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.
In any case the universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings have evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum-mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists. p.137
Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by Nichiren
The double-slit experiment is such a case-in-point. It shows that when observed, be it by a human's eye or any other measuring device (sensor, etc) photons of light behave like a bunch of individual particles, unconnected to each other by any means.
If you had a device producing photons which fired them through a plate with a double-slit in it, and you had a photographic plate (film) behind that, the film would be exposed where the photons come through one slit or the other, revealing two "stripes" where the photons hit. This is what one would expect.
The photons are produced one by one and fired with a time-delay between each firing. They can only be considered to be particles.
Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by Nichiren
you would return to find an interference pattern on the photographic film, not two stripes like in the first experiment. This then shows that when unobserved, photons behave like a wave.
Originally posted by ppk55
What I don't get with this is ... isn't the photographic plate also an 'observer' ? As at some point we look at it and get the results ?
Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by Nichiren
you would return to find an interference pattern on the photographic film, not two stripes like in the first experiment. This then shows that when unobserved, photons behave like a wave.
What I got from Nick Herbert's double-slit experiment was the sense of how strangely the Quantum world behaves when unobserved.
Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
I do mean this in no derogatory terms, but are you a PhD-level physicist? I have heard so many "good" opinions from laymen, but at the end they all make no sense.
Please define the term "observer" re the video.
Thank you!
Originally posted by Nichiren
My quest has taken my to those sites:
www.physicsforums.com...
physicsworld.com...
Best,
N