Double Slit

File: u12l3b1.gif (12KB, 512x262px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 512x262px

>>18046050
Okay. So, here's a rabbit hole for you.

You are aware that there are nodal points when intersecting a flat *screen* such that there is a 0% chance of detecting a photon in those *points* that intersect the screen. What if you don't use a flat screen though?

What if instead you use an object that occupies exactly only all of the places where there is a 0% chance of detecting a photon. What is that, anon? What is that called, when there is a 0% chance of detecting something with light?

What if instead of using a double slit, you use some other kind of cut out, to get a different interference pattern? I wonder if there is a series of slit patterns and mirrors / reflectors that could envelope a 3d object, such that for photons behind those slit patterns, there is a 0% chance of detecting the object on the other side. What would you call that?

I wonder if for every 3d object, there is a combination of slit patterns and mirrors / reflectors that completely envelope the 3d object with nodal points of destructive interference, such that for the object enveloped in this way, there is a 0% chance of detecting photons from behind the slit patterns. Wouldn't that be interesting?

Now here's where it gets fun; I wonder if there's one of those in your room, right now, right behind you.

File: Ilc_9yr_moll4096.jpg (1MB, 1802x901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1802x901px

>>18046060
>>18046060
>one of those
like black matter. So, if there are inteligents beings who where able to manipulate and profit from the characteristics of black matter. Or a plant who developed this through the process of nature to stay invisible as a kind protection. Or a bacteria, just something that really could be here and now.

File: uk2005ct.jpg (130KB, 850x548px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 850x548px

>>18046073


http://www.keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm

how can something exist that never existet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzAQ36b9dzs

this is mind blowing. Soaccording to the possibilites a particle can take, everything is possible. So, even this >>18046060

>>18046050
we had this thread here months ago, some smart anon that had a degree in this shit explained why this wave/particle paradox happens with maths. Scientists understand why this seems to happen but the way they explain it and it gets reported on scientific magazines and websites for normies, it doesnt make sense.
I cant for the life of me remember exactly what he said but it made sense. Can anyone else explain why the "light as a wave" isnt actually a thing?

>>18046060
There's also single-slit diffraction, circular diffraction, and diffraction gratings which all have different spacing properties.

File: Moire02.gif (773KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 200x200px

>>18046125
No. Your particle bro was incorrect. Particles are the bullshit theory. Particles are the estimation technique, that only approximately arrives at the correction solutions. The wave equations are more correct.

The hokiest shit perpetuated by pop-science these days is "sometimes light is a particle, and sometimes it's a wave!" No. Light is always a wave. If you change a lightwave's polarity, then you change its interference pattern. There's no publicly known method of measuring light without changing its polarity, because the only publicly known method of measuring light is to obstruct its trajectory, which changes its polarity, because that's... what an obstruction is--that which changes timing and orientation of what collides with it.

If detectors didn't change the phase orientation of light, (i.e. its polarity) then they wouldn't really be detectors, now would they? What would they be detecting, if they didn't introduce any changes to the system?

The universe doesn't magically change when you observe it. Observation is the mundane process of changing the universe, at the places that you observe. This is the very basic principle of the scientific method. You have a control, you introduce a change, and you measure the difference.

Of course the double slit experiment doesn't have the same results if you put a detector near the slots. Why would you expect it to? It would break all laws of physics if it DIDN'T change the interference pattern. That would violate the conservation of energy.

But even putting a detector near the slits doesn't make the light "behave" as a particle. That is so false. There's still a non-zero chance that the light creates an interference pattern, because sometimes the detectors randomize the phase orientation of the detected light wave such that it's polarity is coincidentally the same.

When this happens, there's no information on the detector, since it wasn't oscillated, and idiot physicists call this an "error."

is there a way to restore the information of which path the light or any particle went, let's say the light from the sun with this quantum ereaser to see what sun looked like original or any other planet or even earth?

File: 8HvNY.gif (38KB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 288x288px

>>18046175
The reason people are so in love with particle theory, is because their brains are full of this hallucination that the world is made up of objects, that can only go from A to B by visiting every point in between. Well.

No. That's not this universe. Sorry brain. Time to evolve maybe.

>>18046125
The current answer is because of superposition.

The photons occupy multiple places and even interfere with themselves along their journey - but as soon as they're observed, it collapses and appears to turn into a particle.

Quantum behavior is well-observed and has theory/probability behind it, but afaik the underlying reason for some of these behaviors is not well known

>>18046175
and yet there is the paradox with the double slit

>>18046181
Only by changing it to whatever value you want. The only way to get which-way information on an interfering wave pattern is to contrive the result, which is what your brain does every time it makes a decision. It's called "efficacy."

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+efficacy

>>18046186
There is no paradox with the double slit.

>>18046183
>but as soon as they're observed, it collapses and appears to turn into a particle.
i'm wondering, as soon they get Observed they turn into particle. These particle behave as if they were always particle from the beginning with a background story from where they came. But as long they are not observed, there is nothing like this existing.

