This has been a known scientific "fact" for over 220 years.
It has been utilized in most of the semiconductors and many other devices utilizing quantum effects every day.
If you want to get funky, study Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and then Dean Radin's consciousness inducing collapse of double-slit experiment wave function (although it's not really a collapse, but that's a story for another day).
I shake my head and stump my toe into the dirt thinking about all the smart people on this site. You, my friend, are one of those folks. I wish I has a tenth of your knowledge, but I'll just be happy to have a decent house and a wonderful wife. Thanks for a reply that makes my brain spin and keeps it thinking. I truely appreciate your reply to the original post.
What she "proves" experimentally has been known since 1880. Eletromagnetic radiation is a wavelike phenomenon, that can be best modelled mathematically using wave functions. However that is JUST A MODEL, it's not reality.
Also, sometimes, when probabilistic interference causes cancelling effects some of the phenomena can be more simplistically measured like waves were like particles. AGAIN, it's just a MODEL, not reality.
What she doesn't go into and she will learn later, is that reality is QUANTIZED (incl light, space and time). There are smallest size of "packets" (again a MODEL) of light which have experimentally and mathematically modelled particle like qualities. This is equally true as well.
There are even photon counters, many of the current measurement devices work on this principle and yes they do work.
But again, they are just models. We have no way of understanding experimentally yet what the underlying reality that the models try to depict actually is.
But Quantum effects that require some parts of EM spectrum to act like quantized "packets" of radiation are real.
"Photons" is a theoretical construct we use to model and calculate reality, which we can't "see".
It works up to a point, then it breaks down, just like ALL models.
There's much more that is "broken" in Quantum models, and there's much more that still works "well enough".
Remember, they are all models.
So, she's right, but only half-way. She will learn this later on, in her further studies.
Jesus H. Chris. Observation requires interaction, it is not isolated from what it observes. Any detector interacts with the field it detects, and detecting any particle requires either contact with the particle, or for charged particles, intertacting with the field around the particle. All these misinterpretations of the physics come from misconceptions and flawed fuzzy logic.
Also, the two slit experiment is highly flawed because the slits are not perfect ideal slits. They are structures of atoms. Anything passing them interacts with the atoms and that alters how objects pass by. Including affecting the wave function of a passing particle wave packet.
And finally, YouTube is not any kind of rigorous scientific source - it is a populist entertainment venue only. Sometimes I get irritated by how easily stupidity reigns over validity. Then I remind myself this is a society of advanced apes, but still only apes.
Christ god, that is so sadly ignorant. When you take a college course in quantum mechanics get back to me, but right now you're at below high school level. You should up your game and learn better things.
"Gravity is a hoax" (facepalm) (dropping a Monty Python 5 ton weight on your foot. It won't hurt because it's a hoax.)
Laser light is a batch of particle waves, particles made of wave packets running in the electromagnetic fields. They are energy manifesting in space as self-contained waves regions that travel as tiny tiny packet blobs. Imagine little jello blobs but the jello is energy in space, oscillating / quivering. That's a photon.
I'm confused. So this "teacher" is just discovering that light behaves like a wave? This has been know for at least 150+ years.
She did just the first part of the double slit experiment. It's the second part, observing what happens at the slits, that makes it behave like a particle.
That is why I watched the whole thing, expecting that. She pointed out nothing that wasn't already known. It was more a video of how she came to accept current theories. That is why I used quotes around the word "teacher." She should have learned this in HS.
I read somewhere once that quantum physics proved that the act of observing something changes it's outcome.....and they prove this using light experiments.....IDK....just what the article said.....
Two different things, same experiment. Maybe my interpretation is wrong but it seems like they did the double slit experiment to definitively prove if light is particles or waves. But what they discovered was the mere act of observing them changes the pattern that was formed.
According to some on this board, this stuff should be as fake as little tiny life forms or nuclear bombs, so I kinda get a kick out of glowie posting this stuff. I certainly hope he isnt referring to me as being educated either, if anything I would describe myself as self educated. I did spend alot of my highschool/college years buried in math/sciences and have done alot of these basic experiments. But if I had any kind of intelligence, I would have finished my degree. Ive been at a little hobby project making a rigidbody in unity that can interact with boats haha because Ive had an itch to make a submarine prototype game for a while. I feel retarded when it takes hours to figure out simple things.
Funny how glowie doesnt believe the world is round and that things like being able to see a sunset twice by laying on a beach and then standing up once the sun drops below the horizon isnt proof, but that this double slit experiment is proof that 400 year old ideas are wrong, lol. I hope he sees the irony.
Anyway back to the point. This article seems to explain it.
When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.
Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.
To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.
Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.
Ahh, so they used electrons since they can detect those easier than photons. All matter has this wave form to it at the quantum level, isnt this just more proof that we are literally pure energy? Like ive said before a few times, space is so vast, it makes up everything. Including us, if it werent for the charged particles and fields holding us together, we would just fall apart.
Dont let the title fool you...the author concludes...
Inside your body, you aren't mostly empty space. You're mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe.
