It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It has nothing to do with consciousness. The observer doesn't have to be human. If information about which slit the photon passes through is collected by a piece of equipment, the interference pattern is destroyed.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Q"When a Tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
A"Yes the Tree always makes sound despite the fact no one heard it."
[edit on 27-3-2010 by muzzleflash]
Originally posted by masterp
I usually don't start threads, but today I've seen two threads that insist of things not existing if we don't observe them. There are have been other threads in the past with the same concept.
To cut the long story short, when we say that "the wave function collapses when the particle is observed" we don't mean that a particle must be observed by a conscious entity like a human being in order to exist. What we mean is that if two particles collide, their wave function collapses and they behave like tiny bullets. If they don't collide, their wave function has not collapsed and so they behave like a wave.
It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to the experiment to determine which slit a photon has passed through, then the interference pattern no longer forms and the experimental apparatus yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, superposed without interference. Such a result would be obtained only if the results of two experiments were superposed in which either one or the other slit is closed. However, there are many other methods to determine whether a photon passed through a slit, for instance by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing it. In general in such experiments the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out. Interesting experiments of this latter kind have been performed with photons[7] and with neutrons.[8]
Originally posted by masterp
It has nothing to do with consciousness. The observer doesn't have to be human. If information about which slit the photon passes through is collected by a piece of equipment, the interference pattern is destroyed.
Originally posted by crazyinthemiddle
But doesn't a piece of equipment necessarily have to be constructed by a conscious entity? Basically, the equipment serves as an extension of the person's consciousness. Not really groundbreaking, but a nice sidenote.
Originally posted by masterp
It has nothing to do with consciousness. The observer doesn't have to be human. If information about which slit the photon passes through is collected by a piece of equipment, the interference pattern is destroyed.
Originally posted by tgidkp
did anyone even READ what i wrote?! no.
Originally posted by tgidkp
i am really starting to get annoyed with being ignored on these forums.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
While you're on the subject of "observer", perhaps you can comment on a point about the famous"Schrodinger's Cat" paradox.
I'm not a physicist in any way, and I've only got a layman's grasp of the concept.
However it seems to me that the usual presentation of the paradox completely disregards the fact that the eponymous cat itself counts as an observer, which means that the experiment is actually being observed before the physicist opens the box, and the paradox therefore falls down.
If I'm wrong on this point, can you put me right?
Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by masterp
Experiments have shown that consciousness is a factor because they have shown that the existence of knowledge is a factor.
In double slit experiments, if you measure what slit the particle uses but delete the information AFTER the experiment is complete, it does not collapse the wave. The existence of information for a consciousness observer changes the physical results.
So consciousness is the observer.
"by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment"
www.bottomlayer.com...
3. Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall.
Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling.
Originally posted by Jezus
3. Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall.
Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling.