I wonder something about double split experiment and observation.
In a nutshell , until particles observed by some sensory device , they are in super position. And after they observed their wave function collapse and they are only one place at a time.
Thisis because after the observation , we have an information about particles position.
Here is the question , lets assume a shooted single photon to a double split. Until it reaches to the slit , lets say that photon leaves information about its 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. Nevertheless , it leaves an information there.
I dont know even something like that could possible . Think of it as a thought experiment.
In a situation like this , does the photon shows wave behaviour or particle behaviour ?
Jaxson Taylor
>particles double-slit is not about "particles", it's about waves
Zachary Perez
Are you referring to a hidden variable theory?
Matthew Gray
How do you knows photons are in superposition if you can't measure them? Because all our measurements say that superposition is bullshit.
Parker Turner
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
just stfu if you dont know what you are posting about
Nolan Ramirez
[citation needed]
Elijah Gonzalez
>Because all our measurements say that superposition is bullshit.
except that is completely fucking wrong, dipshit. all our measurements show that superposition is reality.
Xavier Cooper
Learn what wave function collapse is dumdum.
Juan Howard
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.
Colton Cruz
do not believe copenhagen interpretation's lies de broglie - bohm 4 life
Jayden Reyes
>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.
Colton King
dude just dont feed it . dont observe him :D
Evan Torres
Kindly explain how single photon slit experiments result in interference patterns when taken over time.
Im just dying to hear your explanation.
Eli Diaz
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 ?
Lucas Thomas
>measure it >no superposition >don't measure it >no evidence for superposition You fail at basic logic dumdum. superposition doesnt explain an interference pattern...
Josiah Kelly
read your fucking thread, asswipe, the question was specifically and explicitey answered twice and implied more than that.
David Adams
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
John Wood
>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
James Baker
4th post, man.
Jeremiah Harris
Sorry i couldnt saw the answers.
-i dont say photon leaves information. But i am saying lets assume. What if it had left ?
Nicholas Reed
>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
Easton Cox
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.
Levi Adams
what does that derivations and equations mean if we dont interperet them. If it is cant understandable witout equations , does it really have meaning ?
Henry Russell
>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? :^)
Adrian Cruz
maths is like words. It is a tool for explaining something. You mean does this whole reality only can explain by maths , equatons ??
Julian Parker
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.
Thomas Morales
Is this a new meme I'm just not in on
John Young
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.
Hudson Cook
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
Carter Rivera
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.
Anthony Moore
prove this works.
Julian Sanders
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
Carson Thomas
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.
Cooper Robinson
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.