"...we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the [atomic] object with the measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer."
"Certainly quantum theory does not contain genuine subjective features; it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as a part of the atomic event."
Since the interference pattern is caused by a zone where the front-edge diffraction of the two slits overlaps (rather than by mysterious particle-waves that somehow interfere with each other), getting the same pattern by firing particles one-at-a-time no longer holds any mystery.
Particles do no split up, exhibit some mysterious wave nature, interfere with themselves, or interfere with other particles in any way shape or form. Anyone who believes they do is simply deluding themselves.
@TheQuantumMaverick so is the double slit experiment accurate or not ? i dont think it is because then how can the double slit experiment know when we are watching it ?
Furthermore, experiments have been done as long ago as 1987 that prove you can detect which slit a particle has passed through without completely destroying the interference pattern – debunking the theory that particles mysteriously change their behaviour when we ‘look at them’.
In Summary: Disappointingly, the double-slit experiment is merely no more than a mildly interesting experiment on the effects of diffraction.
This explanation was proposed by ‘Neo Diffractionites’ (found in a Facebook Quantum Physics discussion)
If a laser is aimed close to, but not above, a knife edge, some photons will bend over the top of the knife edge due to diffraction (demonstrating that diffraction starts at the front edge)
Thus if the slits are close enough (near the ‘wavelength’ of the oscillating particle), there will be a zone where the front-edge diffraction effects overlap; this overlap causes the interference pattern
I was not aware of "Dr. Quantum" previously. But they are, indeed, the same presentation. This one is not nearly as clear, however. Someone went *way* out of their way to clutter this one up with very distracting SFX which diminish the impact of the science presented. I'd recommend:
youtube . com /watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc (remove spaces)
for viewers desiring a clearer presentation of the same material.
Electrons like Photons only seem to exist as a wave until they come in contact with an object. Then the wave function collapses forming a quantized form of energy. If this is a universal and continuous process could it be forming the passage of time? Because each new Electron or Photon will have a unique position in space and time that the wave function never had before the collapse. Could Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be the same uncertainty that the observer will have with any future event?
If by "observing" you mean something that collapses an entangled wave function, then it can be ANY interaction with the entangled system. It need not involve any human, any animal, any intelligence... a stray photon may cause such a collapse. "Observing" is obviously a poor term for this function.
Oh yea did you even notice he said "entangled wave function" or "entangled system"? LOL, you disperately wanted cassio to take your side that you didnt even read the comment correctly.
Quantum Nonlocality doesnt have much to do what causes a wavefunction. Except that decoherence says why we dont see it much in macroscopic systems (even thou the superposition is still there).
Also its pretty sad you claim to know something, yet you have to rely on someone else to back up your claims. And even more silly that that "someone else" is a small local group from Alabama that is funded by just ONE physist (who they dont even realise his name).
I might also be able to contact a Ph.D Nuclear Physist and point out others who would take my side in this, but I dont now do I? Thats because I dont need others to fight my fights.
Listen hows about you just stick to things your knowledge at, instead of talking about fields you clearly dont know. That just harms your image and respect.
Everyone else? LOL, you were scared and needed the opinion of someone else to make you feel right. And you think that means everyone else thinks the same?
its pretty sad that youre such a negative person. id even say agressive. wasnt such a good experience to read your comments. if you really want ppl to think of what u have to say, do it with respect.
i dont know what SIDEWAYSFCS0718 said 2 upset u...but...u commented..."you have to rely on someone else to back up your claims."
but r u a physist?have u conducted expeirements of ur own and analyzed the results?unless u have, unless u've got ur hands dirty ur also relying on others 2 back up ur claims...
He basically claimed to be right about his statements. Yet whenever I disagreed, he automatically tried to call on another Utuber to give his opinion.
He pretty much only cared about the opinion of another.
yeah...i get it...i know this guy who doese the same shit...i told him once that humans nearly drove the buffolo extinct during the fur trade back in the settlement days.he disagreed saying that european tourist of the time were the culprits.implying that europeans arent people i guess.i tried 2 show him my sources like(science, discover, and science news magazines)he wanted nothing 2 do with it.i ask 2 c his sources and he beats around the bush.
In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.
For us to be able to detect an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.
in thix context observer means measuring ...not simply LOOKING ...
that fact that u are looking throo the measuring device or not has nothing to do with the experiment
if left alone and activated, the measuring device will still collapse the wave function ...
observing in this context has nothing to do with looking at something ....its about measuring...
some ppl didnt get that and thaught conciousness is what collapses the wave function , and thats how retarded books like "what the bleep do we know" appeared..
@cassiopeiaproject You created it? Did you also create the "Dr. Quantum" animations for the "What the Bleep Do We Know" movie? Because they're word-for-word the same. Explain please. You didn't even mention this extremely weird coincidence in the video description, which might lead some people to think you ripped it off.
Neutrinos have less mass than electrons, so could we predict that they would also form a wave pattern? Disreguarding that neutrinos are neutral and dont interact with charged particles. But then again the neutrino's would pass straight through the wall of the "slit". I failed :( lol
the experiment in the video is true but the last words are missleading
cus theres a book called "what the bleep do we know" and it talks about spirituality conciousness and this experiment
observer in this context has nothing to do with the fact that there is someone looking throo the detector or not ..
if u leave the detector open it will always collapse the wave function since the detector emits particles that interfere with the particles going throo the slits....
@UncannyRicardo well maybe it's a little different, because by then it already happened, so we could be right, recording after it happened and recording while it happened are two different things, so we could be right.
That is untrue. In quantam mechanics, no particle can be measured, only given a probability of where it is at a ceartain time. This is because all particles exist everywhere and nowhere at once. They are in a state of Superposition, until they observed, in which case the waves begin acting like particles, and collapse into one state.
does looking at it with ur eyes affect the wave function, or only does measuring it collapse the function?
cus ive seen more clips of other ppl saying stuff about conciosssness and how it affects matter ...and somehow it all doesnt exist ..it exists only cus ur looking at it? that sounds like GOBLY-GOOK to me.
They make the point to say that uncertainty principle dictates the need of a measuring device capable of the precise measurements needed on the quantum lvl.
Like Occ said, this is impossible w/ eyes but certainly holds true for some devices out there. Once you know more about one aspect well enough, the uncertainty principle limits the knowledge on the other aspect such that you cannot know what both are at the same time. Your eyes are measuring it but without the necessary precision needed to collapse it into anything we can see w/ eyes.
a conciouss human being has nothng to do with it ..u can put 10 people by the damn slit and the particle will pass throo both .
if u put a device that measures it ..then it only goes throo 1.
thats cus a measuring device emits photons in order to measure ...or any other particle ....thats why it interferes. this whole conciousness thing is pseudo science.
thats what i just fucking said ur just repeating what im saying .....
observing with a measuring device has nothing to do with conciousness , u can leave the measuring device unmanned and it will still collapse the wave function.
no in this context observing means a measuring device is places there ..
there can be someone looking throo it or not it will still collapse the wave function, your eyes have nothing to do with it ...anyone who knows basic optics would know that ..all ur eyes are doing is interceptin photons ...that couldnt possibly collapse a wave function.
but sending particles to interfere with the another particle that goes throo a slit ....thats measuring ...or in other words observing ...its just semantic
dude if the instrument is running , in order for it to detect something it is emitting particles, collapsing the wave function of the other particle ..
regardless if a human is looking throo the instrument or not .....
there is no ling between conciousness and the double slit experiment other than the crack-pot retards pseudo-scientific book written about it ...like that "what the bleep do we know? " wich is heavily criticized by the entire scientific comunity for missleading interviews.
