The two slit problem

Zimcat

Zimcat

Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Anyone familiar with this experiment? I'm trying to read into in abstractly to possibly explain the purpose of secrecy for the control of an outcome for example. Can it be used to explain a veil?
 
Could you elaborate on secrecy and veil? Not sure I understand the context. Secrecy from what? And are we talking about an actual veil?
 
Trying to get back on that train of thought :p . What I meant was the part of the experiment where first they could see the interference pattern until they got closer and tried to measure it, then it went into a predictable pattern (just two lines). From that I associated measuring light with gaining control of the outcome, what caused the interference pattern was not able to be revealed hence "veil". The interference pattern then being associated with expanding possibility (the multiple lines) So by measuring it becomes a way of gaining control over the outcome on one end and certain methods being hidden in order for the new possibilities to be able to take place.
 
Zimcat said:
So by measuring it becomes a way of gaining control over the outcome on one end and certain methods being hidden in order for the new possibilities to be able to take place.
Click to expand...
The way you ask your question throws me completely, I'm not aware of the language you use in this context. Like Gaining Control and things being Hidden. I only had pre-university physics and I remember the experiments even though is was a while ago. My I ask what your sources are? It might help me with the context.
 
I believe she is indicting that like the particle/wave issue....

When you look close at mystery... It eludes, changes to something else...
 
I'm still not fully certain I am following but it reads to me like a variation on the Uncertainty Principle and / or Observational Effect

What Einstein's E=mc2 is to relativity theory, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is to quantum mechanics—not just a profound insight, but also an iconic formula that even non-physicists recognize. The principle holds that we cannot know the present state of the world in full detail, let alone predict the future with absolute precision. It marks a clear break from the classical deterministic view of the universe.

Heisenberg inferred his formulation in 1927 via his famous thought experiment in which he imagined measuring the position of an electron using a gamma-ray microscope. The formula he derived was ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that when you measure the position of an electron with an error ε(q), you cannot help but alter the momentum of the electron by the amount of η(p). An experimenter cannot know both the position and the momentum precisely; he or she must make a tradeoff. "For that reason everything observed is a selection from a plenitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future," Heisenberg wrote.

The same year, Earle Kennard, a less-known physicist, derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that you cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless whether it is measured or not, and the inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed.

Kennard's formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg's. But many physicists, probably including Heisenberg himself, have been under the misapprehension that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. The one that physicists use in everyday research and call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is in fact Kennard's formulation. It is universally applicable and securely grounded in quantum theory. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down. Heisenberg's formulation, however, was proposed as conjecture, so quantum mechanics is not shaken by its violation.
Click to expand...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-not-dead/

In physics, the observer effect is changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Furthermore, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to emit light; while this may seem negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception that it is the mind of a conscious observer that only causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a misunderstanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[1][2][3]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#cite_note-Belavkin92-18

I'm not so certain this can be applied in a philosophical manner directly. :p
 
"I'm not so certain this can be applied in a philosophical manner directly." Worth a try :D
 
I'm uncertain it will work and concerned observation may influence the results... ;)

But one can always give it a try...I'll even try not to peek if you wish if you think it would help.
 
Last edited:
Eventually, what's happening with the two-slit experiment, is that a single photon (particle) is going through both slits at the same time -- is able to be in two places at once? Like a bullet hitting two separate targets. So you have a single particle behaving like a wave? Which a single particle cannot in theory do.

But when you try to follow its path, to find out how it's performing this impossibility, it reverts back to behaving like a single particle, and can only be observed going through one slit or the other -- not both? Something like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top