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.

 

For the First Time Ever, Scientists Watch an Atom's Electrons Moving in Real Time

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf


When I look at my glass of wine here, I don't affect it's state. It's nearly empty. Only by interfering with it can I change that state.

So the world around us does not change when we observe it.



To see the the glass of wine do you not require it to reflect light from the object which then passes through the cornea of the eye, to be processed.

Now i realise you said that "When I look at my glass of wine here, I don't affect it's state " ........ but don`t we need to interact with the object to measure/observe it. e.g To see the glass of wine do we not need it bathed in electromagnetic radiation ?





posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Two Components are required to produce a Spectrum involving Light. Not just one, a "Prism".

a. an edge. (or edges as in the case of the "Slit")
b. a Prism.

An edge.

Drawing 01.



An "Edge" and the Prism.

Drawing 02.



Now Invert the "Edge"…

Drawing 03.



It doesn’t matter which side the "Edge" or "Edges" (slit) is/are on with respect to the prism, so long as the edge interacts with the Light.

Drawing 04.



And again, Invert the Edge…

Drawing 05.



Now Two "Edges" producing a wide Slit….

Drawing 06.



In example “a.” in Drawing 06. showing a wide "Slit" showing White Light is seen to pass through the Prism, between the Yellow & Blue and remains as white Light !

Now narrow the "Slit" see “b.” in Drawing 06. allowing some of the Yellow to mix with the Blue and Green now appears ???



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


This video contradicts the first video you posted and it even contradicts itself. Listen from 9:15

He says (9:40) not the fact that we do know which slit the particle went through, but the fact that we can know makes the interference pattern collapse. So recording or not recording has no effect on the interference pattern collapsing.

But just after that (10:15) he says that you will get an interference pattern when you erase the data. But I think that is a slip of tongue.

Still it is an interesting subject, and I don't fully understand the point he tries to make (yet).

[edit on 6-8-2010 by -PLB-]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
He says (9:40) not the fact that we do know which slit the particle went through, but the fact that we can know makes the interference pattern collapse. So recording or not recording has no effect on the interference pattern collapsing.

But just after that (10:15) he says that you will get an interference pattern when you erase the data. But I think that is a slip of tongue.


Very well spotted
And yep was a slip of the tongue as the experiment results are very clear.

In a nutshell...

When the two entangled photons hit the detector where it is not possible to know which slit it came from, it does creates the interference pattern.

Yet if one of the entangled photons is detected through the other detectors that can tell which slit the photon went through then the wave function collapses.

Which means that the act of detection is not what collapses the wave function...

Simply mind blowing stuff indeed


Korg.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I just read the Wikipedia article, and can recommend it to anyone. To me it was much more clear than the video. It is indeed an amazing experiment. The first question that pops to my mind though is, what does this BBO do exactly? Can't it be that the BBO causes some photon pairs to behave like a particle and some like a wave? And then the wavelike photons go through the beam splitter, and the particle like photons do not. Anyway, this is just me trying to rationalize the results of this experiment.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I just read the Wikipedia article, and can recommend it to anyone. To me it was much more clear than the video. It is indeed an amazing experiment. The first question that pops to my mind though is, what does this BBO do exactly? Can't it be that the BBO causes some photon pairs to behave like a particle and some like a wave? And then the wavelike photons go through the beam splitter, and the particle like photons do not. Anyway, this is just me trying to rationalize the results of this experiment.


The BBO is exactly the same as the other detectors in the experiment, other than it is not connected to any other source and cannot detect which slit the photon traversed. It goes directly to the recording medium.

If one entangled photon is recorded by way of any other detector, and the other entangled photon is detected at the BBO then the wave function collapses for both photons.

If however one of the photons hits the BBO and the other goes elsewhere but not picked up by the detectors, the wave function does not collapse.

If both entangled particles are detected at the BBO then we have the interference pattern once more.

The experiement is clever way to use quantum entanglement and is also the foundation of quantum cryptography.

The conclusion is inescapable. The detector is not directly interfering with the particle and thus is not responable for the wave function to collapse.

Hope this helps,

Korg.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   




To be honest, it doesn't really help
, I thought the BBO only splits one photon into an entangled photon pair? I can't make up from the article that it detects anything at all. I don't understand what you mean with "If however one of the photons hits the BBO and the other goes elsewhere". Aren't there 2 photons only after the BBO?

What I basically mean to say it whether the BBO determines the way the particle behaves (wave or particle), and that the detector in fact only detects which it is. But that was just my initial reaction, as I am not well accustomed with BBO's and beam splitters (I did once have a class about it but can't remember much of it). I am currently doing some more reading and it seems my initial thoughts are wrong anyway
.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

To be honest, it doesn't really help
, I thought the BBO only splits one photon into an entangled photon pair?


Sorry my mistake. Am doing plenty of things as well as ATS


Replace every instance of BBO in my last post with D0.

And you are right, the BBO is a crystal that can be used to split a photon. The resulting photons produced will be exactly half the energy of the original.

Hope that helps you make sense of it


Korg.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Absolutely not off topic, I believe that everything is related, how else can you get here from there, many scientists working on an experiment find something important that they weren't looking for, you can call it an accident, not so sure.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by badw0lf


When I look at my glass of wine here, I don't affect it's state. It's nearly empty. Only by interfering with it can I change that state.

So the world around us does not change when we observe it.



To see the the glass of wine do you not require it to reflect light from the object which then passes through the cornea of the eye, to be processed.

Now i realise you said that "When I look at my glass of wine here, I don't affect it's state " ........ but don`t we need to interact with the object to measure/observe it. e.g To see the glass of wine do we not need it bathed in electromagnetic radiation ?



Leaving the glass in the same state that it exists within when I observe it. I don't require an additional physical detection apparatus in order to detect the level of it's fullness.

Unless you're a blind person who cannot use your own detection devices (eyes) in order to gauge the level inside..

People are taking my comment waaayy to far.

Quantum particles are so small we need a device to observe them and by doing so we affect their state. Hence the claim that we change it's state by observation. If the only way I could tell where a tennis ball was on a grid was by feeling for it, I change it's position once I find it.

You cannot apply that to things such as a tree or a mountain. We don't affect these things by observation. Our eyes do not require us to physically interact with them in order to see them.





[edit on 6/8/2010 by badw0lf]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by -PLB-
He says (9:40) not the fact that we do know which slit the particle went through, but the fact that we can know makes the interference pattern collapse. So recording or not recording has no effect on the interference pattern collapsing.

But just after that (10:15) he says that you will get an interference pattern when you erase the data. But I think that is a slip of tongue.


Very well spotted
And yep was a slip of the tongue as the experiment results are very clear.



What experiment. I have seen no evidence that there has been documented experiments to prove this. Quite the contrary, in fact.




In a nutshell...

When the two entangled photons hit the detector where it is not possible to know which slit it came from, it does creates the interference pattern.

Yet if one of the entangled photons is detected through the other detectors that can tell which slit the photon went through then the wave function collapses.

Which means that the act of detection is not what collapses the wave function...

Simply mind blowing stuff indeed


Korg.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]


Hooey



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
People are taking my comment waaayy to far.


Well how about this little thought...

When you are not looking at the glass, the glass is full, empty, and both at the same time....

But as I mentioned earlier... when you are not looking is there a glass at all??

Korg.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

What experiment. I have seen no evidence that there has been documented experiments to prove this. Quite the contrary, in fact.


You can find it here: arxiv.org...

I have not read the paper yet myself, but will do that. I am not sure what to make of it yet though, it is a bit hard to grasp is it is all true what they say. Things like creating time travel paradoxes and FTL communication.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by badw0lf
People are taking my comment waaayy to far.


Well how about this little thought...

When you are not looking at the glass, the glass is full, empty, and both at the same time....

But as I mentioned earlier... when you are not looking is there a glass at all??

Korg.


Well, we know it cannot be all three because empirical evidence shows us that this outcome is not within the realms of any possibility to occur in nature. Thus, I would have to base it on recorded or documented evidence, or by memory (which is at best, the least relied on in my case
in order to know it's current state when not looking at it. Theories for QP, as we know, do not work too well in the larger universe.

If the last known, documented or recorded position of my glass is to have been on my table, and I were to leave the room, it is with a certain guarantee that when I return the glass would still be there. If I were to ask someone else to go into the room and retrieve the glass, having given them a detailed location based only on my perception, there is also a guarantee that they would return with said glass. This indicates that the glass is not affected by my observation; unless the person returned with a coffee cup full of wine.

Observation of the macro universe is a lot different to observation of the micro universe, where devices required to observe the state of something inherently affect it. Not the conscious observers intent or methods of data recording. Detection is the element that causes change in those instances.





posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by badw0lf

What experiment. I have seen no evidence that there has been documented experiments to prove this. Quite the contrary, in fact.


You can find it here: arxiv.org...

I have not read the paper yet myself, but will do that. I am not sure what to make of it yet though, it is a bit hard to grasp is it is all true what they say. Things like creating time travel paradoxes and FTL communication.


Oh man, that does my head in!

It's explained in a simpler way in wiki (I think you may have read it already) en.wikipedia.org...

But still, the experiment explained and detailed as the Delayed Choice quantum eraser does not rely on having detectors setup but not recording in order to change the state of the outcome..

It is nonetheless infuriatingly intriguing! I had no idea about it.


But what if the choice to "erase" the information is in fact delayed, until after the target phase?

Kim, et al., have shown that it is possible to delay the choice to "erase" the quantum information until after the photon has actually hit its target.

Under those conditions an interference pattern can be recovered, even if the information is erased after the photons have hit the detector.


Too many glasses, near midnight. I'm going to read this thoroughly tomorrow!

Good fun either way, good thread!




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Correct, in fact in the video exactly the opposite was claimed. Only the fact that you can know influenced the outcome, recording it has no influence at all.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
Well, we know it cannot be all three because empirical evidence shows us that this outcome is not within the realms of any possibility to occur in nature.


Edit to take away the negative text about your mistaken comments above... you redeemed yourself in your last post
Something I don't see very often here on ATS.



Korg.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Thanks for your contribution to this thread, not understanding everything about Quantum Physics but one step at time.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Thanks for your contribution to this thread, not understanding everything about Quantum Physics but one step at time.


Glad to help, Quantum Mechanics is something that all people should gain an understanding of. Not only is it very interesting but it opens up your mind to how anything is possible when you put your mind to it (pun intended)



All the best,

Korg.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I agree 100%-There are fundamental laws of nature, but we don't understand them at all
Heisenberg is tricky, i would think even the absorption of a photon will have a very real effect on an electron, so again we are affecting what we are looking at, not seeing it as it normally is.
Shall i initiate the Heisenberg compensators now, captain?




top topics



 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join