LOL, I just looked back at all the comments in this video. This is called DENIAL, like Cashify says.
Some people actually saw the bias in this video and talked about "delayed choice" stuff. Then the anti-spiritual fangirls of this video said crap like "thats not true or there is no experiment like this".
Look back at some of the oldest comments, even the guy that posted this video is in denial. LOL
He said QE and delayed choice didnt imply an observer mattered, yet failed to give a reason why not. When another guy pointed this out and gave reasons why QE did show that consciousness mattered, the guy who posted this video never replied back. LOL, PWNED!
@sidewaysfcs0718 the reason "what the bleep do we know" was criticized is because it tries attributing and affiliating religion with science, and that's why the scientific community reproved it, not because it demonstrates and explains the quantum observer effect...
This video does the same exact thing as "what the bleep do we know", it's not flawed, it's exactly how you explain it, the quantum observation effect.
dude ask any scientist there is no connection between conciousness and this expriment
the act of observing or measuring MEANS u are interacting with the electrons by emitting other particles twards them in order to observe or measure them
but looking at them without a device means u arent emitting particle ur eyes are absorbing particles
so the whole conciouss observer argument goes out the window
a measuring device left alone will still measure and collapse the wave function ..
NOBODY knows what exactly causes wave-function collapse (some even doubt the collapse at all).
There are MANY interpretations of QM, NONE of which have been proven to be better than the rest.
P.S. looking at your comments its clear you dont even understand the consciousness idea. So I wouldnt be calling people retards when you basically show your lack of knowledge of what your argueing.
i did , theres a whole series on it full of butjobs saying its something spiritual ..
and this experiment is understood very well , u are measuring something , therefore interacting with the wave, therefore making it collapse ...
since the electron is moving in a wave pattern , by hitting it with a photon to measure it , u are reducing the places the electron can exist , and it goes in a straight line ...
@UncannyRicardo well, when you record via a measuring device, you recording while it happens, thus that is when the change occurs, but when you don't record while it happens, and just let it continue, what happened on the back wall records what happened, not what is happening.
OMG, do you even know what your talking about? Going by your comments its pretty obvious you dont know the system.
You dont even know how to make the distinction of the wave-particle duality to Shrodinger's equation. Your hypothesis pretty much fails to explain the phenomena of Quantum Systems (except for maybe double slit), so it can be easily thrown out.
ur not even debating ym opinion ur just telling i dont understand it without telling me whre im wrong ..
the point i keep trying to make is this experiment has nothing to do with a conciouss observer ...if u leave a damn measuring device activated it will still collapse the wave function regardless if ur looking throo it or not.....its common sense.
Pretty much yea. Or atleast that you dont understand how it (if it) even relates to the what were discussing here.
What the heck? I've been clearly telling you how you've been wrong. Just look at my previous 2 or 3 posts to you.
A point that you cannont prove (since not even physists can). By the way you described what you think happens in double slit I can somewhat tell your lack of knowledge on Quantum Systems.
Common Sense? Quantum Physics is specifically known for being counter-intuitive. The fact that you think common sense applies to microscopic particles shows further lack of knowledge on the subject.
i was merely trying to clarify this video cus some people thaught it was another video about conciousness ...u know theese new age healers who claim quantum physics is somehow connected to conciousness..
Consciousness very well might be. This video is almost as biased as What the Bleep, because it claims consciousness does not play a role. The correct answer as to wether or not it does is, WE DONT KNOW.
how could it possibly play a role if the measuring device can record the particle's position even when no one is looking throo it ? in fact the deffinition of observer in quantum mechanics doesnt imply a person , it ALWAYS implies a measuring device
since in order to detect a particle u must interact with it ...wich u cant do by simply "looking at it" u need to MEASURE it ...wich means u are hitting it with photons ...cus thats how measuring devices work
OMG, again your statement pretty much proves that you lack knowledge in Quantum Physics.
"u need to MEASURE it ...wich means u are hitting it with photons"
What counts as a measurement is wanna the most argued debates in Physics. Plus your definition of a measurement has already been disproved thanks to other quantum experiaments.
Virtually no statement that you make in your comments has been proved, so stop trying to ascert your positions as facts when they arent.
Heck Im done here. You obviously just ignore any of the critisisms your views get and continue to think your right. I cannot force you to look at the evidence, so theres no need for me to try.
I clearly say that currently there is no right answer. There are many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, each just as equally likely. Conciousness playing a role is just as likely as not, its just like any other interpretation.
No, you look up what Quantum Mechanics says in general. You clearly dont know what it actually says.
Again im done here, you obviously will ignore all the statements i give you.
Uh, yea I have also criticed cassio before in my comments, did you ever look?
Whether or not an observer needs to be "conscious" is up to interpertation. For example (uisng cassio's way) how do you know a photon causes the collapse? Because of consciousness, you cannot have a result without checking it out (and consciousness is required for that).
Right all along? LOL, you dont even know what the wavefunction is.
i believe alot of people misunderstood what observer means ..and somehow think concioussness has something to do with it
observe measuring device ..a measuring device emits particles ..thats why it interferes ..if u LOOK at the slit it wont collapse the wave function ...
Its not that hard to understand. Your eyes are designed to colapse the wavefunction, otherwise everything would be a blur. You would see everything as if you were drunk. Consciousness plays a profound role with vibration. Life itself is driven to the light spectrum. & all vibrates... No pseudo science there....Just ignorant subjective scientists scared they will have to throw out 6 years of schooling, so it is clouded by lies & selfishness, to further the careers of physicists. hiding a truth.
why are so many ppl trying to associate this with consciousness? if u really understood the physics u wouldnt be talking out ur ass like that....it actual makes u should like an idiot when u claim something like that. WHAT PPL THINK OR WANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARTICLE. "OBSERVATION" IS JUST A WAY OF SAYING MEAASURING. WHICH IS JUST DESTURBING THE PARTICLE MAKING THE PATH.
the delayed decision portion of the experiment was to eliminate "any devise" and see if our decisions matter in the experiment. Now if you think any devise collapses the wave pattern, then how could the experiment reveal the next day anything other then a particle pattern? You don't even know it exists and you are calling others ignorant. The next day after they fired the electrons, the results changed when we decided to know or not know the saved data. So the device used to capture was ruledout
No ur wrong....when u measure the slit the particle went through u know the position of said particle.... there is no longer a wavefuntion equation explaining which slit the partcle went through. by ur logic if someone didnt know the experiment was happening and they looked at the data nothingn would show up. and thats just wrong. the enviroment interacts with with anything we try to measure so we take that into account. what we learn from quantum mechanics is that we must take into account...
...Not only the things outside they system we are meaasuring but we must also take into account the act of measuring itself. thats because any way we choose to measure will put some form of energy into the system and that, because of heisenberg, we know will change the system. u see itts not a concsious related event but its a law of physics. it is universal across the universe regardless of a conscious mind knowing about it. we know its the act of measuring btw.........
...we know its the device and the interaction because we can change the method and change the probabilities of the particle traveling through a specific slit. we can alter the interferece pattern by altering the device we use to measure the partice.... enough said.
Too many people have seen "What The Bleep Do We Know" and it's pseudoscience garbage that people are taking as fact. Quantum physics is difficult, sometimes almost impossible to understand because you can't apply classical thinking to it.
tell me about it! ppl seem to watch these flashy videos and get all these magical ideas in their heads. i wish they would at least try and listen to actual scientists before trying to argue.
