Just to fire up the discussions. http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Can you explain one of the greatest mysteries ever ?
- Thread starter Davros
- Start date
This is very interesting!
Makes understanding quantum physics so much easier, even if it might not be right.
Your idea is great! Just a little convoluted + wired touch on the interpretations fallout.
Here droplets experiments on Pilot Wave.
Billy Idol
Legend
Ha ha ha, lol!
My 2 cents worth from someone that left school at 16 !
He mentions that the back plane is "some sort of photosensitive screen". Firstly that sounds like it's theoretical, surely he can describe more exactly what it is, assuming this is an actual observed phenomenon and not a theory. Also, if it is photosensitive, is it picking up solely the atoms, or some sort of light activity ?
Finally, rather than the detector having an effect on the movement of the atoms, is it possible it is having an effect of the photosensitive back screen ?
If any of the above turns out to be correct, let me know who I need to talk to about getting my Nobel.
He mentions that the back plane is "some sort of photosensitive screen". Firstly that sounds like it's theoretical, surely he can describe more exactly what it is, assuming this is an actual observed phenomenon and not a theory. Also, if it is photosensitive, is it picking up solely the atoms, or some sort of light activity ?
Finally, rather than the detector having an effect on the movement of the atoms, is it possible it is having an effect of the photosensitive back screen ?
If any of the above turns out to be correct, let me know who I need to talk to about getting my Nobel.
He's talking about the experiment in general, there are several ways the position of the atom can be recorded a photosensitive screen is just one of them.
Also the experiment isn't theoretical it's been done with photons, electrons, atoms even small molecules. it is routinely done in particle physics lectures at universities.
Also the experiment isn't theoretical it's been done with photons, electrons, atoms even small molecules. it is routinely done in particle physics lectures at universities.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to be able to say it not possible, all I know is that I've never come across a theory that thinks that's whats happening.
Last edited:
Do you really think that meaning of the word sound is air vibration?
That's my point - the really relevant part is that the air vibrates, whether there is an ear-drum in the area or not. The rest of the 'does it really make a sound' is only about the interpretation of the word sound, and not that interesting to me.
A psychologist would answer no to the question, because he is focussed on the reception of the vibration, and a physicist would answer yes, because he's focussed on the vibration itself. I think the psychologist's interpretation is too ego-centric.
Last edited:
Im gonna have to call BS on this experiment
experiment A - shoot single atom from gun through slits, observer writes result on piece of paper : repeat 1000x
experiment B - shoot single atom from gun through slits, observer pretends to write result on piece of paper : repeat 1000x
are you saying here totally differnt general results happen?
instead of observer writing having observer remembering (some ppl can remember extremely good) vs someone who can't remember, so here the results are completely different?
like I said BS
experiment A - shoot single atom from gun through slits, observer writes result on piece of paper : repeat 1000x
experiment B - shoot single atom from gun through slits, observer pretends to write result on piece of paper : repeat 1000x
are you saying here totally differnt general results happen?
instead of observer writing having observer remembering (some ppl can remember extremely good) vs someone who can't remember, so here the results are completely different?
like I said BS
Surely it doesn't matter whether the observer does or does not actually write down the result.
The observer beig there already gives a certain result that is different when the observer is not there at all.
The observer beig there already gives a certain result that is different when the observer is not there at all.
Delete
Last edited:
Out if interest, do we know what happens if the detector is turned on but no-ones looking at it? They have their back turned or leave the room for example and the results are neither recorded or monitored remotely. Does that change the particles behaviour?
That would create the interference pattern. I think. I don't know.
You would think so, but according to what the guy in the video saiz, it only happens when the result is recorded. Hence my initial reply/question
How many differnt ways have they tried recording the results?
Yes very possible and logical
but the guy in the video is claiming if a guy in another room is viewing the experiment on a monitor and writes the results down on a piece of paper (or memorizes them) the results will completely different than if the person views it but doesnt memorize them
you can see why Im very sceptical
But that's not what he said.
Oh but it gets weirder
The "delayed choice” experiment
"A scientist named John Wheeler proposed an experiment where the screen could be pulled away at the last moment before the photons hit to be replaced by a set of optical detectors that would determine from which slit the photon had come from. The decision about whether or not to move the screen would not be made until after the photon passed through the slit. At the time Wheeler proposed the experiment, it was technically impossible to do. A few years later, however, the experiment was actually tried. If the screen was in position the photon acted as part of an interference pattern, but if the screen moved at the last moment so the "which slit" information was captured, that photon did not participate in the interference pattern. The photon seemed to know how to behave when it reached the slit even though the decision about whether the screen would be in place had not yet been made. It seemed that either the photon could predict the future, or a decision about how to place the screen could change the past."
The "delayed choice” experiment
"A scientist named John Wheeler proposed an experiment where the screen could be pulled away at the last moment before the photons hit to be replaced by a set of optical detectors that would determine from which slit the photon had come from. The decision about whether or not to move the screen would not be made until after the photon passed through the slit. At the time Wheeler proposed the experiment, it was technically impossible to do. A few years later, however, the experiment was actually tried. If the screen was in position the photon acted as part of an interference pattern, but if the screen moved at the last moment so the "which slit" information was captured, that photon did not participate in the interference pattern. The photon seemed to know how to behave when it reached the slit even though the decision about whether the screen would be in place had not yet been made. It seemed that either the photon could predict the future, or a decision about how to place the screen could change the past."
