Philosophy Now Forum

For almost a decade I've looked for a vid that demonstrates the ACTUAL double slit experiments where when observing the photons will not make inteference, and when not observing it will make inteference.

All the vids only tells about how the photons act weird.

Any got a good vid?

Thanks in advance.

I like this animated description of the experiments— Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
If you want to see a real laboratory setup, there's this— Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger)

what is never mentioned is the size of the slits .and which slot the photons are aimed at and fire through.

...one must imagine that electron is a state of aether thus a moving "electron" pulls aether into side slit...

yes but whens a slit not a slit.is there a limit to the slits size.if its a double slit where is the single photon aimed.

When it's a list Jackles, you talk in riddles as usual.

The slits size matters because wavelength matters, there's little more to it than that, if you fire a water wave through a gap 10 miles wide the interference becomes less interesting, if the slits width is closer to the wave length though, then it becomes more interesting, as to why well I leave that to your own conjecture, it's fairly obvious though.

Still right to the heart of the matter Jackles despite the riddles: two slits or one, what changes. The size is pretty arbitrary and fixed by the experiments capacity to reveal the nature of light or mass particles like electrons, it's two slits that are key, why is pretty much the whole of it.

Cerveny wrote:...one must imagine that electron is a state of aether thus a moving "electron" pulls aether into side slit...

No not at all, and that makes no sense. If you want to elaborate though I am all ears, but I think you might of missed the fundamentals in assuming there is some extraneous ether like force.

Hex you can watch the experiment for 10 years, it still seems against logical classical conclusions. If you don't get why light or electrons behave like they do welcome to the club. If you don't get what is going on at a more non interpretational and more philosophical level, well that's probably a cause for concern.

blags i fully understand the ex and its implications.what i dont get is where the photon is aimed.if its one slit the photon is aimed at presumably directly at the slit.but where is the photon aimed when its a double slit.is it aimed then at the dividing material between the slits.if so why dosnt it just hit that dividing material.im sure theres a simple explination..

There's a simple explanation, why do you assume that, there isn't one. Feynman didn't say the two slit experiment sums up beautifully quantum mechanics more than any other experiment could, paraphrasing, and that no one understands quantum mechanics and he never did, paraphrasing also. The only thing we understand is that a wave has infinite extent and will pass through both slits to interfere with itself a particle will go where it is is aimed, but then light observes particle wave duality it is both a particle and a wave, the puzzle is why it is that way, the puzzle has yet to be solved.

I am sure you have seen the child's toy where there is a canary on one side of the spinning card and a cage on the other, if you spin the card you see a canary in a cage, but you know the canary is not in a cage since it is a canary on one side of the cardboard and a cage on the other. That is the analogy. It appears to be both due to the limitations of human observation when we spin the card. No one yet knows why it behaves as a particle if you measure which slit path being randomly either through one slit or another regardless of any classical momentum and position, and a wave if you don't.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... eSlit.html

Posted this before, yes I don't know why this happens either, no one does, but it does. There are two conclusions, either we are not able to see reality as it is for whatever reason, or what reality is we are not capable of understanding with what we now know.



Waves do this particles don't if you can tell me why a photon or an electron which should be one or the other exhibits both behaviours a Nobel prize awaits. It seems though people want a definitive answer, there just isn't one, we don't know.

When someone says I don't know in science, it doesn't mean anything other than I don't know. Of course there are a million and one chancers who will claim its all wrong quantum mechanics, it makes no sense, blah blah blah. But unless they do experiments showing why this is not how it is, no one and I mean no one will ever give a flying ferk ever and no one should. Anyone who says something is wrong without putting in one iota of effort to prove why is really just wasting everyone's time. We all know in science it's irritating, incomplete and down right annoying, what we don't know though is how to resolve the situation. People who say they have need to show how, not just whang on about philosophy. It's science not philosophy experiment has to be king, or it's just philosophy. And frankly no one cares, or ever will. Harsh but true. The two spheres are not the same, and vivre le difference.

Sometimes you do have to wonder why people think not understanding something is the end of the world. It just gives you me more grist for the mill. It's not that bad being alive without all the answers is it?

Blaggard wrote:There's a simple explanation, why do you assume that, there isn't one. Feynman didn't say the two slit experiment sums up beautifully quantum mechanics more than any other experiment could, paraphrasing, and that no one understands quantum mechanics and he never did, paraphrasing also. The only thing we understand is that a wave has infinite extent and will pass through both slits to interfere with itself a particle will go where it is is aimed, but then light observes particle wave duality it is both a particle and a wave, the puzzle is why it is that way, the puzzle has yet to be solved.