Most people are very disconnected from scientists but love to pretend like they understand and deserve opinions. They are very easy to make money off of...
so does only a measuring device affect the wave function ..or do my very eyes affect it ..i find simply looking at it not having anything to do with the wave function ...
a measuring device transmits particles ...thats why it collapses the wave function ..not cus ur LOOKING at it ..
@sidewaysfcs0718 You can see where the light is with your eyes, *or* you can measure what the light is doing (the actual photons) but not both. One does not support the other in a traditional sense of thinking.
@sidewaysfcs0718 Well, you can't "observe" anything on the quantum level with your eyes. We must rely on sensitive equipment to tell us where the particles arrive after passing through the "two slits".
The size of the particles being fired in this experiment are simply too small to see with the naked eye, or even assisted with the most high powered optical microscopes. To help put it into perspective, a single drop of water is estimated to contain more than 100 billion atoms...
@sidewaysfcs0718 When you say "emits particles", what exactly do you mean? The measuring device used in this experiment would be a screen placed opposite the particle emitter with the "two slit" wall in between. The only particle emitter in the experiment would be the particle accelerator used to fire toward the "two slit" wall.
A large screen collects the particles once they've been fired through to determine where they end up.
You may be confusing this with a scanning electron microscope?
@Occrameq A scanning electron microscope fires a concentrated beam of electrons to see the incredibly small surface of matter. This is the only measuring device I can think of that would require a particle stream, and even then, it's simply a means to create information to measure, not the measuring device itself.
In other words, inside an SEM, there is a device that collects and reads the electrons once they've been fired at the surface of the object you're viewing, which is the true measure.
position or velocity, one or the other only. the EPR paradox is not really a paradox but a fact. but there is an even deeper underlying truth about it all....all linked to destiny (in my opinion!)
and for those that say there is no second part. Use your brain. If you did the experiment and at the point they say any device, think as if your the experimenter. All you have to do is perform the experiment and save the data on a pc. Now all you have to do is wait till the next day and and no matter what we decide, since the device was used yesterday and it was measured then a particle must appear, right? so why the next day could a wave pattern appear? It only appeared when we decide to know.
The Dr Quantum video is exactly the same only up until the final conclusion!
Dr Quantum implies that human consciousness is responsible for the wave-function collapse of the electron into a particle, linking in with the Quantum Metaphysics mumbo jumbo pushed in the "What the Bleep" franchise. Highly misleading by its omission of certain facts...
This video is more accurate in that it explains that "any sort of measuring device... always interfered with the electron".
"any sort of measuring device" is completely wrong. what these videos fail to do is give the rest of the experiment. There is a delayed decision portion that eliminates the devises as the cause and puts it squarely on the human mind. And proves electrons operate outside of time. The patterns can be changed the NEXT DAY depending on what decision the human makes. look at data and a particle pattern appears. don't look and wave appears. This is the next day folks!!! not any devise, the human mind.
Ja Dr. quantum vid is way better, this one is cheesy and stupid , lol a chrome floating head oooo thatll make this video cool right? .... no ..interesting experiment tho
The Dr Quantum video is better. Both the narrative, but mainly the animation, explains things more clearly. This animation is slicker, but it is poorly designed: the experiment is shown far too in the distance. Can't see what the floating head is talking about. Plus, the talking head visually gets in the way of the experiment in the back!
from what i understand....when u measure the electron it interacts with either a field or another electron to detect it. that creates an entangled state between the apparatus and the electron, collapsing the wave funtion. it has nothing to do with ur thoughts or anything like that it is simple interaction at the quantum lvl.
Wrong. If you measure, and delete the data before looking, the interference partern will still exist. But if you look at the data before delete, the partern will disappear.
nooo.... u have no clue what ur talking about. te pattern doesnt disappear. thats impossible once the info is there its there! u cant create or destroy energy or matter do how would it disappear? get a clue and read up on the subject like i did! or watch susskin's expanation on this very website.
Okay, I admit that I present my point unclearly.. my main point is... The action of detecting has nothing to do with the pattern (As oppose to what Zensho1 said, "the actual detection or not that decideds the pattern" . Because if you turn on the detecting device while doing the experiment, but decided not to look at the data collected. You'll still get the interference pattern. And I didn't meant the pattern was there and disappeared. I meant will the interference pattern happens or not.
And from what I've read up, the pattern (whether interfered or not) IS NOT there before you choice to look at the collected data or not. Even if you do the experiment yesterday and make the decision today.
the detection does evffect the pattern, because thats what collapses the wave funtion in the first place. when 2 particle-waves interact for a period of time they become entangled and because of that measurement the position of the particle is known which means the interference pattern doesnt appear. dont know if that makes sense....but yea the fact that a human sees the data doesnt matter one bit. its the fact that the particle becomes entangled because of the act of measurement.
Hm... If that is the case, how do you explain that you did measure, but delete the data before looking, and the interference pattern happens again? Like... You did turn on the measurement device, shouldn't the particles got entangled too? Why the interference pattern still happens?
if the particles are entangled by definition the position is known. if the position is known the interference pattern cannot form because the slit in which the particle went through is definite, unlike when the particle isnt entangled and the wave function goes through both creating an interference pattern. i dont know about ur data i can only account for my own. if u go to Susskind's entanglemnt lecture and i think its like the 4th video he explains it pretty good.
Woah woah woah! I said that too soon! It IS ripping off Dr. Quantum, except at the end it CHANGES and gives an ACTUAL explaination for what is happening.
i think it changes its behavior because we live in a world of endless posibilities and the fact of observing cheats the system itself,and you can control something that is controling you at the same time,since you are made of atoms and you cant cheat to yourself,I think to resolve this problem is necesary to make the expriment in a
I really don't see what is so strange about it. A lone quantum level event is a probabilistic distribution, but any direct interaction with another quantum event produces a specific result... and the only way to make an observation of something is to interact with it. We see something by bouncing photons off of it. So what is happening is that the wave function is effectively reset at the point of the slit detector, so it behaves as if there is only one slit.
You mean that through looking at the electron while it is being shot at the slit we influence it by bouncing photons of it? And by this "bouncing" we change it's bahaviour so that it acts like a ball of matter instead of like a wave? Sounds odd to me, but I'm not a scientist. I mean, shouldn't those photons be bounced at the electron even though we don't look at it?
"You mean that through looking at the electron while it is being shot at the slit we influence it by bouncing photons of it?"
Sorry if that wasn't clear. The reference to photons was specific to how humans actually see. But the principal is the same. Detecting something means gaining information from it, and the only way to do that is through some kind of interaction.
If you eliminate all other possible interactions, then it has no reason to collapse... a dark room with no air for example.
There are actually 2 more experiments that can show the confounding nature of the construction of the experiment. I call the one the "Double Band" experiment. The other uses light and two rods of glass. The point of the experiments shows that the "screen" matters more than you'd think.
Even if the plate was placed in a box, along with the measuring device, the wave function will still collapse, even though the measuring device is inside the system, because the measuring device links the system to the outside world, destroying the wave function.
It's all about the system. If no outside observation is done to a closed system (the plate), then there is uncertainty about what happens. The thing that seperates the quantum world from the relativistic world is that objects at the quantum level cannot self-obsersve (collapse their own wave-function), because they are equally wave and particle. So at the quantum level, all outcomes can occur, instead of one outcome trumping the others at the relativistic world.