It's not a question of how things should/should not behave.
It's about how things do behave.
By and large, light acts like a wave, such as in her laser experiment or my streetlamp one. The 'wave' isn't meant to give a physical reality, but a 'phenomenological' explanation.
But under certain conditions that explanation breaks down -- such as in the real double slit experiment (where light still acts like a wave, but in a different way), or in things like (quantum) shot noise, where really sensitive detectors experience a base-line level of noise because the wave packets (or particles) are coming at slightly random intervals.
In the same way, your assertion that Newtonian Gravity is wrong is... misguided. His model explains almost everything relevant to our world except things like GPS systems and laser gyroscopes. In those cases a slightly different conception of gravity/acceleration needs to be developed. Which it has been -- but phenomenologically and with a mountain of physical evidence behind it.
... that was the point that I was making. Newton's equations work, in the sense that they describe very precisely what we observe in the solar system. If you can re-interpret them in terms of density/buoyancy... then great. In and of themselves, they are simply equations.
You can even project the equations onto a flat earth, if you want to... One big problem will be that the 'Coriolis force' (responsible for the spirals of hurricanes) would then become a real force. In a globe earth model, Coriolis is an artifact of the spinning of the earth. In a flat earth model it would have to be a physical force. (which, of course, might be interpretable as density/buoyancy variations, although it's not immediately clear to me how that would be done -- this is a me-problem)
As for photons, look up Quantum Shot Noise -- very low intensity light will impinge on detectors in discrete packets. Are those discrete packets not-waves. Shrug -- I'd have to look at the experiments more closely, but I suspect they are waves, just highly confined ones.
Personally, I think of light as a wave, because its non-wavelike behaviour is restricted to very precise, and almost meaningless, observations.
As an aside, you seem quite sincere, which, on the internet, is refreshing.
These modern "scientists" are so smart, yet so ignorant. Doesn't take einstein to know that theories are just a man's thoughts on something. It's profound when people realize that a lot of what is "science" is based on theories XD. Puts the big bang and evolution theories in the trash where they belong. Scientism can't explain what God made so perfectly. And everyone is indoctrinated with scientism from a very young age (many are deceived) :/
This has been a known scientific "fact" for over 220 years.
It has been utilized in most of the semiconductors and many other devices utilizing quantum effects every day.
If you want to get funky, study Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and then Dean Radin's consciousness inducing collapse of double-slit experiment wave function (although it's not really a collapse, but that's a story for another day).
I shake my head and stump my toe into the dirt thinking about all the smart people on this site. You, my friend, are one of those folks. I wish I has a tenth of your knowledge, but I'll just be happy to have a decent house and a wonderful wife. Thanks for a reply that makes my brain spin and keeps it thinking. I truely appreciate your reply to the original post.
I've done this and further tests in lab myself.
What she "proves" experimentally has been known since 1880. Eletromagnetic radiation is a wavelike phenomenon, that can be best modelled mathematically using wave functions. However that is JUST A MODEL, it's not reality.
Also, sometimes, when probabilistic interference causes cancelling effects some of the phenomena can be more simplistically measured like waves were like particles. AGAIN, it's just a MODEL, not reality.
What she doesn't go into and she will learn later, is that reality is QUANTIZED (incl light, space and time). There are smallest size of "packets" (again a MODEL) of light which have experimentally and mathematically modelled particle like qualities. This is equally true as well.
There are even photon counters, many of the current measurement devices work on this principle and yes they do work.
But again, they are just models. We have no way of understanding experimentally yet what the underlying reality that the models try to depict actually is.
But Quantum effects that require some parts of EM spectrum to act like quantized "packets" of radiation are real.
"Photons" is a theoretical construct we use to model and calculate reality, which we can't "see".
It works up to a point, then it breaks down, just like ALL models.
There's much more that is "broken" in Quantum models, and there's much more that still works "well enough".
Remember, they are all models.
So, she's right, but only half-way. She will learn this later on, in her further studies.
Also, there’s the assumption that the laser light source is pure, when it is itself generated in pulses, I believe.
Maybe also do it in a room that doesn't have a cage of 60Hz AC wire built into the walls.
She seems to think the hair and the paper are two dimensional. What about reflection from the edges?
Jesus H. Chris. Observation requires interaction, it is not isolated from what it observes. Any detector interacts with the field it detects, and detecting any particle requires either contact with the particle, or for charged particles, intertacting with the field around the particle. All these misinterpretations of the physics come from misconceptions and flawed fuzzy logic.
Also, the two slit experiment is highly flawed because the slits are not perfect ideal slits. They are structures of atoms. Anything passing them interacts with the atoms and that alters how objects pass by. Including affecting the wave function of a passing particle wave packet.
And finally, YouTube is not any kind of rigorous scientific source - it is a populist entertainment venue only. Sometimes I get irritated by how easily stupidity reigns over validity. Then I remind myself this is a society of advanced apes, but still only apes.
Christ god, that is so sadly ignorant. When you take a college course in quantum mechanics get back to me, but right now you're at below high school level. You should up your game and learn better things.