I am sure you have seen the child's toy where there is a canary on one side of the spinning card and a cage on the other, if you spin the card you see a canary in a cage, but you know the canary is not in a cage since it is a canary on one side of the cardboard and a cage on the other. That is the analogy. It appears to be both due to the limitations of human observation when we spin the card. No one yet knows why it behaves as a particle if you measure which slit path being randomly either through one slit or another regardless of any classical momentum and position, and a wave if you don't.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... eSlit.html

Posted this before, yes I don't know why this happens either, no one does, but it does. There are two conclusions, either we are not able to see reality as it is for whatever reason, or what reality is we are not capable of understanding with what we now know.



Waves do this particles don't if you can tell me why a photon or an electron which should be one or the other exhibits both behaviours a Nobel prize awaits. It seems though people want a definitive answer, there just isn't one, we don't know.

When someone says I don't know in science, it doesn't mean anything other than I don't know. Of course there are a million and one chancers who will claim its all wrong quantum mechanics, it makes no sense, blah blah blah. But unless they do experiments showing why this is not how it is, no one and I mean no one will ever give a flying ferk ever and no one should. Anyone who says something is wrong without putting in one iota of effort to prove why is really just wasting everyone's time. We all know in science it's irritating, incomplete and down right annoying, what we don't know though is how to resolve the situation. People who say they have need to show how, not just whang on about philosophy. It's science not philosophy experiment has to be king, or it's just philosophy. And frankly no one cares, or ever will. Harsh but true. The two spheres are not the same, and vivre le difference.

Sometimes you do have to wonder why people think not understanding something is the end of the world. It just gives you me more grist for the mill. It's not that bad being alive without all the answers is it?

I like the way you explain scientific concepts.

Standing on the shoulders of giants, these aren't my ideas but other peoples. Dr Chinese the Chinese Doctorate of physics really got me to understand this. The lectures of a havard Professor on youtube really made me see how the maths met the science but didn't quite. What I wonder is if and when I do pass my physics degree, what the future holds. I think sadly a lot of people who are poorly educated and or even educated only ask why the future is at all. Depressing plebs who don't think beyond the reality, and think they can explain everything with a lack of knowledge the masters could not either, with a knowledge and an honest admittance of not knowing.

But such is human, why is it as someone once opined that the most clever and educated are so unsure of themselves, and yet the least educated and sure aren't. My advice anyone who claims to have all the answers in physics is a moron, with a massive chip on their shoulder about how they know it all. My simple advice is the hubris of the moron far outweighs the humility of an actual genius, an actual genius knows his limitations and well; be it not me, it certainly is not them. They are place holders, for, better, people. Ignore the man who knows, over the man who says I do not know when really, and genuinely no on does.

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field."

Niels Bohr.

"Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

Niels Bohr.

That is science those who state facts are morons, those who ask questions are scientists.

Blaggard wrote:Standing on the shoulders of giants, these aren't my ideas but other peoples. Dr Chinese the Chinese Doctorate of physics really got me to understand this. The lectures of a havard Professor on youtube really made me see how the maths met the science but didn't quite. What I wonder is if and when I do pass my physics degree, what the future holds. I think sadly a lot of people who are poorly educated and or even educated only ask why the future is at all. Depressing plebs who don't think beyond the reality, and think they can explain everything with a lack of knowledge the masters could not either, with a knowledge and an honest admittance of not knowing.

But such is human, why is it as someone once opined that the most clever and educated are so unsure of themselves, and yet the least educated and sure aren't. My advice anyone who claims to have all the answers in physics is a moron, with a massive chip on their shoulder about how they know it all. My simple advice is the hubris of the moron far outweighs the humility of an actual genius, an actual genius knows his limitations and well; be it not me, it certainly is not them. They are place holders, for, better, people. Ignore the man who knows, over the man who says I do not know when really, and genuinely no on does.

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field."

Niels Bohr.


"Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

Niels Bohr.

That is science those who state facts are morons, those who ask questions are scientists.

I know, but being able to explain things is a skill in itself. Einstein said something along the lines of if you can't explain something so your grandmother can understand then you don't know your subject, or something like that. When someone makes something sound really complicated you can be pretty sure they know shit, and I don't mean scientists talking in jargon to other scientists, I mean so ordinary people can understand. Youtube is great for science stuff. I'm sure someone could get a degree by watching lectures on Youtube. Lectures by the best lecturers at the best Unis.