Also, that little last bit about the measuring device always "collapsing" the particle, they have done this test by leaving the "measuring" device on, but not observing the results, and the end result was a wave pattern, so this, and delayed choice removes the measuring device interference belief. The measuring device has no effect on the particles themselves at all. Not sure why this was added in.
So what would happen if A) You didnt observe the experiment directly and you recorded the electrons movements after you know the results. B) Record the electron without observing it directly and let fate decide whether or not you look at what the electron is doing ie. tossing a coin? If the electron knows the outcome of a coin toss before it has happen then.........What??
If you look at the results, and still have data of the electron count, it will always be a clumping pattern, or, 2 lines. As long as you have the data, it will always be 2 lines. As for the coin toss, "delayed choice" is the same thing. We do the experiment, the next week is when we decide whether to look at the data or not, then look at the pattern. If we chose to delete the data then look at the pattern, it was a wave, if we chose to look at the data, it was 2 lines.
This is a rip-off of the "Dr. Quantum" down to the very script, but, no matter. This is a beautiful experiment and people should know about it. And yes, the Delayed Decision should always be shown with it too because it does prove that it is whether humans have knowledge of the data that determines the result.
What happens if you observe the electron AFTER is has gone thru? Will it still collapse the wave function?
AnLa061095 3 months ago
I liked these cassio vids until i found this copy. Atleast change the dialogue next time
Kerrnano 6 months ago
Two quotes from Heisenberg:
"...we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the [atomic] object with the measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer."
"Certainly quantum theory does not contain genuine subjective features; it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as a part of the atomic event."
Wittgensteinism 8 months ago
Were there more than two animations done for this script?
derman077 9 months ago
I just admire this. Should have added Schrödinger's time dependent and time independent equations.
Lucuskane 10 months ago
Dr. Quantum, where art thou?
jjunit207 10 months ago
Since the interference pattern is caused by a zone where the front-edge diffraction of the two slits overlaps (rather than by mysterious particle-waves that somehow interfere with each other), getting the same pattern by firing particles one-at-a-time no longer holds any mystery.
Particles do no split up, exhibit some mysterious wave nature, interfere with themselves, or interfere with other particles in any way shape or form. Anyone who believes they do is simply deluding themselves.
TheQuantumMaverick 11 months ago
@TheQuantumMaverick so is the double slit experiment accurate or not ? i dont think it is because then how can the double slit experiment know when we are watching it ?
derek15476 5 months ago
Furthermore, experiments have been done as long ago as 1987 that prove you can detect which slit a particle has passed through without completely destroying the interference pattern – debunking the theory that particles mysteriously change their behaviour when we ‘look at them’.
In Summary: Disappointingly, the double-slit experiment is merely no more than a mildly interesting experiment on the effects of diffraction.
TheQuantumMaverick 11 months ago
This explanation was proposed by ‘Neo Diffractionites’ (found in a Facebook Quantum Physics discussion)
If a laser is aimed close to, but not above, a knife edge, some photons will bend over the top of the knife edge due to diffraction (demonstrating that diffraction starts at the front edge)
Thus if the slits are close enough (near the ‘wavelength’ of the oscillating particle), there will be a zone where the front-edge diffraction effects overlap; this overlap causes the interference pattern
TheQuantumMaverick 11 months ago
I was not aware of "Dr. Quantum" previously. But they are, indeed, the same presentation. This one is not nearly as clear, however. Someone went *way* out of their way to clutter this one up with very distracting SFX which diminish the impact of the science presented. I'd recommend:
youtube . com /watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc (remove spaces)
for viewers desiring a clearer presentation of the same material.
sbergman27 1 year ago
photons do a song and dance routine when observed.but split when theyre on reality t.v.
lemorpion1 1 year ago
They stole this. sad.
morningstomper123 1 year ago
You just riped off dr Quantum even the dialog is the same and the sound effects.
YamiPoyo 1 year ago
isn't this the text of dr. quantum?
HomerJ666 1 year ago
@HomerJ666 Yup they stole it.
YamiPoyo 1 year ago
LOL you copied What the BLEEP. Well done.
djahriman 1 year ago 2
Electrons like Photons only seem to exist as a wave until they come in contact with an object. Then the wave function collapses forming a quantized form of energy. If this is a universal and continuous process could it be forming the passage of time? Because each new Electron or Photon will have a unique position in space and time that the wave function never had before the collapse. Could Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be the same uncertainty that the observer will have with any future event?
nickharvey7 1 year ago
?????????????
nitramsnimmuc 1 year ago
You think dark matter is behind this?
JimbobOMG 1 year ago
can cassiopeia just tell me if im right or wrong on what observing actually means....?
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
If by "observing" you mean something that collapses an entangled wave function, then it can be ANY interaction with the entangled system. It need not involve any human, any animal, any intelligence... a stray photon may cause such a collapse. "Observing" is obviously a poor term for this function.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
Really you know what causes a collapse? And I'm not talking about decoherence here (sense it doesnt explain anything).
Was there a Quantum Interpretation winner these last couple of days?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
Oh yea did you even notice he said "entangled wave function" or "entangled system"? LOL, you disperately wanted cassio to take your side that you didnt even read the comment correctly.
Quantum Nonlocality doesnt have much to do what causes a wavefunction. Except that decoherence says why we dont see it much in macroscopic systems (even thou the superposition is still there).
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
Also its pretty sad you claim to know something, yet you have to rely on someone else to back up your claims. And even more silly that that "someone else" is a small local group from Alabama that is funded by just ONE physist (who they dont even realise his name).
I might also be able to contact a Ph.D Nuclear Physist and point out others who would take my side in this, but I dont now do I? Thats because I dont need others to fight my fights.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
u wont stop at anything to make people see your right and everyone else is wrong right????
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
Actually that corresponds to you, since you just suddenly contacted me about something a WEEK after we stopped.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
well ofcourse i did ...what else was i suppost to do? let u have the fun of thinking u where right when everyone else knows "observing means" ....
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
Get an education?
Listen hows about you just stick to things your knowledge at, instead of talking about fields you clearly dont know. That just harms your image and respect.
Everyone else? LOL, you were scared and needed the opinion of someone else to make you feel right. And you think that means everyone else thinks the same?
Wow
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
its pretty sad that youre such a negative person. id even say agressive. wasnt such a good experience to read your comments. if you really want ppl to think of what u have to say, do it with respect.
fishgrass 1 year ago
i dont know what SIDEWAYSFCS0718 said 2 upset u...but...u commented..."you have to rely on someone else to back up your claims."
but r u a physist?have u conducted expeirements of ur own and analyzed the results?unless u have, unless u've got ur hands dirty ur also relying on others 2 back up ur claims...
TheOnemandigitaljam 1 year ago
You need to see his comments.
He basically claimed to be right about his statements. Yet whenever I disagreed, he automatically tried to call on another Utuber to give his opinion.
He pretty much only cared about the opinion of another.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
yeah...i get it...i know this guy who doese the same shit...i told him once that humans nearly drove the buffolo extinct during the fur trade back in the settlement days.he disagreed saying that european tourist of the time were the culprits.implying that europeans arent people i guess.i tried 2 show him my sources like(science, discover, and science news magazines)he wanted nothing 2 do with it.i ask 2 c his sources and he beats around the bush.
TheOnemandigitaljam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
single slit rotating and 2 single slits merging
watch?v=vwlp9nwMueM
kevinstuartfr0st 1 year ago
In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.