>>18046196
>changing it to whatever value you want
don't you think this is somehow disturbing? That the brain has such an influence of the outcome of this? Influence on reality!?

>>18046203
Compared to what... exactly? Not having influence on your reality?

>>18046202
>i'm wondering, as soon they get Observed they turn into particle.

No. This isn't even true. When they get observed, they don't turn into a particle. When they get observed, they change their phase orientation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YkfEft4p-w

They're still waves afterwards. They just don't interfere the same, because their phase orientation was changed.

Particle isn't a quality of matter. You don't measure the "particle-ness" of matter, ever. What you can do, is use particle systems of geometry to estimate the trajectory that energy took. These systems are only estimations, and only arrive at approximate solutions.

If you take the sum of all the approximate solutions that a particle system could derive, then it becomes a wave solution.

>>18046211
simply by observing the particle (or wave/frequence) the outcome of the double slit chaged. The water hit the whole wall or the light hit the whole wall but when observing it, only the slits get formed on the wall. As seen in the video. Simply by watching, by observing it, the change is happening. Thsi is what i think is somehow disturbing.

>>18046218
>When they get observed, they change their phase orientation.
at the end, 'they change' just because we look at it.

File: 17.gif (260KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 240x320px

>>18046220
Yes. The only way to learn about something in this universe is to interact with. That would be the scientific method. Welcome to physical reality, where your intentions have consequences.

>>18046224
No. This is incorrect. They don't change because you look at it. This is not true. This is not what is happening.

They change, because there is a big honking detector in the way. They change, because there's an obstruction in the way. They change, because something is in its path, changing it.

>>18046227
The only way we have of observing a photon atm is to collect it or act on it with an outside force. Both of which cause waveform collapse

>>18046182
>>>/r/eddit

File: 1470411775032.jpg (4MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6000x4000px

>>18046232
>The only way we have of observing a photon atm is to collect it or act on it with an outside force. Both of which cause waveform collapse
Yes.

But why would you expect it to be any other way? How do you propose to measure something, without doing anything?

And why would you expect what you do to measure something to not have a resultant reaction on the rest of the environment? If you measure something, by doing nothing, then you didn't really measure shit, now did you?

Scientific method; take a control, introduce a change.

Why is everyone so mystified that the only publicly known way to measure a photon is to introduce a change in its trajectory?

Is there ANYTHING else in the universe that you can measure without changing? Do people really think this how reality works? Is this not the primary definition of living in physical reality?

File: wpid-wp-14431608903321.jpg (3MB, 1936x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1936x2592px

as above, so below.

as it is in the heavens of your mind, so it will be in the reality below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJHCADY-Bio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

Double slit is proof that what you think can actually be made manifest

>>18046323
no

Double slit is proof that we live in a simulation

File: animoot_s.gif (450KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 480x480px

>>18046306
This is false knowledge. Since this is /x/, I'll go ahead and say it. It seems like propaganda to me. Disinfo. One thing is clear--the actor they got to read these lines, the animator who drew the charts, and the writer who wrote the script do not have knowledge of the quantum erasure experiment.

In the quantum erasure experiment, all of the data from boxes A,B,C,D is routed to a "coincidence counter," which is an insulated box that takes the analogue signals from the which-way detectors, and super imposes them upon each other. By super imposing the waves over each other, the interference pattern contains the phase orientation and polarity of the light.

If the light wave went in such path that it would go to detectors C, or D, then the change in the phase orientation of the light that was detected this way is contained in each of the detectors--they intentionally set it up so that the change of the light that goes to C is conjugate to the change of the light that goes to D. Thus, the change that is introduced by putting a detector there, destructively interferes, because the change introduced by putting a detector there is *ALSO* a wave. Everything in the universe is a wave.

And then obviously since A and B aren't set up to destructively interfere each other's introduced change in the phase orientation of the light which passes through the slit, they don't, and this obviously manifests as a decoherent change in the phase orientation of the light that makes its way to the main detector screen that wasn't labeled with a letter.

It's not like they fucking *chose* to view the light from either detector set A and B, or C and D, and then their choices magically made their notes disappear or something. That's not what's going on. They don't get to choose which detector the light gets detected by. It's just, since C and D coherently share trajectories, the changes they introduce on a wave that would take those trajectories are also coherent.

File: Animoot.gif (428KB, 346x195px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 346x195px

>>18046372
What they're saying is just false. It's not correct. It is not true. It is not what particle physicists use to construct their experiments. Really. Particle physicists do not say to each other, "hmm, that time it come at as a wave, didn't it?" This is a meme, perpetuated by shitty schools, whose graduates don't actually go into fields of research.

It's not a particle. That is not the interference pattern of a particle. It is measurably different from what the interference pattern of a particle looks like. It is empirically different than what the interference pattern would look like, if they were particles. I can't overstate this enough. The doube-slit experiment... does not... have anything... to do... with particles. Whether there's a gorramn detector present or not. The video is NOT using the right representation. That is NOT the mathematical distribution of what occurs in a double slit experiment. Those are NOT the real results from a legitimate experiment. Nobody in this video actually did a double-slit experiment when deciding what art animations and 3d CGI to use. Understand this.

