Physics n00b here. I wonder something about double split experiment

>>8390748
>particles
double-slit is not about "particles",
it's about waves

>>8390748
Are you referring to a hidden variable theory?

How do you knows photons are in superposition if you can't measure them? Because all our measurements say that superposition is bullshit.

>>8390748
single photon double slit experiments show waveform interference.

this is a fundamental behavior in quantum mechanics, known as self-interference and leads to the many-paths interpretation

>>8390749
just stfu if you dont know what you are posting about

>>8390751
[citation needed]

>>8390751
>Because all our measurements say that superposition is bullshit.

except that is completely fucking wrong, dipshit. all our measurements show that superposition is reality.

>>8390756
>>8390757
Learn what wave function collapse is dumdum.

>>8390750
no , i dont think i am that good in physics. i just want to know if the photon leaves an information about its position but that information is is too complex to gather , does it shows particle behaviour anyway.

do not believe copenhagen interpretation's lies
de broglie - bohm 4 life

>>8390758
>shits on superposition
>wants to back up his position with wave function collapse

fucking hell man, you are either immensely stupid or just trolling which makes you immensely stupid again.

>>8390762
dude just dont feed it . dont observe him :D

>>8390758
Kindly explain how single photon slit experiments result in interference patterns when taken over time.

Im just dying to hear your explanation.

>>8390759
OP here ,

i mean something like if you drop a dye the a bucket of water , from the movements of molecules etc. actually you can know from which part of the bucket the drops are dropped and how much dropped. But it is so complex to gather for us that information , we can not know it. But in theory we can know it.

I am asking the same situation for photon. Lets assume it , what would be the behaviour ?

>>8390762
>measure it
>no superposition
>don't measure it
>no evidence for superposition
You fail at basic logic dumdum.
>>8390765
superposition doesnt explain an interference pattern...

>>8390768
read your fucking thread, asswipe, the question was specifically and explicitey answered twice and implied more than that.

>>8390759
Leaves information?
Maybe, but like you said, it's probably too complex to gather.
Since light apparently curves space times by an infinitesimal amount, I wouldn't be surprised if it produced infinitesimally small ripples of space time.

Photons show particle behaviour, as evidenced by Einsteins photoelectric effect.
Light also shows wave behaviour, such as interference patterns.

It's possible that wave-particle duality is literal. It is also possible that it is a literal wave/particle hybrid, a wavicle lets say, such as pilot wave theory

>>8390769
>superposition doesn't explain an interference pattern

yes, so you have told us already. now kindly give us your alternative explanation or fuck off and die in a fire

>>8390768
4th post, man.

>>8390772
>>8390773

Sorry i couldnt saw the answers.

-i dont say photon leaves information. But i am saying lets assume. What if it had left ?

>>8390785
>What if it had left ?
If any information existed like that, it would have to be so small that it was negligible and thus practically unmeasurable

>>8390748
Trying to understand QM purely conceptually, as provided by popsci, will lead you absolutely nowhere. At best you'll end up confused and give up, at worst you'll end up misunderstanding and assume a bullshit new age stance about the whole matter.

Go from the ground up. Pick up a good physics book and start learning the fundamentals - which are purely mathematical. Unless it's chock full of derivations and equations, it will be worthless or worse.

>>8390797
what does that derivations and equations mean if we dont interperet them. If it is cant understandable witout equations , does it really have meaning ?

>>8390825
>If it is cant understandable witout equations , does it really have meaning ?
It has meaning. Unfortunately retards can't learn the math and physics, so they can't understand.

>does writing have meaning if im illiterate? :^)

>>8390833
maths is like words. It is a tool for explaining something. You mean does this whole reality only can explain by maths , equatons ??

>>8390839
This is totally beside the point. But to use your own words: Trying to comprehend physics without speaking the language of mathematics is like trying to comprehend a book without being able to read it. You can talk about the pretty shapes, and you can repeat what others have told you about it, but you'll miss the essence of it.

>>8390748
Is this a new meme I'm just not in on

>>8390839
Mathematical descriptions are the best, and really only, language we have for precisely defining and describing structures and interactions of arbitrary objects. This is the language in which current physics is written, and English is not well suited for it. The behavior of quantum-mechanical systems is difficult to describe accurately in English, since it's very unlike the everyday interactions English developed to handle, and many concepts in the context of quantum physics don't exist in the intuitive physics we have in our heads, and vice versa.

