1435
double slit (mander.xyz)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

I'd read a piece that even just having a camera present has the same effect.

[-] [email protected] 57 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's not really it. You need something that measures the state of the electron. Merely looking in the direction is not enough. It has to be something that interacts with the electron.

A camera alone isn't enough. But light (eg photons) with enough energy should be enough. But then that energy will manipulate the electron. If you had a completely dark room and pointed a camera at the experiment it wouldn't change anything.

It's kind of like having your cake and eating it too.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago

Yeah, it turns out that slapping the electron around like with a big stick or whatever causes it to change its behavior, go figure! :-P

[-] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Dammit Jim, I'm a psychologist, not a physicist!

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

So if we didn't need light to see it then it would continue doing whatever it does?

I wonder how the universe would look if we didn't need light to see 🤔

[-] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It isn't "looking" that is meant by "observation". "Observation" is meant to convey the idea that something (not necessarily sentient) is in some way interacting with an object in question such that the state(s) of the object affects the state(s) of the "observer" (and vice versa).

The word is rather misleading in that it might give the impression of a unidirectional type of interaction when it really is the establishment of a bidirectional relationship. The reason one says "I observe the electron" rather than "I am observed by the electron" is that we don't typically attribute agency to electrons the way we do humans (for good reasons), but they are equally true.

Edit: a way of putting it is that the electron can only be said to be in a particular state if it matters in any way to the state of whomever says it. If I want to know what state an electon is in, it must appear to me in some state in order for me to get an answer. If I never interact with it, I can't possibly get such an answer and the electron then behaves as if it was actually in more than one state at once, and all those states interfere with each other, and that looks like wavelike patterns in certain measurements.

Edit 2: just to be clear, I used an electron as an example, but it's exactly the same for anything else we know of. Photons, bicycles, protons, and elephants are all like this, too. It's just that the more fundamental particles you involve and the more you already know about many of them, the fewer the possible answers are for any measurement you could make.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

So you're telling me the people from The Secret lied to me?!

[-] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

I have no idea what that is so I'll just go with yes, probably!

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

No, the electron only understands sentient thoughts, if a camera or an animal looks at it, it won't work.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

Well that's not right

Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious (versus merely existent, as in a unicellular microorganism) is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]>

Source

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I suspect it was a joke. Can't be sure though.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

I'm pretty confident it's a joke, but clearly from other comments people may actually believe something like that. It's best someone corrects it, even if not for the sake of the poster.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Not just sentient, but intelligent thought. I proved it in university. When I setup the lab, I got no interference pattern. When my more intelligent labmate did the setup there were fringes.

Wait! That means I was the sentient one! I was cheated! (Or maybe I just sucked at lab.)

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1435 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

10372 readers
2891 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS