Implications of the "Double slit" experiment?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2013, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 06:05 AM by bemore.)
Implications of the "Double slit" experiment?
I took an armchair interest in Quantum Physics however I am in no real position to say that I know much about it (when compared to others on this forum) however something that has interested me in the past has been Youngs interference experiment AKA "The double split experiment" so I thought I could throw it out here to find what people think who are more knowledgeable

The implication is that observing somehow shapes reality.




For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
08-12-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
Oooooh, I was thinking of




Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Caveman's post
08-12-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
OT: great vid, I had heard a little bit of this theory, but now I think I understand.

Few questions.
For the unobserved experiment: was this done in a vacuum? Are there any electrons inbetween the firing mechanism,the slit and the arriving surface?
For the observed experiment? Did they use some kind of electronic camera device? Did it emit some kind of electric field (like an eye absorbing light or radar emitting radiowaves) and does that affect the electrons and the experiment?
Third question: what kind of particles are the electrons? Are they like parts of light? And does it matter what color of light? (I might be waaaaay off here).

I also read something this week of a method having been found to observe without interfering, don't remember the source.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
I tried thinking about it, then blood started trickling from my ears so I had to stop.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like evenheathen's post
08-12-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
(08-12-2013 02:27 PM)bemore Wrote:  The implication is that observing somehow shapes reality.

'Observing' is very much a loaded word, which implies an agency nowhere necessary in the formalism.

Which is to say, 'interaction' is a much better choice.

Unless (in general) an observable property is caused to be restricted to a single state (through some well-defined interaction) it exists (can exist) in a statistical combination (superposition) of possible states.

Here I quote a textbook of mine:
'D. J. Griffiths Wrote:To the layman, the philosopher, or the classical physicist, a statement of the form "this particle doesn't have a well-defined position" (or momentum, or x-component of spin angular momentum, or whatever) sounds vague, incompetent, or (worst of all) profound. It is none of these. But its precise meaning is, I think, almost impossible to convey to anyone who has not studied quantum mechanics in some depth.

I disagree slightly, there, in that a qualitative understanding of the principles should be accessible to just about anyone, without needing to feel out the underlying mathematics (ie, complex probability density and its consequences for state vectors on square integrable inner product space). Not that the maths isn't a thing of elegant beauty. Ahem.

...

But yeah. Basically all of quantum mechanics is contained in the double slit experiment.

It's a sad day when I'm reduced to quoting myself, but I remember going over quantum theory to some extent in this thread:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...r-atheists

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-12-2013, 10:07 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
To me, the implications are dire.

It implies that we cannot ever actually know. We can "interact", but without the ability to quantifiably observe the interaction we are left with only maths and speculation.

Or goddidit. Drinking Beverage

However, it only makes sense that we can't. You can't have your cake and eat it too, right? If dualism was a tenable theory then you would think that by now we would have had the opportunity to observe our existence apart from the tangible. Unless you buy into NDE's it's just not a theory you can put any stock into, and NDE's are far from being tenable.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
(08-12-2013 10:07 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  To me, the implications are dire.

It implies that we cannot ever actually know. We can "interact", but without the ability to quantifiably observe the interaction we are left with only maths and speculation.

Or goddidit. Drinking Beverage

We can know everything it is possible to know. And no more.

The universe is not classical. That means that your macroscopic physical intuition simply does not apply to a quantum scale.

You're hardly the first to be bothered by that idea. Tongue

(08-12-2013 10:07 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  However, it only makes sense that we can't. You can't have your cake and eat it too, right? If dualism was a tenable theory then you would think that by now we would have had the opportunity to observe our existence apart from the tangible. Unless you buy into NDE's it's just not a theory you can put any stock into, and NDE's are far from being tenable.

Huh

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2013 11:24 PM by evenheathen.)
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
(08-12-2013 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 10:07 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  To me, the implications are dire.

It implies that we cannot ever actually know. We can "interact", but without the ability to quantifiably observe the interaction we are left with only maths and speculation.

Or goddidit. Drinking Beverage

We can know everything it is possible to know. And no more.

The universe is not classical. That means that your macroscopic physical intuition simply does not apply to a quantum scale.

You're hardly the first to be bothered by that idea. Tongue

(08-12-2013 10:07 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  However, it only makes sense that we can't. You can't have your cake and eat it too, right? If dualism was a tenable theory then you would think that by now we would have had the opportunity to observe our existence apart from the tangible. Unless you buy into NDE's it's just not a theory you can put any stock into, and NDE's are far from being tenable.

Huh

Yeah, me too. I've been drinking all day, leave me alone. Tongue

Philosophizing on what it might take to observe reality from outside of reality. Thinking it just can't be done (well obviously).

Seems to me to be it would be the only way to effectively "know".

fuck, am I agreeing with Kent Hovind? Hobo

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
So they are using equipment for doing the observing, right? Could the equipment be interfering in some way?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 01:19 AM by evenheathen.)
RE: Implications of the "Double split" experiment?
Crap, I meant Eric Hovind. He's known (kinda) for doing this shit. The idiocy that I'm talking about begins a couple minutes in. The whole argument is interesting, but not in the way he thinks it is.





I guess what I'm trying to say in regards to the OP is that it is impossible to not be a part of the experiment. There is no way to be absolutely objectively observant of any phenomenon, which limits our ability to claim complete knowledge of any (especially quantam) activity.

Edit: (If that makes any sense, I might just be retarded)

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: