Needed: A Little Help With That Double-Slit Experiment

Originally posted by xkillbox5000x
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I fail to see any conflict here, You seem to be under the impression that your interpretation of the results of the double slit experiment somehow conflict with conventional particle physics and certain scientists views on how we interact with our reality. You stated towards the end that our expectations of how an event should take place is what drives the interference with the original event matrix vector and creates the new event. Explain to me how that is different from essentially being the driver of physical reality.

In the experiment, when they set up the camera, the only event trajectory that would be affected by the dynamic information within a focused expectation (an event trajectory in its own right) would be a single photon. Considering the complexity of the trajectory (not very) the dynamic information of the expectation trajectory was easily influential enough to have a direct impact. Add additional expectation trajectories (depending on how many trained and thoroughly indoctrinated physicists were in the room) and the impact increases. Don't forget that expectation is generally subconscious, and the result of well established beliefs and experiences, so the twin slit pattern - even if unanticipated consciously - would clearly have been the unconscious expectation of university-trained physicists.

The difference between the impact of expectation on the solo photon shoot (sans camera) is that the contextual structure (as it relates to the single event trajectory of the photon itself) was literally unchanged from the contextual structure of the initial full photon beam experiment, and with that precedent firmly established in relation to the contextual whole of both, the researchers' expectation trajectories were not influential to the degree where they could supersede the dominance of the firmly established contextual precedent that directed all subsequent photons fired within the confines of the exact same contextual structure to respond as the full photon beam particles responded.

Ramification is quite a mind bender, especially when you get involved in the action/information dynamics of event physics. That said, it does clear up the weirdness of quantum physics, and that's what has be digging into this sort of thing lately.

Physical reality does not necessarily have to be a subset of human consciousness either. Just the same as Human consciousness does not have to a be a subset of physical reality. We exist within the same universe. Looking at this from a spiritual perspective, their are aspects of consciousness that exist outside of physical reality and vice versa, however, we have and intersection. An area where the two aspects interact. We already know that environmental signals are the secondary driver of our bodies, working in unison with our DNA coding. whose to say that we don't send out our own signals into the environment. Our signals work in unison with the already pre encoded physical laws and create the reality that we experience. Whether that be through the Higgs Boson particle or a much simple particle interference.

See, now this is where we disagree. Human consciousness is physical existence, and part of physical reality. There is no aspect of conscousness that can possibly exist outside of physical reality. I've gotten into extremely detailed explanations of why I beliebve this within other threads, so I won't bore you with any of that here, but suffice it to say that the notion of non-physical existence is a notion that I simply do not embrace. There are non-physical imperatives expressions and qualifiers, but that's also a delineation that I've fully dealt with on this board. I don't believe that consciousness is primordial, nor can it ever be non-physical. I understand that many other disagree, and I'm fine with that.

reply to post by NorEaster


Just got to remember that the multiverse concept is unscientific and is just one interpretation out of many. Too many people get their scientific information from sources like what the bleep do we know and then come under the false conclusion that they're magical little elf gods that create reality because it makes them feel oh so special.

Nice idea to think about, but thankfully some of us are more realistic in our approach to trying to understand reality.

Originally posted by Jezus
-- The existence of information collapses the wave function --

Some one already mentioned this but the delayed eraser experiment is where it really gets interesting.

After the double slit experiment, many claimed that the measurement collapsed the wave function.

So, experimenters set up an experiment where they measured what slit the particle used but after the experiment was complete they deleted the information.

What they found was that the existence of information collapsed the wave function, not the measurement.

So, if you can understand the abstract nature of raw data you can understand why this experiment is so significant.

edit on 27-4-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

Information in physics is *not* abstract in the same sense of abstract information like in languages. The physical processes that occur do not occur because we purposefully delete things after an experiment is run and then rerun it to get different results. What occurs during the "erasure" process is part of the apparatus' setup. It has nothing to do with someone clearing the computer monitor and getting different results.

Your response doesn't make sense for two reasons.

1. The experiment is only run once. After the deletion takes place the experimenters look back at the results.

2. Raw data is always abstract, regardless of the subject.

If the measurements of two separate double slit experiments are stored in two envelopes and one envelope is burned before looking at the physical results on the "back wall".

The setup where the measurement is destroyed = wave function
The setup where the measurement is saved = the wave function collapses (particle pattern)

The physical abstract raw data can be destroyed after the experiment is complete.

Again, if you understand what abstract data is, the fact the its existence changes the experimental results is significant.

reply to post by NorEaster


I have no answers, only more mystery.

There is a variation on the double-slit called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" experiment. This experiment is carried out like this...

The experiment is identical to a closed box double-slit setup. Except, when the photon goes through one of the slits it is split into two one of the halves keeps traveling to the surface in the back to make a pattern, one half hits a detector and stores the information about which path the photon took. So, they have recorded information about whether or not the photon went left or right.

Okay, now here is where it gets freaky...

If they keep that data about which path the photon(s) took, even if they do not look at it, the strike pattern is particle based. Like a spotlight.

If they destroy the data without looking at it, the pattern changes to interference bands. Striped lines.

Okay, now here's the super freaky part...

This can happen AFTER the experiment has been run, and the spotlight pattern has already been made.

So this (possibly) means that when you destroy the data and change the pattern from spotlight to interference bands, you changed the past.

Good luck.
The Double-slit is a serious mystery to mankind. Hope you find your answer.

There is another weird thing:
Get loads of pendulums and set them all going in different parts of a room, very soon they will all be swinging the same.
There is a name for this but scientists do not know why it happens.

reply to post by Jezus

The physical abstract raw data can be destroyed after the experiment is complete.

Again, if you understand what abstract data is, the fact the its existence changes the experimental results is significant.

That's not what happens. Look at the experiments setup and an explanation of the process. Nothing is destroyed after the experiment is complete.

reply to post by Helious


Have you heard of a bucky ball? It is the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man, made of carbon. The double slit experiment worked the same with these (much larger than quantum material). Don't ask me where is saw it, but it's online somewhere.

reply to post by sirnex


It is called the delayed erasure for a reason.

It can even be burned in an envelope weeks after the experiment is complete.

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex

 

It is called the delayed erasure for a reason.

It can even be burned in an envelope weeks after the experiment is complete.

Your simply incompetent. That is NOT what occurs. Now run along and learn more about the experiment.

Originally posted by Byteman
So this (possibly) means that when you destroy the data and change the pattern from spotlight to interference bands, you changed the past.

So information supersedes time.

When the information (what slit) is available to a conscious observer the wave function collapses.

reply to post by Jezus


Because time does not exist.
The universe is complete.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex

 

It is called the delayed erasure for a reason.

It can even be burned in an envelope weeks after the experiment is complete.

Your simply incompetent. That is NOT what occurs. Now run along and learn more about the experiment.

You can check out the experiments but it won't help you in comprehending the connection between raw data and consciousness. You need to figure that out yourself.


"So it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that."

www.bottomlayer.com...

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment
arxiv.org...

Photons denied a glimpse of their observer
physicsworld.com...

reply to post by Jezus


LOL will you just look at the damn experiments setup?

Seriously, why is that so hard? Is it really harder than quoting things that actually DO NOT happen with the experiment?

reply to post by sirnex


It's obvious that you don't currently understand the implications of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

It's okay, it took me a day or two before I realized what was really happening. I'm sure if you took a day or two it might just snap into place for you.

reply to post by Byteman


LOL.... Dude, politicians don't burn envelopes and change the results. That's all I'm trying to get across. I understand the implications, but the implications has nothing to do with the human mind. Sorry, I don't get my science news from dvd's and sensationalized websites or from media fluff explanations or new agey books or from misquotations.

Reality is, we're not special to reality.

reply to post by sirnex


Where do you get your information (science news) from?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by:

Reality is, we're not special to reality.

Originally posted by Jezus
Your response doesn't make sense for two reasons.

1. The experiment is only run once. After the deletion takes place the experimenters look back at the results.

2. Raw data is always abstract, regardless of the subject.

If the measurements of two separate double slit experiments are stored in two envelopes and one envelope is burned before looking at the physical results on the "back wall".

The setup where the measurement is destroyed = wave function
The setup where the measurement is saved = the wave function collapses (particle pattern)

The physical abstract raw data can be destroyed after the experiment is complete.

Again, if you understand what abstract data is, the fact the its existence changes the experimental results is significant.

edit on 27-4-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

The facts that exist as eternal physical units of information are not affected by the destruction of digital or written representations of that information. Information is eternal. The ramifications of its existence is also eternal, even though that impact can will be affected by the ramifications of subsequent informational units that may emerge.

I don't think that most people realize the physical nature of information. To them, information is an abstract and not a physical reality.

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I have no answers, only more mystery.

There is a variation on the double-slit called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" experiment. This experiment is carried out like this...

The experiment is identical to a closed box double-slit setup. Except, when the photon goes through one of the slits it is split into two one of the halves keeps traveling to the surface in the back to make a pattern, one half hits a detector and stores the information about which path the photon took. So, they have recorded information about whether or not the photon went left or right.

Okay, so this is sounding ludicrous. A half a photon? Are you sure you want to embrace that notion? I realize that there are people who can't handle the idea that their specific reality construct is capable of allowing for an anomalous result, but I don't see any value in following such people around as they toss inane assertion out in a flailing effort to preserve a flawed notion. There is nothing inherent in a photon trajectory that suggests the capacity to literally rip that photon in half for any reason. The suggestion reeks of an effort to keep from revisting the researcher's flawed premise. Occam's Razor and all that.

Okay, now here is where it gets freaky...

If they keep that data about which path the photon(s) took, even if they do not look at it, the strike pattern is particle based. Like a spotlight.

If they destroy the data without looking at it, the pattern changes to interference bands. Striped lines.

Okay, now here's the super freaky part...

This can happen AFTER the experiment has been run, and the spotlight pattern has already been made.

So this (possibly) means that when you destroy the data and change the pattern from spotlight to interference bands, you changed the past.

Good luck.
The Double-slit is a serious mystery to mankind. Hope you find your answer.

Apparently, there is plenty of opposition to the notion that this experiment proves much of anything relative to the immutable nature of progressive ramification. The overwhelming dominance of causality, directly compared to the implications of that one interpretation of this one experiment, seem to suggest that the interpretation is what is flawed.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern exists even if the which-path information is erased shortly after, in time, the signal photons hit the primary detector. However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.

The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone, which would open up the possibility of gaining information faster-than-light (since one might deduce this information before there had been time for a message moving at the speed of light to travel from the idler detector to the signal photon detector) or even gaining information about the future (since as noted above, the signal photons may be detected at an earlier time than the idlers), both of which would qualify as violations of causality in physics.

In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of quantum theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects[5] (see [6] for a treatment emphasizing the role of conditional probabilities). Some physicists have speculated about the possibility that these equations might be changed in a way that would be consistent with previous experiments but which could allow for experimental causality violations.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

Where do you get your information (science news) from?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by:

Reality is, we're not special to reality.

I think that what he means is that if you did an organizational chart, and mapped out where we exist within that chart, at the top would be reality, and somewhere well below that top of the chart, you'd find human beings. Reality is what it is, and humans exist within the confines of reality. Humans can create their own perception of what they believe is real, but they can't create reality.