For us to be able to detect an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.
in thix context observer means measuring ...not simply LOOKING ...
u cant even see a particle ..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
can someone from cassiopeia tell me im wrong atleast?
i mean how does the simple act of LOOKING at the slit collapse it ...it cant
but MEASURING it does collapse it , cus measuring implies a particles is emitted by the detector ..
simply looking at it with the naked eye cant possibly do anything
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
that fact that u are looking throo the measuring device or not has nothing to do with the experiment
if left alone and activated, the measuring device will still collapse the wave function ...
observing in this context has nothing to do with looking at something ....its about measuring...
some ppl didnt get that and thaught conciousness is what collapses the wave function , and thats how retarded books like "what the bleep do we know" appeared..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
Cassiopeiaproject,
Did you create this animation or did you just post it?
Frank
frankfihn 2 years ago
We created it.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
@cassiopeiaproject You created it? Did you also create the "Dr. Quantum" animations for the "What the Bleep Do We Know" movie? Because they're word-for-word the same. Explain please. You didn't even mention this extremely weird coincidence in the video description, which might lead some people to think you ripped it off.
danivers 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject You stole it.
YamiPoyo 1 year ago
Neutrinos have less mass than electrons, so could we predict that they would also form a wave pattern? Disreguarding that neutrinos are neutral and dont interact with charged particles. But then again the neutrino's would pass straight through the wall of the "slit". I failed :( lol
meusicalentall27 2 years ago
the experiment in the video is true but the last words are missleading
cus theres a book called "what the bleep do we know" and it talks about spirituality conciousness and this experiment
observer in this context has nothing to do with the fact that there is someone looking throo the detector or not ..
if u leave the detector open it will always collapse the wave function since the detector emits particles that interfere with the particles going throo the slits....
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any moron can go on wikipedia and write a bunch of shit
observer in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with conciousness.
and shrodinger's cat is just an experiment to picture uncertainity in your mind.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 "any moron can go on wikipedia and write a bunch of shit
"
I knew you would resort to saying that, you got proven wrong, get over yourself.
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
@xXDominoXx
He just wont give it up, huh?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@UncannyRicardo yeah, he wont lol, but I do see some what of a problem, by seeing what happened on the wall, is an act of recording.
so idk for sure.
xXDominoXx 1 year ago
@xXDominoXx
Anyway what do you see as a possible problem?
I gotta go to bed but ill respond when I can.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago 2
@UncannyRicardo well maybe it's a little different, because by then it already happened, so we could be right, recording after it happened and recording while it happened are two different things, so we could be right.
xXDominoXx 1 year ago
@xXDominoXx
What recording, you mean knowing?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago 2
That is untrue. In quantam mechanics, no particle can be measured, only given a probability of where it is at a ceartain time. This is because all particles exist everywhere and nowhere at once. They are in a state of Superposition, until they observed, in which case the waves begin acting like particles, and collapse into one state.
kodeezi 2 years ago
My apologies, I meant to say 100 billion, billion...
Which is 5 x 10²¹
or
5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a single drop of water.
Occrameq 2 years ago
hey cassiopeia could u clarify this for us?
does looking at it with ur eyes affect the wave function, or only does measuring it collapse the function?
cus ive seen more clips of other ppl saying stuff about conciosssness and how it affects matter ...and somehow it all doesnt exist ..it exists only cus ur looking at it? that sounds like GOBLY-GOOK to me.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
They make the point to say that uncertainty principle dictates the need of a measuring device capable of the precise measurements needed on the quantum lvl.
rokimomi 2 years ago
Like Occ said, this is impossible w/ eyes but certainly holds true for some devices out there. Once you know more about one aspect well enough, the uncertainty principle limits the knowledge on the other aspect such that you cannot know what both are at the same time. Your eyes are measuring it but without the necessary precision needed to collapse it into anything we can see w/ eyes.
rokimomi 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 It is an unexplained phenomenon, when a conscious sentient being observes, this phenomenon occurs.
Its because most quantum particles experience particle-wave duality
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
dude it has nothing to do with conciouss ness
when a measuring device observes it occurs
a conciouss human being has nothng to do with it ..u can put 10 people by the damn slit and the particle will pass throo both .
if u put a device that measures it ..then it only goes throo 1.
thats cus a measuring device emits photons in order to measure ...or any other particle ....thats why it interferes. this whole conciousness thing is pseudo science.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 yes, they used a measuring device to observe it.
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
thats what i just fucking said ur just repeating what im saying .....
observing with a measuring device has nothing to do with conciousness , u can leave the measuring device unmanned and it will still collapse the wave function.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 observing implies someone... observing.
key words, someone and observing.
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
no in this context observing means a measuring device is places there ..
there can be someone looking throo it or not it will still collapse the wave function, your eyes have nothing to do with it ...anyone who knows basic optics would know that ..all ur eyes are doing is interceptin photons ...that couldnt possibly collapse a wave function.
but sending particles to interfere with the another particle that goes throo a slit ....thats measuring ...or in other words observing ...its just semantic
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
consciousness is more than eyes, setting up instruments alone, does not collapse it, someone observing it does.
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
dude if the instrument is running , in order for it to detect something it is emitting particles, collapsing the wave function of the other particle ..
regardless if a human is looking throo the instrument or not .....
there is no ling between conciousness and the double slit experiment other than the crack-pot retards pseudo-scientific book written about it ...like that "what the bleep do we know? " wich is heavily criticized by the entire scientific comunity for missleading interviews.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 then why is it un-explained? you seem to have an explanation for something that is not yet explained.
That's not why it collapses, of course you need instruments to measure it.
What makes it collapse is you measuring it, you! a conscious sentient being!
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
@xXDominoXx
Agreed Man! You should really check out a utuber by the name of "Cashify". He talks all about this consciousness thing.
Plus this video just shows that its just as much biased as "What the Bleep". They completely forget to mention experiments like Quantum Eraser.
Like I sais go look at a youtuber by the name of "Cashify", I have him suscribed. CHEKC HIM OUT!
UncannyRicardo 2 years ago
@UncannyRicardo I will be sure to check him out then, thnx :)
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
@xXDominoXx
LOL, I just looked back at all the comments in this video. This is called DENIAL, like Cashify says.
Some people actually saw the bias in this video and talked about "delayed choice" stuff. Then the anti-spiritual fangirls of this video said crap like "thats not true or there is no experiment like this".
DENIEL!!!!!!!!
UncannyRicardo 2 years ago
@xXDominoXx
Look back at some of the oldest comments, even the guy that posted this video is in denial. LOL
He said QE and delayed choice didnt imply an observer mattered, yet failed to give a reason why not. When another guy pointed this out and gave reasons why QE did show that consciousness mattered, the guy who posted this video never replied back. LOL, PWNED!
UncannyRicardo 2 years ago
@xXDominoXx
Infact here: watch?v=WEKR0SvTHiU
You wont see this experiment talked about here because of obvious reasons.
UncannyRicardo 2 years ago
/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse
"appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer."
/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 the reason "what the bleep do we know" was criticized is because it tries attributing and affiliating religion with science, and that's why the scientific community reproved it, not because it demonstrates and explains the quantum observer effect...