"Gravity is a hoax" (facepalm) (dropping a Monty Python 5 ton weight on your foot. It won't hurt because it's a hoax.)
Laser light is a batch of particle waves, particles made of wave packets running in the electromagnetic fields. They are energy manifesting in space as self-contained waves regions that travel as tiny tiny packet blobs. Imagine little jello blobs but the jello is energy in space, oscillating / quivering. That's a photon.
I'm confused. So this "teacher" is just discovering that light behaves like a wave? This has been know for at least 150+ years.
She did just the first part of the double slit experiment. It's the second part, observing what happens at the slits, that makes it behave like a particle.
That is why I watched the whole thing, expecting that. She pointed out nothing that wasn't already known. It was more a video of how she came to accept current theories. That is why I used quotes around the word "teacher." She should have learned this in HS.
I read somewhere once that quantum physics proved that the act of observing something changes it's outcome.....and they prove this using light experiments.....IDK....just what the article said.....
Two different things, same experiment. Maybe my interpretation is wrong but it seems like they did the double slit experiment to definitively prove if light is particles or waves. But what they discovered was the mere act of observing them changes the pattern that was formed.
According to some on this board, this stuff should be as fake as little tiny life forms or nuclear bombs, so I kinda get a kick out of glowie posting this stuff. I certainly hope he isnt referring to me as being educated either, if anything I would describe myself as self educated. I did spend alot of my highschool/college years buried in math/sciences and have done alot of these basic experiments. But if I had any kind of intelligence, I would have finished my degree. Ive been at a little hobby project making a rigidbody in unity that can interact with boats haha because Ive had an itch to make a submarine prototype game for a while. I feel retarded when it takes hours to figure out simple things.
Funny how glowie doesnt believe the world is round and that things like being able to see a sunset twice by laying on a beach and then standing up once the sun drops below the horizon isnt proof, but that this double slit experiment is proof that 400 year old ideas are wrong, lol. I hope he sees the irony.
Anyway back to the point. This article seems to explain it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
Ahh, so they used electrons since they can detect those easier than photons. All matter has this wave form to it at the quantum level, isnt this just more proof that we are literally pure energy? Like ive said before a few times, space is so vast, it makes up everything. Including us, if it werent for the charged particles and fields holding us together, we would just fall apart.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/04/16/you-are-not-mostly-empty-space/
Dont let the title fool you...the author concludes...
my shitty little rigidbody controller :(
https://ibb.co/jM6p4LL
Thanks for the synopsis....I'll check those links out.....
This is... insane. She's missed the point of the 'double slit' experiment.
She's pretty to look at though, so I guess it will get clicks.
By the way, if you're near a street lamp and you pull a hair in front of your eyes, you'll get the same effect that she's talking about.
Women...physics... not even once....
What? Why?
It's not a question of how things should/should not behave.
It's about how things do behave.
By and large, light acts like a wave, such as in her laser experiment or my streetlamp one. The 'wave' isn't meant to give a physical reality, but a 'phenomenological' explanation.
But under certain conditions that explanation breaks down -- such as in the real double slit experiment (where light still acts like a wave, but in a different way), or in things like (quantum) shot noise, where really sensitive detectors experience a base-line level of noise because the wave packets (or particles) are coming at slightly random intervals.
In the same way, your assertion that Newtonian Gravity is wrong is... misguided. His model explains almost everything relevant to our world except things like GPS systems and laser gyroscopes. In those cases a slightly different conception of gravity/acceleration needs to be developed. Which it has been -- but phenomenologically and with a mountain of physical evidence behind it.
Again: chicks... physics...
... that was the point that I was making. Newton's equations work, in the sense that they describe very precisely what we observe in the solar system. If you can re-interpret them in terms of density/buoyancy... then great. In and of themselves, they are simply equations.
You can even project the equations onto a flat earth, if you want to... One big problem will be that the 'Coriolis force' (responsible for the spirals of hurricanes) would then become a real force. In a globe earth model, Coriolis is an artifact of the spinning of the earth. In a flat earth model it would have to be a physical force. (which, of course, might be interpretable as density/buoyancy variations, although it's not immediately clear to me how that would be done -- this is a me-problem)
As for photons, look up Quantum Shot Noise -- very low intensity light will impinge on detectors in discrete packets. Are those discrete packets not-waves. Shrug -- I'd have to look at the experiments more closely, but I suspect they are waves, just highly confined ones.
Personally, I think of light as a wave, because its non-wavelike behaviour is restricted to very precise, and almost meaningless, observations.
As an aside, you seem quite sincere, which, on the internet, is refreshing.
These modern "scientists" are so smart, yet so ignorant. Doesn't take einstein to know that theories are just a man's thoughts on something. It's profound when people realize that a lot of what is "science" is based on theories XD. Puts the big bang and evolution theories in the trash where they belong. Scientism can't explain what God made so perfectly. And everyone is indoctrinated with scientism from a very young age (many are deceived) :/