Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

double slit experiment

badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:26:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Nope, it baffles the sh!t out of me.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:02:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

...as every elementary school child knows!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:04:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:02:35 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
...as every elementary school child knows!

Quantum physics gives me headaches as it should anyone. :P
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?
signature
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:27:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Don't really get it myself but I think Puck's saying that light behaves like a wave but when you look closer it's a particle. Or something...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:33:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

so stuff does stuff differently depending on whether we're paying attention or not? that's the bit that's catching me.
signature
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:36:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?:

The short answer is that we're just on the cusp of beginning to understand anything about quantum physics. You'll hurt your brain if you think about it too long
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:40:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:36:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?:

The short answer is that we're just on the cusp of beginning to understand anything about quantum physics. You'll hurt your brain if you think about it too long

so there is a long answer?
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:42:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment).

The number on the top of a six sided die in a dark room only exists in a state of probability because that is how we can describe our ignorance. In truth there is not such state of probablity. The number on top of the die is a precise objective fact.

Why isn't this a valid analogy for light particles?

I know that I am wrong, I just don't understand why.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:43:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

No. I don't believe a word of it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:48:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:43:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

No. I don't believe a word of it.

god's doing it... base your religion on that.
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:50:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:48:00 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:43:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

No. I don't believe a word of it.

god's doing it... base your religion on that.

I prefer the phrase, 'a wizard did it'.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 6:53:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:50:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:48:00 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:43:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

No. I don't believe a word of it.

god's doing it... base your religion on that.

I prefer the phrase, 'a wizard did it'.

i'd have thought you'd jump at this opportunity.
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 7:06:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:53:06 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:50:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:48:00 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:43:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

No. I don't believe a word of it.

god's doing it... base your religion on that.

I prefer the phrase, 'a wizard did it'.

i'd have thought you'd jump at this opportunity.

I don't see it as such.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 8:10:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 6:33:14 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

so stuff does stuff differently depending on whether we're paying attention or not? that's the bit that's catching me.

its not a matter of us paying attention or not, its a matter of physical interference. in this case, our measurement. it behaves differently depending on whether or not it is interacting with an object or force in such a way that would require it to have an exact location.

http://www4.ncsu.edu...

...i think explains it fairly decently
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 8:24:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 8:10:25 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:33:14 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:30:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 6:21:40 AM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:55:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:56:53 AM, badger wrote:
i was taught this as a proof that light was a wave, but then geo made me look at it again, and now light is apparently only a wave when we don't look at how it goes through the slits. anyone wanna make sense of that for me?

Matter (not just light) has wave-particle duality. A photon's (light) location is expressed as a probability (wave) - the photon has a probability of being located within that wave, so when measured loses that probability and appears as particle (double slit experiment). The photon isn't a pure wave - it's information is encoded within that wave, giving it wave like properties like diffraction.

wanna try once more?

Ha k. The particle of light is called a photon. A photon like other particles exhibit particle-wave duality. If you imagine a wave http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr... the particle is located somewhere within each wave - it's a probability (called a wave function). The information of the particle is located in that wave which is why the particle can have wave like features.

By using a detector to measure when the particle passes through the slit - there is no longer any probability for it's location - you just measured it (called wave function collapse).

so stuff does stuff differently depending on whether we're paying attention or not? that's the bit that's catching me.

its not a matter of us paying attention or not, its a matter of physical interference. in this case, our measurement. it behaves differently depending on whether or not it is interacting with an object or force in such a way that would require it to have an exact location.

http://www4.ncsu.edu...

...i think explains it fairly decently

i read of another experiment where the slits were monitored constantly, but once the results weren't looked at, and once they were, and both yielded different results... but since they were both monitored, that'd prove that it had nothing to do with physical interference. it might have been complete bullsh1t though..
signature
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 9:33:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
lol if the results weren't looked at they wouldn't know, would they? :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 9:51:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The notion that by looking at something you can tell that it isn't anything in particular when you aren't looking at it is nonsense. Certainly, it would have a different location when not measured, since the observer effect, though small, is clearly based on sound reasoning. But having no location in particular can't be proven.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 9:52:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Now, the above doesn't mean that wave-particle duality isn't any less real. It just becomes "Stuff vibrates" instead of "existence doesn't really exist unless you stare at it hard enough."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:34:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 9:33:02 AM, belle wrote:
lol if the results weren't looked at they wouldn't know, would they? :P

i mustn't have made myself too clear, but what i was actually trying to say was just stupid anyway so i'm not gonna bother. i'd say i was brainwashed.
signature
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:34:08 PM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 9:33:02 AM, belle wrote:
lol if the results weren't looked at they wouldn't know, would they? :P

i mustn't have made myself too clear, but what i was actually trying to say was just stupid anyway so i'm not gonna bother. i'd say i was brainwashed.

not sure how it could be any more ridiculous than what you actually said :P

i am curious now.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:41:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:37:10 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/13/2010 4:34:08 PM, badger wrote:
At 7/13/2010 9:33:02 AM, belle wrote:
lol if the results weren't looked at they wouldn't know, would they? :P

i mustn't have made myself too clear, but what i was actually trying to say was just stupid anyway so i'm not gonna bother. i'd say i was brainwashed.

not sure how it could be any more ridiculous than what you actually said :P

i am curious now.

i meant that the results of the monitor were only looked at during one of two experiments, and both yielded different results in the formation of particles on the sceen or whatever it was... like whether humans knew or not made a difference. i reckon that tops it.
signature
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:49:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, you can compare it to the ocean, and one particle of sand. You know the particle of sand is in the wave, but you don't know where. However, by using a filter or whatever, you can see exactly where that particle is. Is that it?
I miss the old members.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 9:47:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 8:10:25 AM, belle wrote:
its not a matter of us paying attention or not, its a matter of physical interference. in this case, our measurement. it behaves differently depending on whether or not it is interacting with an object or force in such a way that would require it to have an exact location.

I think Belle's interpretation is the best so far. Basically, our "looking" disturbs the system. By looking, we mean measuring which of course has nothing to do with whether or not a human being has been informed of the results of the measurement.

It's just that at that small scale, we can only measure things by disturbing them.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 11:03:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is wrong with our education system? Isn't wave-particle duality fully explained in high school? </joke>

The basic concept has been pretty well explained in the thread here. All of matter has the dual nature. To make very fine lines on integrated circuits, electron beams must be used because electrons have a shorter associated wavelength than visible or ultraviolet light, so they can be focused more finely.

The dual slit experiment perfectly demonstrates wave-particle duality, because the photons can be detected as they arrive at the target. They build up to form the interference pattern that is predicted from the analysis that applies to lightwaves.

If the light intensity is low, then only one photon at a time is going through the apparatus. The photon ends up going through either one slit or the other. The mystery is how it knows where to land on the target so that the photons stack up to form the interference pattern. When it went solo through one slit, how did it know the other slit was there? if the other slit were not there, there would be no interference pattern.

I dunno. My understanding is that someone has figured out a way to deduce what slit the photon went through without violating the Uncertainty Principle. One theory explains the phenomenon using the alleged fact that space itself is quantized. In other words, a vacuum is actually comprises a tiny discrete compartments of space. I don't know how this theory explains the experiment, but it sounds like one of those incomprehensible things that makes up modern physics, so it is probably true.

Sometimes at the start of a total eclipse of the sun, interference patterns are formed by light from the sun diffracting from the opposite edges of the moon. These appear on earth as dark-and-light stripes that rush across the ground moments before the eclipse. I have seen this, and it is truly amazing. It proves the edges can be the width of the moon apart, and the light still knows that it is still supposed to make an interference pattern.