This video does the same exact thing as "what the bleep do we know", it's not flawed, it's exactly how you explain it, the quantum observation effect.
xXDominoXx 2 years ago 2
/ wiki / Schrödinger's _ cat
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
dude ask any scientist there is no connection between conciousness and this expriment
the act of observing or measuring MEANS u are interacting with the electrons by emitting other particles twards them in order to observe or measure them
but looking at them without a device means u arent emitting particle ur eyes are absorbing particles
so the whole conciouss observer argument goes out the window
a measuring device left alone will still measure and collapse the wave function ..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Your still argueing about this?
NOBODY knows what exactly causes wave-function collapse (some even doubt the collapse at all).
There are MANY interpretations of QM, NONE of which have been proven to be better than the rest.
P.S. looking at your comments its clear you dont even understand the consciousness idea. So I wouldnt be calling people retards when you basically show your lack of knowledge of what your argueing.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
i did , theres a whole series on it full of butjobs saying its something spiritual ..
and this experiment is understood very well , u are measuring something , therefore interacting with the wave, therefore making it collapse ...
since the electron is moving in a wave pattern , by hitting it with a photon to measure it , u are reducing the places the electron can exist , and it goes in a straight line ...
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Then I suppose you've also looked at delayed choice and eraser right?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@UncannyRicardo well, when you record via a measuring device, you recording while it happens, thus that is when the change occurs, but when you don't record while it happens, and just let it continue, what happened on the back wall records what happened, not what is happening.
get it?
xXDominoXx 1 year ago
you're*
xXDominoXx 1 year ago
@xXDominoXx
Yea I kinda get it. How does that cause a problem for our view?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago 2
@UncannyRicardo that it is not act of recording it that did it, it is the act of when you recorded it.
if you record while it happens using a measuring device, that's when the change occurs, but the back wall is a recording of what happened.
xXDominoXx 1 year ago
@xXDominoXx
Maybe but I doesn't superposition change it frome calling it "recorded"?
But seriously I dont understand how this causes a problem.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago 2
@xXDominoXx
"Maybe but doesnt superposition change it from calling it "recorded"?"
I kinda missed up the sentence on my last comment.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago 2
@sidewaysfcs0718
Also how you stated they measure kinda also shows your lack of knowledge in the area.
Wether or not the wave is even real is completely up to interpretation. There is no definite proof it actually happens in reality.
The interferometer device basically disproves your premise.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
of course the wave is real .... a wave is just a pattern of movement that a particle creates when it moves...like a wave ..
the particle literally keeps appearing and dissapearing ....thats why its called a wave in the first place
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
OMG, do you even know what your talking about? Going by your comments its pretty obvious you dont know the system.
You dont even know how to make the distinction of the wave-particle duality to Shrodinger's equation. Your hypothesis pretty much fails to explain the phenomena of Quantum Systems (except for maybe double slit), so it can be easily thrown out.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
now ur telling me i dont know what a wave is??
ur not even debating ym opinion ur just telling i dont understand it without telling me whre im wrong ..
the point i keep trying to make is this experiment has nothing to do with a conciouss observer ...if u leave a damn measuring device activated it will still collapse the wave function regardless if ur looking throo it or not.....its common sense.
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Pretty much yea. Or atleast that you dont understand how it (if it) even relates to the what were discussing here.
What the heck? I've been clearly telling you how you've been wrong. Just look at my previous 2 or 3 posts to you.
A point that you cannont prove (since not even physists can). By the way you described what you think happens in double slit I can somewhat tell your lack of knowledge on Quantum Systems.
cont...
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Common Sense? Quantum Physics is specifically known for being counter-intuitive. The fact that you think common sense applies to microscopic particles shows further lack of knowledge on the subject.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Look if dont want to agree with me, then thats fine. But im just saying that you shouldn't be ascerting your opinion as fact.
We can agree to disagree. So we can just leave it at that. Goodbye
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
i was merely trying to clarify this video cus some people thaught it was another video about conciousness ...u know theese new age healers who claim quantum physics is somehow connected to conciousness..
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Consciousness very well might be. This video is almost as biased as What the Bleep, because it claims consciousness does not play a role. The correct answer as to wether or not it does is, WE DONT KNOW.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
how could it possibly play a role if the measuring device can record the particle's position even when no one is looking throo it ? in fact the deffinition of observer in quantum mechanics doesnt imply a person , it ALWAYS implies a measuring device
since in order to detect a particle u must interact with it ...wich u cant do by simply "looking at it" u need to MEASURE it ...wich means u are hitting it with photons ...cus thats how measuring devices work
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
OMG, again your statement pretty much proves that you lack knowledge in Quantum Physics.
"u need to MEASURE it ...wich means u are hitting it with photons"
What counts as a measurement is wanna the most argued debates in Physics. Plus your definition of a measurement has already been disproved thanks to other quantum experiaments.
Virtually no statement that you make in your comments has been proved, so stop trying to ascert your positions as facts when they arent.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
"in fact the deffinition of observer in quantum mechanics doesnt imply a person, It ALWAYS implies a measuring device" LOOOOOOOOOL
Actually there are several definitions of observer in QM and some do refer to person.
Heres some examples:
1. A person watching amoeba through a microscope
2. person watching an ocean sunset
3. spacecraft monitoring a distant asteroid (and transmitting data to earth)
Seriously just stop it man, your just hurting yourself.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
dude look up the deffinition of observing in quantum mechanics
it only applies to detecting a particle, and in order to detect it u need to interact with it ...thats what observer means (in quantum mechanics)
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Heck Im done here. You obviously just ignore any of the critisisms your views get and continue to think your right. I cannot force you to look at the evidence, so theres no need for me to try.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
did u present any evidence at all that conciousness has anything to do with this? no...
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Did you read my previous comments? No.
I clearly say that currently there is no right answer. There are many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, each just as equally likely. Conciousness playing a role is just as likely as not, its just like any other interpretation.
No, you look up what Quantum Mechanics says in general. You clearly dont know what it actually says.
Again im done here, you obviously will ignore all the statements i give you.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
i just looked up what observing and observer means and it doesnt even mention a damn person it mentions interacting with a particle ....
is it so hard to google or wikipedia the deffinition of observer in QM?
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
No, but it is hard to understand QM.
Seriously this is basically what Schrodinger's Cat is all about. What exactly counts as an observer/measurement is where some of the argueing talks.
This is a definition of observer from wiki:
"an ENTITY that determines an observable by a sequence of physical operations"
Some examples of this ENTITY are humans in that page.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718
Oxygen can interact with a particle, does that make it also an observer?
Ultimately what is an observer is irrelevent to what we're talking about here.
I gotta go to bed thou
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
ah the sweet sensation of knowing i was right all along ....
i bet ul probably say cassiopeiaproject also doesnt understand what observer means...
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
Uh, yea I have also criticed cassio before in my comments, did you ever look?
Whether or not an observer needs to be "conscious" is up to interpertation. For example (uisng cassio's way) how do you know a photon causes the collapse? Because of consciousness, you cannot have a result without checking it out (and consciousness is required for that).
Right all along? LOL, you dont even know what the wavefunction is.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
I don't recommend watching the entire "What the Bleep" movie. It's filled with a lot of pseudoscience nonsense.
Don't be fooled, this short clip is factual, but a lot of the movie is not and should not be considered true science.
Occrameq 2 years ago
i believe alot of people misunderstood what observer means ..and somehow think concioussness has something to do with it
observe measuring device ..a measuring device emits particles ..thats why it interferes ..if u LOOK at the slit it wont collapse the wave function ...
