Moontanman Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 This video shows how the double slit experiment is affected simply by observation. Is this true? Does simply observing the experiment show that reality is affected by the mind or does it show something else. 2:45 long video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Does simply observing the experiment show that reality is affected by the mind or does it show something else. It doesn't have anything to do with the mind, it has to do with the measurement. If no one ever looks at the result of the measurement, the result of the experiment would still show that the measurement affected it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The voice of god in that video speaks volumes of nonsense: "Quantum theory works... even though it shouldn't." --- Says who it shouldn't? "This could only happen if the particles go through both slits at the same time." --- Did you not watch to the end of the video, ie. "All this kind of language is not applicable"? "Does this mean that reality itself... is not real?" --- Reality is real by definition. This disproves that "there are no stupid questions." It's all so much claptrap trying sadly to express the idea that "reality 'should' be only what classical common sense says about it." The scientist at the end expresses a useful way of looking at it, but they ignore it in the narration and throw in sensationalist "science is spooky and doesn't make sense!" crap. --- I don't think you even have to say that the results of a given photon's behavior is "affected" by the detector, because you don't know where that particular photon would end up. It's not as if there is a "typical path" a single photon would take in absence of the detector, and a modified path in its presence. Trying to avoid "this kind of language that is not applicable", I'd say that it just means that a photon's behavior depends on its measurement. The behavior of the photon before it is observed, is not applicable or defined. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Ok this question started from of all things a facebook post that i commented on. The post was about crop circles of all things and I pointed out that crop circles had been shown to be man made. I was answered by a guy who it would appear is some sort of mystic or something but he claimed that my assertion of evidence being required before I would believe such a obviously false thing was flawed because the universe is made up of supernatural "things" and after a few more exchanges where I basically supported science and the scientific method as being the only way to really know what is real he showed me that video as evidence that there is something above our reality, the supernatural and how it has been shown to be real. I guess I should have known better to argue with this guy but I did... I hate getting my ass kicked by woo Edited September 21, 2012 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathematic Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I just read (book by Hawkins) that in 1999 someone (in Austria) did a double slit experiment with 60 atom buckyballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If you set up an experiment to detect wave effects of quantum particles like photons or electrons, they will display wave properties. If you set up an experiment to detect particle effects, they will display particle effects. Does that mean their nature is determined by the observer ? Obviously not. It means our model, wether particle or wave, is incomplete. It could be both, or neither. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assholio420 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) 1348190611[/url]' post='703617']This video shows how the double slit experiment is affected simply by observation. Is this true? Does simply observing the experiment show that reality is affected by the mind or does it show something else. 2:45 long video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat_in_popular_cultureThe cat in the box is both alive and dead until you observe the cat so in this instance reality had to wait for observation, so I say yes reality is then affected by observation. I guess reality for humans is all in perception my reality is different then your reality and so on.... As for crop circles shit that's just a couple of bored dudes. Edited September 22, 2012 by swansont fix quote tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) To be fare anyone interested should read the entire exchange... http://www.facebook.com/MicheletheRaelian/posts/310399215733622 It was a little embarrassing, I felt like I had stepped into intellectual quicksand... Edited September 22, 2012 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 In the double slit experiment, doesn't "observing" mean "catching a photon" and thus "disturbing the experiment"? To me, the result of the double slit experiment means it is similar to a destructive testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 In the double slit experiment, doesn't "observing" mean "catching a photon" and thus "disturbing the experiment"? To me, the result of the double slit experiment means it is similar to a destructive testing. You detect the photon after it has gone through the slit(s). That's what's weird about it. If you detected it before, it wouldn't be counterintuitive that the result could be affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 You detect the photon after it has gone through the slit(s). How are photons detected, in such a case? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 You detect the photon after it has gone through the slit(s). That's what's weird about it. If you detected it before, it wouldn't be counterintuitive that the result could be affected. I don't understand why that matters. "detecting" a photon means litteraly "catching" or "taking away" a photon. It does not matter whether it is before or after the slit, what matters is that detection happens before the photon hits the screen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I don't understand why that matters. "detecting" a photon means litteraly "catching" or "taking away" a photon. It does not matter whether it is before or after the slit, what matters is that detection happens before the photon hits the screen. The photon hitting the screen is the detection. How are photons detected, in such a case? They hit a screen and you see the reflection/scatter/fluorescence, or count a value from a photodetector, depending on how you've set it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The photon hitting the screen is the detection. They hit a screen and you see the reflection/scatter/fluorescence, or count a value from a photodetector, depending on how you've set it up. ???? Sorry I understand nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) This phenomena is explained well by this theory. My link Light is a paper boat on the fast moving river? The phenomena is related to the river, i.e., something transferring light in the space. But, more theoretical research is needed as yet. Edited September 23, 2012 by alpha2cen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) They hit a screen and you see the reflection/scatter/fluorescence, or count a value from a photodetector (by which principle does this 'photodetector' work, isn't it just like 'seeing' the reflection/scatter/flueorescence ?), depending on how you've set it up. What are some of the offline-detection methods (not "observing") ? I don't think you even have to say that the results of a given photon's behavior is "affected" by the detector, because you don't know where that particular photon would end up. It's not as if there is a "typical path" a single photon would take in absence of the detector, and a modified path in its presence. Trying to avoid "this kind of language that is not applicable", I'd say that it just means that a photon's behavior depends on its measurement. The behavior of the photon before it is observed, is not applicable or defined. You're saying they're only asserting the "two stripe" result? It's never actually happened? If that's the case, then what the hell is wrong with these people!? There's nothing wrong with the wave pattern! Edited September 23, 2012 by Ben Bowen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 This phenomena is explained well by this theory. My link Light is a paper boat on the fast moving river? The phenomena is related to the river, i.e., something transferring light in the space. But, more theoretical research is needed as yet. alpha2cen, you have been repeatedly warned not to hijack threads with your own speculations. Please review SFN rule 10 if you'd like. Keep your speculations in the appropriate section; otherwise, we will be forced to suspend your account. (Again.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 The double slit experiment was being used to support the existence of the supernatural, does it show some sort of supernatural effects of the mind or is there a more likely explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) The double slit experiment was being used to support the existence of the supernatural The supernatural? What's that? Flying pigs? Flying pigs are related to a wave pattern? That's nice. or is there a more likely explanation? I'm thinking people don't understand what this experiment implies at all. It's misunderstanding and an incapacity to honestly judge scientific exhibitions. Edited September 23, 2012 by Ben Bowen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The experiment can be run with no minds to observe the results, and the absence of the mind changes nothing. You might look at the delayed choice variation of this experiment and imagine a computer tallying the result. They would be the same results as if a conscious observer was watching. No woo needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 The supernatural? What's that? Flying pigs? Flying pigs are related to a wave pattern? That's nice. I'm thinking people don't understand what this experiment implies at all. It's misunderstanding and an incapacity to honestly judge scientific exhibitions. Actually crop circles was the original topic but the nature of reality eventually became the topic. He was asserting that the double slit experiment showed some evidence of the supernatural, to be honest now that i look at it the comment was close to "the tides go in the tides out, you can't explain that" comment that achieved so much fame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Actually crop circles was the original topic but the nature of reality eventually became the topic. He was asserting that the double slit experiment showed some evidence of the supernatural, to be honest now that i look at it the comment was close to "the tides go in the tides out, you can't explain that" comment that achieved so much fame... This simple experiment is a supernatural phenomena! The experiment or our theory of light has a problem. Which operation reduces the wave property? Is current theory of light possible to reduce the wave property by operation? Edited September 24, 2012 by alpha2cen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) Does the photon really arrive at the target when we observe a photon? How about measuring the arrived ones total energy? Edited September 26, 2012 by alpha2cen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Hang on. I thought a computer or other insentient 'observer' would not have the same effect on the experiment. Am I wrong? All this talk of the supernatural. I simply do not understand how something can be supernatural. It is not up to us to define what is natural and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now