If you believe it a priori, you're an NPC.If you do the experiment yourself, you know its fake.
Days without a double slit experiment thread being posted on /sci/ while not showing the experimental setup:0
>>16812919>ctrl+f "double slit">1 result>oldest thread on /sci/ is a week oldWhy must you turn this board intto a house of lies?
>>16812918The universe is a simulation kid, just give up. The universe existing by chance is no more true than God existing by chance.
>>16812925lol God doesn't exist by chance. It was a certainty that Jesus would come by the time the Old Testament was written. Proof is in the pudding.
>>16812918I mean the problem is that for some unholy reason we use the terminology "observe" instead of "measure"
>>16812918How can i test it in my home lab? I see the Inference, now how do i get to only seeing two slits?
>>16813029>for some unholy reason we use the terminology "observe" instead of "measure"The reason is that "measuring" doesn't do anything. You just end up with with a measuring device in a superposition. "Observation", on the other hand, implies an observer who can rule this out.
>>16812918
>>16812918>"it changes when you measure it!!"the thing used to measure it:
>>16812918You're only learning this now?
>>16812918The double slit "experiment" is the ultimate filler because simply mentioning it or any "result"/ "conclusion" of it automatically red flags you as an illiterate, unscientific moron given that it literally has never been performed. It is a thought experiment dreamt up by a quantum quack, who himself stated it was purely thought experiment that could never have been performed. You are an extra disingenuous nigger if after you've been alluded to these facts you still double down on it and claim that somehow this non experiment imagination then somehow got a non imaginary analogous example to "prove the results" of which were never actually empirical. This on top of the fact that the "example" literally does fucking nothing to explain how light functions or how it does this magical unicorn fairy tale bullshit should have clued you in to what a waste of time talking about it is.It's like non trolls who mention Schrödinger's cat, yes please explain how you can perform this thought experiment which was solely invented just to highlight your deluded thought process when it comes to atomist horseshit.
>>16813186They say Feynman liked to perform experiments on more than one slit at a time, often involving the wives of other physicists.
>>16813197Yeah he was the guy in the corner beating the bongos setting the pace.
>>16812918>If you do the experiment yourself, you know its fake.>implying you did it>>16813186It has been performed by some Italians, or was that version not good enough? Regardless the Stern-Gerlach experiment is a much better demonstration of quantum mechanics.
>>16813277>It has been performed >that version >actually no it doesn't matter there's another experiment here (mentioned for some reason)A better thought experiment? Was it familiar with thinking more?
>>16813512Whatever, retard.
>>16812918But I have done the experiment myself, during my undergrad. Can confirm, not fake.
>>16813519You think you did but you didn't.
>>16813538I could do with a laugh. What makes you think that?
>>16813516Gave up already, what a shame. Thanks for playing!
>>16813540It's not particularly funny. You probably did a double slit experiment with light, which is a fine experiment. It has nothing to do with OP's maymay however, since you can't "observe" light going through one slit without destroying it i.e. blocking the slit. There is no "double slit with observer/measurement on one slit" experiment using light. You can do it with electrons, to an extent, although it's a tricky experiment and has only been done in a handful of labs.
>>16813541Gave up on what? You have nothing to say. The Stern-Gerlach is not a thought experiment btw.
>>16813542> There is no "double slit with observer/measurement on one slit" experiment using lightNot true. Turn down the intensity of a laser until it becomes a single photon source and use a CCD detector. Which is exactly what I did.
>>16813546You still can't do a "measure one slit" experiment.
>>16813547What does that even mean?
>>16813551What I mean is that you can't place a detector at one slit that measures and hence collapses the wavefunction (under the CI) of the passing photons, even if they are from a single photon source. Any measurement of the photon requires its absorption/destruction. In other words, you can't test the "observer effect" with a double-slit photon experiment. You can do that with electrons, in principle at least (I believe something close to that experiment has been done but I forget the details). This stackexchange has more explanation.>https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/270982/how-does-the-light-source-fire-a-single-photon-in-the-double-slit-experiment
>>16813552> you can't place a detector at one slit that measures and hence collapses the wavefunction of the passing photonsYes you can, very easily. It's obvious when you do because it destroys the interference pattern.I'm still not getting what the problem is. What precisely are you meaning by the "observer effect"?