If only I would have a degree by now, you really do need to know the maths to understand physics. It's why you get a lot of people posting about physics, because they aren't doing a degree with a smart man who can put it all into a firm basis. You can look on line and build your knowledge based on a soft foundation, like building a house on a marsh. But people who have funked up in all the ways you did, and say this is where I went wrong in the integral of the Gaussian when I tried to do it in cartesian co-ordinates, that's when it sinks in. Physics needs maths like a child needs your tit at birth. It's not the be all and end all but it counts.

Quantum mechanics is a little different the concepts can be explained, and they can be understood, but even then when you know those concepts, the maths puts it in pin sharp crikey vision, and then you go, Oh my ferking God, that was why I was studying vectors, calculus and that daft matrix shit, so when that happens you can calculate then why it happens by using vector calculus omg I see now.

You can't learn any degree on line, any degree, not even the softer ones with cameras and media called media studies, you can learn how to think about doing a degree, but someone you can feed off with the maths face to face, and the concepts face to face is priceless. I've sat there and discussed these concepts with my Tutors, and the one on one human touch has taught me far more than the internet ever could. Human beings really do count eye to eye, because wiki will just give you the facts, a human being will tell you where and how and when he went wrong and how you might also. Wiki can't teach you to be wrong, and how that could be be useful, and it is in so many ways, but people can.

Blaggard wrote:If only I would have a degree by now, you really do need to know the maths to understand physics. It's why you get a lot of people posting about physics, because they aren't doing a degree with a smart man who can put it all into a firm basis. You can look on line and build your knowledge based on a soft foundation, like building a house on a marsh. But people who have funked up in all the ways you did, and say this is where I went wrong in the integral of the Gaussian when I tried to do it in cartesian co-ordinates, that's when it sinks in. Physics needs maths like a child needs your tit at birth. It's not the be all and end all but it counts.

Quantum mechanics is a little different the concepts can be explained, and they can be understood, but even then when you know those concepts, the maths puts it in pin sharp crikey vision, and then you go, Oh my ferking God, that was why I was studying vectors, calculus and that daft matrix shit, so when that happens you can calculate then why it happens by using vector calculus omg I see now.

You can't learn any degree on line, any degree, not even the softer ones with cameras and media called media studies, you can learn how to think about doing a degree, but someone you can feed off with the maths face to face, and the concepts face to face is priceless. I've sat there and discussed these concepts with my Tutors, and the one on one human touch has taught me far more than the internet ever could. Human beings really do count eye to eye, because wiki will just give you the facts, a human being will tell you where and how and when he went wrong and how you might also. Wiki can't teach you to be wrong, and how that could be be useful, and it is in so many ways, but people can.

People learn differently. A close family member just hated school and no one could get him to go, but he passed the Cambridge Physics entrance exam with close to full marks, and all just through reading and the internet. He's also one of the best natural teachers I've ever heard.

That is so true, if only people could learn in the way they were most able to learn: some people are visual and learn by looking at things, some people are verbal and learn by listening to things, some people are better at learning from writing. Some are a combination of one or the other, some are all three and some are one alone. If only we could develop an education system that catered to how people learn, not how people are expected to. Sadly in my neck of the woods, people are taught how to pass exams, not how to learn to think for themselves. The universities are having to do six month courses on how to bring anyone up to the standard of University education just to see them do a degree. It's a mess education atm. It disgusts me quite frankly that kids are no longer taught properly just taught badly but that is how it is.

I was skipped a head a year, not often given any advice how to learn in my years at 5 to 6 I could read when I was 3 at at the age of a child who was 10; then at 9 to 10 skipped ahead another year, they just let me access the library and material I needed to learn. They couldn't teach me because I was already outpacing anything they ever could. Then when I hit secondary school I already knew what I needed to know, and then they forced me to learn dumb ass I already knew. No wonder I was bored at school I had already learnt all this shit, why repeat it. Education is a dumb system atm. Let people learn in their own way stop forcing them to pass exams, without thinking like some nodding duck. It's clown.

I would still say though, you can't do a degree without meeting people doing one. The students and teachers should tell you more than reading the internet, as I said you can get in on a degree that way but you wont be able to be a good student without other people and peers showing you, you are just one of many making mistakes. You think you're smart at school, and you go to university, and then if you are at the right one, you know you are one of many smart asses, probably not even close to being the smartest, and it to you is heaven. It's like Stephen Hawking meeting Einstein, finally there are people there who challenge your dumbness.

no blags sorry wot i ment is when or at what point does the slit become a slit.the photon goes through a single slit and it creates a bullit pattern yeah.so at what exact point does that become a double slit and the photon turns fuzzy. suppose you had a diffining wall to make the slit only a few microns thick.how accurate has the photon got to be targeted on the apparatus for it to go fuzzy .just details you cant seem to find on the internet.regs jackles