The math allows the structure and behavior of quantum mechanics to be directly written down and manipulated, however, so understanding and playing with it actually does allow you to understand quantum shit.

observing means interacting with the environment in any measurable way

if the slit were made from a few cooled atoms then a diffracting photon would impact a sideways momentum on it and the outcome of the experiment woudl change.
but since its orders of magnitude heavier and the thermal vibrations are stronger than whatever the photon could do to it, there is basically no interaction = measurment

your sensory organs dont do shit, especially since they come into play way later when the photon already has hit the wall

>>8390748
Nobody really knows what's going on with QM; see the various interpretations. There are multiple valid metaphysical interpretations that all concur with experimental evidence, which is the problem really.

Sadly these are all after-the-fact explanations applied to facts/data we'd already discovered. As Feynman once said, we're in a position similar to the aztecs; we can calculate when the next lunar eclipse will occur but know not why the calculations work/are correct - which in my view is the far more interesting part of it all.

prove this works.

>>8390754
Rather - quantum mechanics allow particles to be in an uncertainty state, and with experiments it's been proven that - it's the actual case with them.

But interactions between them always force them to be paradox free in this universe configuration - so that on macro scale everything interacts as a whole, tho when you look again at quantum scale you see that particles work with probabilities states, regardless of where they want to go as a whole the configuration remains paradox free

>>8390887
Photon double-slit interference is actually pretty easy to explain, though - Feynman gave a pretty good layman's explanation of it, in fact! Check out "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" for a transcription of his lecture on this.

>>8390900
Fairly sure it's more aptly described a layman's description. Therein lies the problem. There is as yet no well justified, satisfactory explanation for the facts of QM.

simple
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lpI6ikj1G-s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lpI6ikj1G-s

>>8390748
Can't you detect the photon by its gravity field? In theory?

>>8391819
how come that code didn't work?

>>8390748
>Thisis because after the observation , we have an information about particles position.
>But thing is , this information is so complex to get , it is out of the reach of our hands, it is imposible to get that information in that momment.
It has nothing to do with us attaining the information. If the information *exists* then it has a definite position. Superposition has nothing to do with what information humans have, it's about what information physically exists. The information "leaking out" is what makes the superposition collapse.

>>8391850
It still seems like magic that observation can affect something. Can you clarify in what context/sense is "observation" taken here in scientific terms?

If I understand correctly , measuring speed of a car with police radar affect its speed?

>>8391855
It's not observation in the colloquial sense. It's an interaction which carries information into the environment. The simple fact that the information exists must mean that the superposition has collapsed. If it did not collapse then there could be no information of the position of the particle, because there is no particle. This interaction is as simple as a photon hitting the object of interest.

>If I understand correctly , measuring speed of a car with police radar affect its speed?
That is the observer effect which a completely different thing. When you are measuring the speed of the car you are bouncing photons off it which affect it's speed.

>>8391870
No, see:
>>8390887

>>8391870
Thank you anon

>>8391880
Do you think you know how what I said is an "interpretation" or are you just pretending to?

>>8390748
The only way to get information from a system is to measure it.

Theres no conceivable way to see where it would have went if it was a particle.

>>8390748
my god sci.... 3 hours and nobody mentions the delayed choice experiment.. which is pretty much what op is asking about without realizing it. check it out, though some background is neccessary to get it.
short answer... the quantum object will conform to the measurement, even if it appears that it had to "go back in time" to conform. Interpretations aside.

short answer for op... in the case you describe, the photon you describe would be measurable as to going in one slit or the other, but if you repeated this, even measuring which slit it went through, you would still get a wave like diffraction pattern if you measured positions on the back board

>>8392064
they've been doing inferometer experiments which incorporate positional and interference measurements in the same system since the 80's

>>8391886
It is, more or less. More accurately you could say that since you mention wavefunction collapse, lack of counterfactual definiteness, and the causal role of the observer the most likely case is that you're expounding the copenhagen interpretation, whether you know it or not. Of the most-popular interpretations that's the one which matches all those criteria.