>>16813561Ehh, read the stack exchange and google it if you want.
>>16813562I did, it's still clear as mud. They were also wrong about why the first experiments were done with electrons, and why they are easier to perform the experiment with. It comes down to the de Broglie wavelength of electrons compared to photons, it makes the experiments easier to manufacture and was the only option in the past.
>>16813543>Yet another electromagnetic wall outlet device out there "proving" particle quackery along with the halbach arrays at CERN "proving" the existence of other "2 fundamental forces".Isn't it funny how no matter what delusion a quantum retard peddles it's always backed up by good ol' archaic hertzian waveforms? Why is that? Why do they always use this one fundamental force in an effort to make some grand unified theory proving/ figuring out how the other 3 potentially exist? The irony is more layered than the very field lines they keep finding names for. How many "particles" are we up to now by the way? 56? 57? How many more will it take?Why you brought this up and what it has to do with Feynman's thought experiment I still don't understand. Are the silver atoms used in it somehow analogous to the imaginary "photon particles" of which you still have no empirical evidence of? Well whatever, I'm sure it's extremely useful for making yet another tokamak knowing full well it won't work like the last one.
>>16813585Forget about all that shit. Learn about Stern-Gerlach like I said and maybe you'll stop being a larping faggot.
>>16813585>Why you brought this up and what it has to do with Feynman's thought experiment I still don't understand. Are the silver atoms used in it somehow analogous to the imaginary "photon particles" of which you still have no empirical evidence of?This is a double slit thread, here we talk about imaginary experiments that never happened. If you want to talk about your shit then go make another thread or post in a more relevant one. >BUT MUH EXPERIMENT SHOWED MAGNETS HAVE POLES, THAT ELECTRIC THINGS ARE AFFECTED BY MAGNETISMWhich any bum on the street could have told me. Without an experiment no less.
>>16813607forgot to quote>>16813597Also before you abandon your unrelated experiment name dropping, how exactly is it " a much better demonstration of quantum mechanics' when it actually is a much better demonstration of electromagnetism?
>>16813038I'm very curious. If you put no one in the room with the experiment and use a board that is fluorescent with the appropriete source or some sensor after you have turned off the light source like a thermal sensor to see where the light source has heated the board you would surely see the same pattern. Is the board itself the observer? Or is there some undescribed mechanism to keep whatever information is required to produce the result on the board up until such time where it is ""observed""? What keeps the board itself from being the observer? This just seems like semantics.
>>16813917>you would surely see the same pattern.How do you get from:>something something thermal sensor ...To:>... you would surely see ...Without involving an actual observer? My point is that as far as the raw math itself is concerned, you CAN say the sensor just becomes entangled with the system it's measuring, making it subject to quantum woo. The intuitive way out of this endless regress is that at some point, there's an experimenter actually observing the readings of any measurements made and being in a superposition is logically incoherent from his perspective.
>>16813957>you CAN say the sensor just becomes entangled with the system it's measuringYou can also say that if the "sensor" is an "actual observer". There is no basis for claiming that actual observers can't be in superpositions but sensors can.
>>16813917>What keeps the board itself from being the observer? This just seems like semanticsYou are in fact, correct. That poster has no idea what he's talking about. There is a simple, rigorous way within quantum mechanics of determining when a "measurement" has happened and it is called decoherence. The woo-pushers will continue to insist for incoherent reasons that there is still some deep mystery related to "observers" or whatever despite this.
>>16813973>You can also say that if the "sensor" is an "actual observer".Are all your superpositions in the room with us right now?
>>16813978>There is a simple, rigorous way within quantum mechanics of determining when a "measurement" has happened and it is called decoherence.No, it isn't. It's just another so-called "interpretation" which doesn't refute or contradict taking the math at face value and dragging everything into the quantum woo.