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
Its not that hard to understand. Your eyes are designed to colapse the wavefunction, otherwise everything would be a blur. You would see everything as if you were drunk. Consciousness plays a profound role with vibration. Life itself is driven to the light spectrum. & all vibrates... No pseudo science there....Just ignorant subjective scientists scared they will have to throw out 6 years of schooling, so it is clouded by lies & selfishness, to further the careers of physicists. hiding a truth.
LendMeYourHand 2 years ago
dr quantum
mrmalade 2 years ago
someone need to redo this experiment. i don't buy the quantum crap. This theory is made up because they couldn't find the answer.
pokenei 2 years ago
I believe the answer is 42 O_O
spazdrummer 2 years ago
why are so many ppl trying to associate this with consciousness? if u really understood the physics u wouldnt be talking out ur ass like that....it actual makes u should like an idiot when u claim something like that. WHAT PPL THINK OR WANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARTICLE. "OBSERVATION" IS JUST A WAY OF SAYING MEAASURING. WHICH IS JUST DESTURBING THE PARTICLE MAKING THE PATH.
keggerous 2 years ago
the delayed decision portion of the experiment was to eliminate "any devise" and see if our decisions matter in the experiment. Now if you think any devise collapses the wave pattern, then how could the experiment reveal the next day anything other then a particle pattern? You don't even know it exists and you are calling others ignorant. The next day after they fired the electrons, the results changed when we decided to know or not know the saved data. So the device used to capture was ruledout
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
No ur wrong....when u measure the slit the particle went through u know the position of said particle.... there is no longer a wavefuntion equation explaining which slit the partcle went through. by ur logic if someone didnt know the experiment was happening and they looked at the data nothingn would show up. and thats just wrong. the enviroment interacts with with anything we try to measure so we take that into account. what we learn from quantum mechanics is that we must take into account...
keggerous 2 years ago
...Not only the things outside they system we are meaasuring but we must also take into account the act of measuring itself. thats because any way we choose to measure will put some form of energy into the system and that, because of heisenberg, we know will change the system. u see itts not a concsious related event but its a law of physics. it is universal across the universe regardless of a conscious mind knowing about it. we know its the act of measuring btw.........
keggerous 2 years ago
...we know its the device and the interaction because we can change the method and change the probabilities of the particle traveling through a specific slit. we can alter the interferece pattern by altering the device we use to measure the partice.... enough said.
keggerous 2 years ago
Too many people have seen "What The Bleep Do We Know" and it's pseudoscience garbage that people are taking as fact. Quantum physics is difficult, sometimes almost impossible to understand because you can't apply classical thinking to it.
Occrameq 2 years ago 2
tell me about it! ppl seem to watch these flashy videos and get all these magical ideas in their heads. i wish they would at least try and listen to actual scientists before trying to argue.
keggerous 2 years ago
Most people are very disconnected from scientists but love to pretend like they understand and deserve opinions. They are very easy to make money off of...
Transfectingood 2 years ago
so does only a measuring device affect the wave function ..or do my very eyes affect it ..i find simply looking at it not having anything to do with the wave function ...
a measuring device transmits particles ...thats why it collapses the wave function ..not cus ur LOOKING at it ..
atleast thats what i understand.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 You can see where the light is with your eyes, *or* you can measure what the light is doing (the actual photons) but not both. One does not support the other in a traditional sense of thinking.
Occrameq 2 years ago
so they shouldnt say observer? they should just say measuring device?
since an observer wont really do anything?
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 Well, you can't "observe" anything on the quantum level with your eyes. We must rely on sensitive equipment to tell us where the particles arrive after passing through the "two slits".
The size of the particles being fired in this experiment are simply too small to see with the naked eye, or even assisted with the most high powered optical microscopes. To help put it into perspective, a single drop of water is estimated to contain more than 100 billion atoms...
Occrameq 2 years ago
i know . and since a measuring device emits particles in order to measure ..thats why it would be interfering with the wave function right?
it doesnt have anything to do with concioussness right?
and i know u cant see anything at the quantum scale ..but the world observer is missleading.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 When you say "emits particles", what exactly do you mean? The measuring device used in this experiment would be a screen placed opposite the particle emitter with the "two slit" wall in between. The only particle emitter in the experiment would be the particle accelerator used to fire toward the "two slit" wall.
A large screen collects the particles once they've been fired through to determine where they end up.
You may be confusing this with a scanning electron microscope?
Occrameq 2 years ago
@Occrameq A scanning electron microscope fires a concentrated beam of electrons to see the incredibly small surface of matter. This is the only measuring device I can think of that would require a particle stream, and even then, it's simply a means to create information to measure, not the measuring device itself.
In other words, inside an SEM, there is a device that collects and reads the electrons once they've been fired at the surface of the object you're viewing, which is the true measure.
Occrameq 2 years ago
position or velocity, one or the other only. the EPR paradox is not really a paradox but a fact. but there is an even deeper underlying truth about it all....all linked to destiny (in my opinion!)
oldsynth 2 years ago
and for those that say there is no second part. Use your brain. If you did the experiment and at the point they say any device, think as if your the experimenter. All you have to do is perform the experiment and save the data on a pc. Now all you have to do is wait till the next day and and no matter what we decide, since the device was used yesterday and it was measured then a particle must appear, right? so why the next day could a wave pattern appear? It only appeared when we decide to know.
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
thats not what happens at all.....as soon as its measured the particle is desturbed and the pattern will not show.
keggerous 2 years ago
i want a floating head!!!!
BYMYSYD 2 years ago 2
The Dr Quantum video is exactly the same only up until the final conclusion!
Dr Quantum implies that human consciousness is responsible for the wave-function collapse of the electron into a particle, linking in with the Quantum Metaphysics mumbo jumbo pushed in the "What the Bleep" franchise. Highly misleading by its omission of certain facts...
This video is more accurate in that it explains that "any sort of measuring device... always interfered with the electron".
StupidLittleNobody 2 years ago 2
"any sort of measuring device" is completely wrong. what these videos fail to do is give the rest of the experiment. There is a delayed decision portion that eliminates the devises as the cause and puts it squarely on the human mind. And proves electrons operate outside of time. The patterns can be changed the NEXT DAY depending on what decision the human makes. look at data and a particle pattern appears. don't look and wave appears. This is the next day folks!!! not any devise, the human mind.
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
Ja Dr. quantum vid is way better, this one is cheesy and stupid , lol a chrome floating head oooo thatll make this video cool right? .... no ..interesting experiment tho
DerMetzenger 2 years ago
i don't get it... dr quantum video is EXACTLY the same as this. Why would someone waste their time recreating the SAME VIDEO!?>
nickwalnut 2 years ago
The Dr Quantum video is better. Both the narrative, but mainly the animation, explains things more clearly. This animation is slicker, but it is poorly designed: the experiment is shown far too in the distance. Can't see what the floating head is talking about. Plus, the talking head visually gets in the way of the experiment in the back!
j97hou6 2 years ago
Fear the floating shiny head!Rofl
HidekiRevan 2 years ago
verbatim stolen from dr quantum
kingpolaris 2 years ago
You ain't Dr. Quantum.
aggroskaterSTL 2 years ago
from what i understand....when u measure the electron it interacts with either a field or another electron to detect it. that creates an entangled state between the apparatus and the electron, collapsing the wave funtion. it has nothing to do with ur thoughts or anything like that it is simple interaction at the quantum lvl.
keggerous 2 years ago
Wrong. If you measure, and delete the data before looking, the interference partern will still exist. But if you look at the data before delete, the partern will disappear.