In a double-slit experiment, whether you have which way information or not, one of two things will happen.

You have:

- a coherent interference pattern
- a non-coherent interference pattern.

There are no results of a double slit experiment with "no" interference pattern.

The interference patterns look different. In coherent interference patterns, there are great big shadowy parts. In non-coherent interference patterns, the shadowy parts get smaller. The shadowy parts NEVER go to zero.

There is no double-slit experiment with no interference patterns. If you just understand the experiment as light, whose orientation of oscillation changes sometimes, it will make perfect sense, and you will be ashamed at how stupid all this "retrocausality" business is.

There *is* a way to perform retrocausal experiments, but it's not in any pop-culture magazines.

Double slit is proof that ""God"" exists.

Do people ITT literally not understand anything about particle-wave duality?

There is nothing spooky about it, this belongs on /b/ so we can educate people, not here so that a bunch of pseudoretards can argue why they don't accept something that's being proven

>>18046050
i can tell u bout double slit when i double slit ur moms throt

>>18046232
Brah gravity is an outside force, gravity does not cause the waveform to collapse. Do you actually science or are you getting this shit off Reddit?

It would not be a duality if it could only act as either or the other at a time.

There are other particles, even whole molecules that have been observed with a particle/wave duality, and some of those can only act as either or, light can act as both at the same time.

>>18046882
>It would not be a duality if it could only act as either or the other at a time.
String theory dualities are "either or".

>>18046050
I'm reading that guys books right now.
I sorta hate how he repeats some things and goes into weird modes but other than that its good reading imo.

I like physics anon ITT.

File: animoot_sss.gif (952KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 500x500px

>>18046882
I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt, and believe he meant that one set of possible outcomes of the probability waveform collapsed, leaving others intact, which is a possibility in the case of gravitational waves, which cause a fluctuation in the timings of the coherently reflected waveforms. These fluctuations can be interpreted as "collapsing" one kind of probability wave, in favor for another in quantum field theory.

>There are other particles, even whole molecules that have been observed with a particle/wave duality, and some of those can only act as either or, light can act as both at the same time.

Kind of. Even in "particle form" that just means its position is then in a state of uncertainty. In "wave form" that means its velocity is in a state of uncertainty.

That's not an attribute of the molecule, that's an attribute of the detector that measures it. Different detectors can measure it different ways, as long as the detectors aren't visible to each other.

By the way, that last paragraph is "new science." You'll either get a nobel peace prize, or a bullet to the head if you publish it, depending on which rumors you want to believe. That's a "quantum waveform" I'm not ready to collapse yet. Let me say it again;

Different observers can see different results to a quantum probability event, as long as the detectors aren't visible to each other.

>>18046908
>String theory dualities are "either or".
String theory dualities are different from quantum field theory dualities. In QFT, duality implies a gradient overlapping. QFT is no stranger to mutually exclusive possibilities. Every outcome to a quantum event is mutually exclusive with all infinite other outcomes it could have been. Nonetheless, these outcomes aren't called dualities, or pluralities.

Futhermore, particle or wave is not a quality of energy. Physicists don't run an experiment and say "Oh, this time it was a particle. Oh, this time it was a wave." Only journalists do that.

Double slit is proof that ghosts exist.

>>18046866
Kekd

>>18046125

The disappointing real answer is that waves and particles aren't different things, just different ways of describing the same phenomenon. There's no magic here, just some goofy physics.

desu I've found the best way to keep normies away from the various quantum quacks is to tell them that the words used by physicists to describe things have wildly different meanings than their every day meaning.

Examples:
Observation makes people think you're looking at something, when in QM it means any interaction that collapses the waveform.

Spin is another thing, the particles aren't actually spinning it's just a way to describe their intrinsic magnetic fields.

In general throw intuition out the door with QM, little shit just doesn't work the same way big shit does.

>>18046104
It's more apt to say there are a set of possibilities, and a particle can take any one of those set possibilities. It's not going to spontaneously teleport to Mars or anything.

>>18047919

I don't get people who say you can't use your intuition with QM. It's different from classical phenomena obviously but once you start playing with the math it's all so elegant and just works. Then again I tend to think of physics more abstractly than trying to start from intuition so whatever. I find E&M with its endless vector calculus way more obnoxious to grasp intuitively.

>>18046088
DUNG BEETLE

Is it strange I am turned on by this thread? I only wish I understood these things better myself, but I'm more than happy to read what others do understand. This thread is the best, I gain knowledge and a wet spot in my panties!

>>18048310
Smart girls are hot imo

>>18046050
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uzytrooz44

>>18046050
>Double Slit

Asians that became MORE Asian?
Or the eyes are first slit and the pussy is the second?

Truly a mystery...