>>16813992>>16813994Worthless trash. There's no point in conversing with these things. They only need to be shamed and humiliated in public.
>>16813997>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence>Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides a framework for apparent wave-function collapse, as the components of a quantum system entangle with other quantum systems within the same environment. That is, components of the wave function are decoupled from a coherent system and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue.
>>16813998What does this random quote your broken pattern matching software found in a wiki article have to do with what I said? Retarded trash.
>the article about quantum decoherence specifically mentions how it doesn't solve the issue of everything apparently getting dragged into quantum woo>it's a cope that leaves you stuck in Shrodinger's Universe>"its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue">brown redditor starts to lose its mind with rage over itGood thing you have "objective measurements". Too bad they don't actually determine any particular outcome.
^It's always this braindead retard posting the most retarded takes on topics he learnt through his chatbot. Lmao, so pathetic.
Can you faggots shut the fuck up? I'm tired of mathtards infesting physics and acting all tough and shit bro you are paraphrasing probability theory, nobody fucking cares, we knew to measure 10 times and only cut on 11th without any of this shit. FUCKING KILL YOURSELF.
>>16813998>A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level)umm, sweaty? we don't do globalism on this board. out of sight, out of mind
The public humiliation will continue until morale improves.
>>16814023>out of mindYes, but rigorously so.
>>16813973>There is no basis for claiming that actual observers can't be in superpositionsThat sounds like something a mentally sound individual would claim.
The shit you retards post here makes me believe in superpositions, especially in ragebait threads where astroturfers change their argument based on what you post.
>>16814034quantum decoherence syndrome
>seething schizophrenic retards come out of the woodwork at the mention of the word decoherence which their pattern matching software trained them to fear
>>16813957How do you get from:>something something thermal sensor ...To:>... you would surely see ...I was saying that if you did the double slit experiment but did not directly observe the pattern and turned off the light source if you brought the board out of the room after and looked at it with a thermal sensor you would see the same heating pattern as the banded pattern the light proruced when observed. So in this case does the heating pattern only exist when you the human observe it? Do you specifically need to see the pattern on some sensor that actually allows your human brain and eyes to see the infrared light or is simply being glanced at by a human being sufficient? The board seems to be observing the light and forcing it to take a value not a human.>My point is that as far as the raw math itself is concerned, you CAN say the sensor just becomes entangled with the system it's measuring, making it subject to quantum woo. I see. This was the second part of my question then. If the board is simply a sensor then is it required there be some mechanism to keep whatever information is present but not observed on or inside the board to construct the pattern you would see when observed? What counts as an observation? If you just do more and more abstract levels of sensing does it only become an observation when a human being looks at a number on a screen? This feels entirely like semantics and where you put the onus of observation. Why can the universe simply not observe itself? Humans are not remotely special.
@16814041>replying to posts made by the resident braindead schizo when his handlers were awayLmao
>>16814041>Do you specifically need to see the pattern on some sensor that actually allows your human brain and eyes to see the infrared light or is simply being glanced at by a human being sufficient? The board seems to be observing the light and forcing it to take a value not a human.You're kinda missing the point here. The question isn't whether or not the pattern "exists". The question is: what the fuck does it mean for "the universe" to "exist" when you start analyzing some quantum phenomenon but end up with a global wave function that fails to nail down anything being in any particular state? The normal copouts are:1. Arbitrarily stop somewhere and say "ok, this is close enough to Classical for my tastes"2. Invent some "wave function collapse" and "observers" that somehow cause it, but then fail to explain why those "observers" would do such a thing, when they're fundamentally no different from whatever is being "observed"3. Make up infinite universes (which also somehow interfere with each other in the Double Slit experiment)4. Speculate about global hidden variablesOr you can take the word "observer" to mean what it implies, which is as unfalsifiable as every other option, but neatly ties that loose end conceptually, in a slightly less schizophrenic way than options 2-4 while avoiding the mindlessness of option 1.
>>16814109>what the fuck does it mean for "the universe" to "exist"New brainshart just arrived
Low-IQ posters like >>16814119 don't understand how being forced to abandon local realism undermined the normal notion physicists had about what it means for the universe to exist.
>>16814109Ok I see I would have to think about the first part of what you said for a bit but when you say>Or you can take the word "observer" to mean what it implies, which is as unfalsifiable as every other optionyou strictly mean sapient living being snd not any other object or construct? This also seems like a cop out at the highest level but I can see what you mean for 2-4. For the pattern thing the presence of the pattern generated in the double slit requires an observer, no? Maybe I misunderstand but my whole question is that if you could assemble some rube goldberg machine of sensors to distinguish if there was a pattern or not ie the output would be 1 or 0 where is the observation ultimately done? Is it the human seeing 0 or 1? Or is it somewhere in the sensor chain that mathematically are in super position? If I am not formulating my question properly then so be it but I would at least appreciate an answer as to why the question itself is incorrect or not
>on't understand how being forced to abandon local realism undermined the normal notion physicists had about what it means for the universe to exist.
>I see I would have to think about the first part of what you said
>>16814157Midwit grade post.
>Midwit grade post.
>>16814132>you strictly mean sapient living being snd not any other object or construct? This also seems like a cop out at the highest levelI mean something capable of knowing that it, itself, is in a definite state, a part of which reflects (presumably) the observed measurements of some external world.>For the pattern thing the presence of the pattern generated in the double slit requires an observer, no?The point of the experiment is that you shoot one particle at a time towards the slits. It could go through either one. Unless you measure (using some kind of sensor) there is no single, definite outcome. Instead, it's described by a wave function. The funny interference pattern arises when you DO measure, over and over, and the pattern that emerges reflects that wave function. So it's not really even about the pattern (which is the cumulative result of many measurements) but what's going on even with the first particle you shoot: where does your device register that first dot if no one ever looks at it? Is there a definite answer to this at all? If you believe the sensor is somehow special and "collapses the wave" function or something similar, you can say 'yes'. Otherwise, you can imagine all the possible outcomes with the sensor figured into it, having that dot at different spots. Are you starting to see the problem?
>>16814182the consensus afaik is that the sensor measures it even if no one's looking
>>16814185>the consensus afaik is that the sensor measures it>measures itNo one disputes that it "measures it". The problem is that a completely neutral interpretation of "measurement" just propagates the issue to a higher level.
>>16814191i mean, it measures it and collapses the wave function. i haven't heard any serious scientist to suggest that the superposition can propagate to macro level and an actual human/animal/whatever is needed to collapse it. that's just quantum woohow big the sensor can be is the subject of the measurement problem. the mechanism of wave function collapse is unclear in base quantum mechanics, it's just a postulate. some people claim that decoherence can explain it, but as far as i understand these claims are premature, and the fundamental problem persists
>>16814207>it measures it and collapses the wave functionThis is your head canon, not an integral part of QM itself.
>>16814207>i haven't heard any serious scientist to suggest that the superposition can propagate to macro levelAnd the reason for that is because of decoherence which simply means it's effectively impossible to isolate any object from the environment. Even putting it in a perfect vacuum doesn't remove things like thermal radiation, cosmic rays, the CMB, etc. A single random particle interaction will break the entire superposition and the larger the object the faster that will happen. That is why we don't see quantum effects in our everyday lives. Our macroscopic worlds is merely the statistical average of all those quantum events.
>>16812918What kind of person wakes up and decides they're going to put the effort into posting this
>>16814225>because of decoherence ... it's effectively impossible to isolate any object from the environmentDoesn't help your case any. Now you just end up with one big wave function that includes literally everything and nothing to explain why only one outcome is actually observed, beyond the logical nonsequitur of "the others are too unlikely".
>>16814236What? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>>16814238I'm not "trying" to say anything. I'm telling you, simply and directly, that quantum decoherence only reaffirms the idea of a global wave function for the entire universe. It just does so in a matter that the more things you draw into it, the more it favors some particular outcomes. But this is purely probabilistic. It doesn't actually establish one necessary state for the universe.
