fi, nothing else.

On the other hand, it's also perfectly possible to have millions of copies of the results, and they are still in a "superposition" state or whatever from every human's point of view. It is a very very weird world view, but the only logical conclusion. However I'm also not saying that looking at them collapses them all, and for everyone.
 
  • #39
Jakaha said:
OK, sorry, I must have mixed up a couple of videos in my mind.

This particular video only says that the decision to observe may be delayed AFTER the photon has passed the slits but BEFORE it hits the result screen.

around 17:27


Wow, that's... really bad. They actually have an animation of a person opening their eyes off to the side of the experiment, and the waves wink into particles as a result. The actual experiment is nothing like that at all. It's more like... deciding whether or not to throw away or use the information needed to split the blips making up the non-interference-pattern into two groups where each group contains an interference pattern.
 
  • Like
Likes Jakaha and bhobba
  • #40
Atla said:
On the other hand, it's also perfectly possible to have millions of copies of the results, and they are still in a "superposition" state or whatever from every human's point of view. It is a very very weird world view, but the only logical conclusion. However I'm also not saying that looking at them collapses them all, and for everyone.

No one is saying conciousness causes collapse isn't a valid view - it is. That however is different from saying it is involved.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #41
bhobba said:
That is not assumed at all.

It is.

The modern conception of observation is its a purely quantum phenomena due to the entanglement of what's being observed with what's doing the observing.

Modern? We are not discussing fashion and entaglement helps nothing in resovling the MP.
There is broad agreement that's all that's going on. Do not be fooled by long drawn out discussions on this forum about certain subtleties in this such as the so called factorisation problem.

That's wrong, there isn't agreement of any sort. That's wishful thinking.

In fact in modern times its becoming clear entanglement is the aspect of QM that separates it from classical physics:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695

Aspect. I am an aspect of shoes manufacture(i wear shoes) but i am not the factory.
 
  • #42
  • #43
bhobba said:
computer is not a collapsed wave-function - where you get such from has me beat.
Are you a physicist? What is a 'computer' from the point of view of qft?
 
  • #44
Bruno81 said:
It is.

You wrote:
Bruno81 said:
You seem to assume computers are somehow made of classical particles and exist apart of anything quantum but this is demonstrably wrong.

Everything is quantum and all I have been saying is based on that.

The rest of your reply shows a distinct lack of knowledge of modern QM (eg that decoherence has nothing to do with the MP is - well way off the mark - it doesn't solve it but explains a number of its parts), but let's pin this fundamental issue down first ie why you think I am making that assumption.

In case you are interested in getting such knowledge I suggest the following:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540357734/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It for example carefully explains the measurement problem. It has a number of parts - decoherence explains all but one - the problem of outcomes.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Bruno81 said:
Are you a physicist? What is a 'computer' from the point of view of qft?

I have a Bachelors degree in applied math and functional analysis. I am self taught in physics from many sources. Of relevance to this thread are the following:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9810241054/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540357734/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Precisely why do you think QFT has anything to do with describing macro objects with QM? Its obvious it has nothing to do with it, but if you have a reason I am all ears.

How do classical objects emerge from the quantum? Interaction with the environment:
http://vvkuz.ru/books/zurek.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Atla said:
the idea of "collapse" is still pure unexplained sci-fi, nothing else.
It's also not a required part of the theory of quantum mechanics. It's one way of using natural language to talk about what the mathematical formalism is telling us, and it is very convenient for reasoning about some systems (single photon encounters polarizer, single particle flies through Stern-Gerlach device) but gets in the way when reasoning about other systems (spacelike-separated measurements of entangled systems).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #47
To the OP - this will go round in circles till forever because there is just ONE thing that is science here - the mathematical formalism of quantum theory.

Unfortunately, it's completely incomprehensible and taken at face value hints at solipsism/idealism or some other weird -ism.

The unfortunate effect of this situation is that a handful of useful equations that give tested predictions are garnered with one million volumes of BS assumptions, theories and wild speculation that sometimes pass for science and established fact to the untrained and gullible eye. While the formalism is likely 100% correct and will remain so for a considerable amount of time, the theories surrounding it are likely all 100% wrong from start to finish and will remain so for a considerable amount of time.
 
  • #48
I think this thread has run its course.

Thread closed.
 
<h2>1. How does watching the double-slit experiment affect the results?</h2><p>The act of watching or measuring the experiment can cause a collapse of the wave function, resulting in the particles behaving like particles instead of waves. This is known as the observer effect.</p><h2>2. Can the results of the double-slit experiment be influenced by the observer's thoughts or intentions?</h2><p>There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that the observer's thoughts or intentions can directly influence the results of the experiment. However, the observer's actions, such as the act of measuring, can affect the outcome.</p><h2>3. Is the observer effect unique to the double-slit experiment?</h2><p>No, the observer effect is a well-known phenomenon in quantum mechanics and can occur in other experiments as well. It is a fundamental aspect of the uncertainty principle.</p><h2>4. How can we minimize the impact of the observer effect in the double-slit experiment?</h2><p>One way to minimize the impact of the observer effect is to use advanced technology, such as detectors, to measure the particles instead of relying on human observation. Another approach is to design the experiment in a way that reduces the need for observation or measurement.</p><h2>5. What are the implications of the observer effect for our understanding of reality?</h2><p>The observer effect challenges our traditional understanding of reality and raises questions about the role of consciousness in the physical world. It also highlights the limitations of our current scientific understanding and the need for further research in the field of quantum mechanics.</p>

1. How does watching the double-slit experiment affect the results?

The act of watching or measuring the experiment can cause a collapse of the wave function, resulting in the particles behaving like particles instead of waves. This is known as the observer effect.

2. Can the results of the double-slit experiment be influenced by the observer's thoughts or intentions?

There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that the observer's thoughts or intentions can directly influence the results of the experiment. However, the observer's actions, such as the act of measuring, can affect the outcome.

3. Is the observer effect unique to the double-slit experiment?

No, the observer effect is a well-known phenomenon in quantum mechanics and can occur in other experiments as well. It is a fundamental aspect of the uncertainty principle.

4. How can we minimize the impact of the observer effect in the double-slit experiment?

One way to minimize the impact of the observer effect is to use advanced technology, such as detectors, to measure the particles instead of relying on human observation. Another approach is to design the experiment in a way that reduces the need for observation or measurement.

5. What are the implications of the observer effect for our understanding of reality?

The observer effect challenges our traditional understanding of reality and raises questions about the role of consciousness in the physical world. It also highlights the limitations of our current scientific understanding and the need for further research in the field of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
743
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
60
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
42
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
828
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
952
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top