• BlasphemicMantis@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    You make it look like an innocent peek changes the outcome. In reality you “look” by shooting lasers perpendicular to the plane and observe the electron photon scattering. I wonder if your path changes if I shoot military-grade lasers in your direction.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      This is the reason I never understood it at first. People tell you about it, but tend to leave out the key part to actually understanding it. Why?

  • Risus_Nex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Can someone explain please? We had this in school, but my friend here forgot what this was about.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s the Young’s double slit experiment. It proves that light (or electrons, or even small bacteria) is both a particle and a wave.

      There is a quirk of quantum mechanics. When you observe a system, you fundamentally change it. In scientific terms “observe” has a very different meaning to layman usage. This leads to a lot of woo around the topic. In practice, observing is measuring. In quantum mechanics, the measurement system is of the same scale as the system being measured.

      Imagine observing a good train, by bouncing BB bullets off it with a gun. That is classical measurement. You can assume the BBs had no effect on the train.

      Now imagine the same measurement. However you are measuring how a bunch of glass playing cards are balanced in a house of cards. You can tell a lot still, but the BBs will smash it up doing so. This is quantum measurements.

      In the first, the observer is independent of the system. In the second, the observer is a fundamental part of the system, and so can change its way of functioning.

      • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Another classic case of “Scientists are bad at naming things”

        Some people will spend their entire lives thinking math is stupid because of imaginary numbers.

        Thinking that electrons behave differently when you “look” at them.

        Think that radio towers and microwaves cause cancer because they emit radiation

        Many of these are failures of the education system and to be fair scientists don’t have the power of hindsight. Still it annoys me how inefficient it is having these names

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The problem with how you are describing it is that it’s not that the physical mechanics of measurement are necessarily causing collapse as if you end up erasing the persistent information about the measurement it reverses the collapse, such as if you add a polarizer to the other slit as well or add a polarizer downstream that untags the initial measurement.

        So in your example, if you simultaneously shoot a bunch of BBs at empty space next to the pile of glass cards where they could have been, or discard the BBs which reflected measuring the cards in the first place, suddenly the pile of glass cards reassemble themselves.

        Attempts to try and dismiss the ‘weirdness’ of the measurement problem or QM behavior IMO ultimately do the reader more of a disservice than a service.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m massively simplifying, and a lot of the interesting stuff gets lost with that. Unfortunately, when you try and maintain that, the analogy gets so convoluted that it’s useless.

          The actual answer for understanding quantum mechanics is to chunk the maths, again, and again… and again. It also involves working almost entirely in the wave dominant domains. Trying to simplify that down to a quick comment is basically impossible.

        • arvere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          it’s really annoying how bad this experiment is explained to the general public. the wording generally used is so poor it implies there’s something supernatural about the phenomenon

          I’m not a physicist, but as far as I understand the principle, any human actively looking at the experiment changes absolutely nothing. what it really postulates is that light behaves as a wave until it is interacted with. at that point, the wave “collapses” and it starts to behave as a particle, positioned somewhere within the probability zone described by the wave initially. when you measure it in any way, using some measuring tool, it inevitably interacts with it

  • mihor@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is such a mindfuck, the implications are really weird, like WTF is this universe actually made of?

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is not how the double slit experiment works though. “Observe”, in quantum physics should be read as “interacts with a thing”, it doesn’t require a conscious observer.

        • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          I have a friend whose research requires a thorough understanding of quantum mechanics. She told me that she feels like she understands quantum mechanics, until she stops and thinks about it in a way that isn’t limited to the equations and data that she’s used to manipulating. Then, it blows her mind so much that she feels like she has to sort of “reboot” her brain and tell herself “it’s okay, just don’t think about it too much bro”. I find this hilarious, and quite relatable (even though I know relatively little of quantum mechanics)

      • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        No. If that was how it worked it would be impossible to perform the double slit experiment with anything larger than a single fundamental particle, but that is demonstrably not the case. It would also be impossible to perform it in a gravitational field - or any field, for that matter.

        The truth is that you cannot talk about what the double slit experiment ‘means’ without going into discussion of interpretations of quantum mechanics.