>>16814246in a manner*
>>16814246You don't need quantum decoherence for that, only the linear nature of the axioms of QM. All a global wave function is is the sum of all the individual wavefunctions. It doesn't really change anything.
>>16814254>You don't need quantum decoherence for thatQuote the part of my post where I said you need quantum decoherence for that.>It doesn't really change anything.Exactly. So why did you erroneously invoke it as a solution to the problem of drawing all of existence into the quantum woo?
>>16813546bro how does a CCD detector detect a photon
>>16814255> Quote the part of my post where I said you need quantum decoherence for that.er, okay>>16814236>quantum decoherence only reaffirms the idea of a global wave function for the entire universe
@16814258Holy shit. Brownest and dumbest board on the site besides /pol/. Imagine not knowing what the word "reaffirms" means but still feeling a burning urge to shart out some gotchas about a post that uses it.
>>16814257What's your point?
>>16813609I'm name-dropping it because you're obviously a larping pseud who knows jack shit about quantum mechanics. I'm offering you the opportunity to educate yourself. Start with the Stern-Gerlach.
>>16813037https://www.nasa.gov/stem-content/double-slit-experiment-9-12/
>>16813037https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAm7iVdAvTA
>>16813542>You can't "observe" light going through one slit without destroying it i.e. blocking the slit>There is no "double slit with observer/measurement on one slit" experiment using light.>blocking the slitExcept that's exactly what's happening.If you don't block the slit, then a single photon (or electron) is going through _both_ slits at the same time.That's the point: the observer effect is equivalent to blocking one slit.
>>16812918how do you know it changed if you're not looking at it?
>>16815803Umm no sweetie. The point of the quantum double slit thought experiment (as opposed to a regular double slit experiment about interference of classical waves) is that the "observer" watches which slit the electrons go through, without stopping them. This should remove the interference pattern i.e. make the electrons behave like particles loosely speaking, because it causes the wavefunction to collapse at the point of passing through the slits.
>>16813064kekHe can observe sound though, so perhaps he collapsed the wave function of sounds?
>>16815806The phrase "which-way information" in papers is fundamentally the same thing as covering up a hole.If you don't cover up a hole, then a single electron goes through _both_ holes. You can't observe which-way information unless you make it a zero probability that the electron went through the other hole, in other words, you blocked the hole.
>>16815864Where are you getting this shit? Why are you larping as a physicist?
>>16815806>"observer" watches which slit the electrons go through, without stopping them. This should remove the interference pattern i.e. make the electrons behave like particles loosely speaking, because it causes the wavefunction to collapse at the point of passing through the slits.You can find a bunch of videos of the experiment online and see that the interference pattern doesn't go away.>>16815864>a single electron goes through _both_ holes.This is the kind of madness that ensures when you trust quantum woo and take it literally. It's impossible to observe it going through both holes at one therefore it doesn't do that.
>>16815889>You can find a bunch of videos of the experiment online and see that the interference pattern doesn't go away.Link me one then.
>>16815891https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqS8Jjkk1HIThis is also the expected result according to QM. What's the dispute supposed to be about?
>>16815897I'm talking about an experiment where the slits are "observed" causing collapse and removing the interference pattern. Such an experiment can be done but it's not easy to find a video. You and all the other physics fans in the thread can read about it here in Feyman's own words, if you want to know what I mean:>https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html
>>16815899Ok. My bad. So what's your bottom line? That the "classic" experiment doesn't actually show any particles going through two slits at once and if you try to forcibly resolve which slit they go through, you get a different experiment with a different result? If so, I agree.
>>16815889You call it madness, but that's just the way the universe works ¯\_(ツ)_/¯We know it goes through both holes, because a single electron never lands at the disallowed interference pattern states.
>>16816297>that's just the way the universe worksWhen you're low-IQ and don't actually know any physics.>We know>WeThanks for 100% affirming the above.