beilei 2 years ago
nooo.... u have no clue what ur talking about. te pattern doesnt disappear. thats impossible once the info is there its there! u cant create or destroy energy or matter do how would it disappear? get a clue and read up on the subject like i did! or watch susskin's expanation on this very website.
keggerous 2 years ago
Okay, I admit that I present my point unclearly.. my main point is... The action of detecting has nothing to do with the pattern (As oppose to what Zensho1 said, "the actual detection or not that decideds the pattern" . Because if you turn on the detecting device while doing the experiment, but decided not to look at the data collected. You'll still get the interference pattern. And I didn't meant the pattern was there and disappeared. I meant will the interference pattern happens or not.
beilei 2 years ago
And from what I've read up, the pattern (whether interfered or not) IS NOT there before you choice to look at the collected data or not. Even if you do the experiment yesterday and make the decision today.
beilei 2 years ago
the detection does evffect the pattern, because thats what collapses the wave funtion in the first place. when 2 particle-waves interact for a period of time they become entangled and because of that measurement the position of the particle is known which means the interference pattern doesnt appear. dont know if that makes sense....but yea the fact that a human sees the data doesnt matter one bit. its the fact that the particle becomes entangled because of the act of measurement.
keggerous 2 years ago
Hm... If that is the case, how do you explain that you did measure, but delete the data before looking, and the interference pattern happens again? Like... You did turn on the measurement device, shouldn't the particles got entangled too? Why the interference pattern still happens?
beilei 2 years ago
if the particles are entangled by definition the position is known. if the position is known the interference pattern cannot form because the slit in which the particle went through is definite, unlike when the particle isnt entangled and the wave function goes through both creating an interference pattern. i dont know about ur data i can only account for my own. if u go to Susskind's entanglemnt lecture and i think its like the 4th video he explains it pretty good.
keggerous 2 years ago
This is ripped off, word for word, from Dr. Quantum.
RexNunc 2 years ago 8
99% agreed lol
meusicalentall27 2 years ago
Ha, it is too! God I hate Dr. Quantum. Pseudo-science trying to imply a spiritual connection...
Perrickan 2 years ago
Woah woah woah! I said that too soon! It IS ripping off Dr. Quantum, except at the end it CHANGES and gives an ACTUAL explaination for what is happening.
Dr. Quantum implies the spiritual crap.
Perrickan 2 years ago
Ya. Dr. Q implies that the particles 'knows' it's being watched lol
RexNunc 2 years ago
omg!! i know dude its fucking redicks
keggerous 2 years ago
i think it changes its behavior because we live in a world of endless posibilities and the fact of observing cheats the system itself,and you can control something that is controling you at the same time,since you are made of atoms and you cant cheat to yourself,I think to resolve this problem is necesary to make the expriment in a
infrenis 2 years ago
They? Erwin Schrödinger and his cat.
ANewNormalcy 2 years ago
lol
IIISpektrumIII 2 years ago
How can observing cause the wave to change it's behaviour? New Age people go crazy with this.
kasuskasus 2 years ago
I really don't see what is so strange about it. A lone quantum level event is a probabilistic distribution, but any direct interaction with another quantum event produces a specific result... and the only way to make an observation of something is to interact with it. We see something by bouncing photons off of it. So what is happening is that the wave function is effectively reset at the point of the slit detector, so it behaves as if there is only one slit.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
You mean that through looking at the electron while it is being shot at the slit we influence it by bouncing photons of it? And by this "bouncing" we change it's bahaviour so that it acts like a ball of matter instead of like a wave? Sounds odd to me, but I'm not a scientist. I mean, shouldn't those photons be bounced at the electron even though we don't look at it?
kasuskasus 2 years ago
"You mean that through looking at the electron while it is being shot at the slit we influence it by bouncing photons of it?"
Sorry if that wasn't clear. The reference to photons was specific to how humans actually see. But the principal is the same. Detecting something means gaining information from it, and the only way to do that is through some kind of interaction.
If you eliminate all other possible interactions, then it has no reason to collapse... a dark room with no air for example.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
There are actually 2 more experiments that can show the confounding nature of the construction of the experiment. I call the one the "Double Band" experiment. The other uses light and two rods of glass. The point of the experiments shows that the "screen" matters more than you'd think.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
1- How does an electron gun work i.e. how would they separate the electrons and fire them.
2- How do they observe the effect on the screen. by naked eye?
3- How do they peek i.e. what id the measuring device?
shamalbaba 2 years ago 2
1. One way is to use heat to free electrons from a surface and then use electric or magnetic fields to group and "shoot" them.
2. The screen can be coated so that it glows when struck by an electron.
3. Do a search on "Delayed Choice" or "Quantum Eraser" experiments to see some of the many methods that have been tried.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Thanks for the answers.
shamalbaba 2 years ago
The narration is a total rip off of Dr. Quantum. Unless of course there was permission granted. In that case, sorry.
SpartaClan 2 years ago
Even if the plate was placed in a box, along with the measuring device, the wave function will still collapse, even though the measuring device is inside the system, because the measuring device links the system to the outside world, destroying the wave function.
Hope this helps anyone not getting this.
ThreeCharlieKilo 2 years ago
It's all about the system. If no outside observation is done to a closed system (the plate), then there is uncertainty about what happens. The thing that seperates the quantum world from the relativistic world is that objects at the quantum level cannot self-obsersve (collapse their own wave-function), because they are equally wave and particle. So at the quantum level, all outcomes can occur, instead of one outcome trumping the others at the relativistic world.
ThreeCharlieKilo 2 years ago
Also, that little last bit about the measuring device always "collapsing" the particle, they have done this test by leaving the "measuring" device on, but not observing the results, and the end result was a wave pattern, so this, and delayed choice removes the measuring device interference belief. The measuring device has no effect on the particles themselves at all. Not sure why this was added in.
sacr3 3 years ago
So what would happen if A) You didnt observe the experiment directly and you recorded the electrons movements after you know the results. B) Record the electron without observing it directly and let fate decide whether or not you look at what the electron is doing ie. tossing a coin? If the electron knows the outcome of a coin toss before it has happen then.........What??
fraser3482 3 years ago
If you look at the results, and still have data of the electron count, it will always be a clumping pattern, or, 2 lines. As long as you have the data, it will always be 2 lines. As for the coin toss, "delayed choice" is the same thing. We do the experiment, the next week is when we decide whether to look at the data or not, then look at the pattern. If we chose to delete the data then look at the pattern, it was a wave, if we chose to look at the data, it was 2 lines.
sacr3 3 years ago
Has this experiment been done? Were these the results?
zensho1 2 years ago
"they have done this test by leaving the "measuring" device on, but not observing the results, and the end result was a wave pattern"
Who is "they"? Can you provide a source on this information?
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
This is a rip-off of the "Dr. Quantum" down to the very script, but, no matter. This is a beautiful experiment and people should know about it. And yes, the Delayed Decision should always be shown with it too because it does prove that it is whether humans have knowledge of the data that determines the result.
sacr3 3 years ago
This is a rip-off of "Dr. Quantum" from Down the Rabbithole
Mindy1979 3 years ago 2
Is it possible that there are actualy like 2 electrons bound to itselfs?
And that they are waving from this dimention to another ~~~~ in a sinus way.
that would allow one particle to go trough one slit and the other at the same time and then interact with themselves creating "waves".
I think I read something simmilar might be happening on the electron level.
MaDrung 3 years ago