5 ms·
Double slit experiment did happen and totally reproducible even then photons/electrons are sent by one at a time. "two photons come out" part makes no sense th
by out_of_protocol 2y ago
Double slit experiment did happen and totally reproducible even then photons/electrons are sent by one at a time.
"two photons come out" part makes no sense though. On a target side, there's always single hit after single photon/electron, but distribution of theses hits as if said electron got through both slits and interfered with itself
P.S. the funny thing is - this works on any small thingy, measured up to 2000 atoms-big, as if it's the property of the universe itself
- bad_haircut72 2y agoI would love to try this experiment with something basketball sized out in space. Like we build an enormous basketball detector behind a double slit inside an unobservable black box. If thr basketball started acting like a wave I would be sooo freaked out
- whatshisface 2y agoThe largest double-slit projectile I know of is C-60, a soccer-ball shaped molecule of sixty atoms. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/12/11/4 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/12/11/4
- randunel 2y agoThat website's captcha is horrible!
- heylook 2y agoOr amazing.
- nextts 2y agoI got cats with sunglasses
- qingcharles 2y agoMe too. And I had to click on bird legs to verify o_O
- out_of_protocol 2y agoWiki, citation 19 > The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units).[19] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rusk 2y agoIf the slits are big enough, isn’t that just gravity?
- cellular 2y agoAnd Why can't gravity serve as an observer?! The electron/proton entering a slit is affected by gravity!
- nick3443 2y agoThe entanglement theory would imply that if you build a detector that turns the gravity interaction into a finite piece of data observable by an (amplified) system, then gravity will act as an observer and collapse the waveform when it reaches that point. That's my take on the whole thing... It's almost like information theory. If the information is lost to the sands of time (below noise floor if you will) then the entanglement can continue.
- rusk 2y agoFrom my recollection of Hawking - it’s the energy of light that disturbs the particle being measured thus confounding the measurement Presumably a gravity based detector would have similar issues as these particles are affected by gravity (as can be seen around black holes)
- idontwantthis 2y agoI don’t know what it’s called but I read about a proposed experiment to do it in space with macrosized glass beads.
- namaria 2y agoThe experiment working on clusters of atoms is news to me and I loved getting to know about that. But the thing that really breaks my mind is the experiment that proves that the behavior depends on the possibility of getting information from which slit the particle went through. So we can rule out the act of measurement itself interfering with the behavior of the particle. They did it by splitting a beam of particles into a pair of entangled particles and then setting up a way to measure the polarity of one of them after the point in time where it even hits the final screen. If you measure the polarity then, after the other stream of particles from the beam had already had time to make the pattern, the pattern will be two clusters. If you don't, it goes back to an interference pattern. That one really cemented the notion in my head that this is just how the Universe is and not some local weirdness with particles and measurements.
- canadiantim 2y agoHadn’t hear that, that one is wild
- smolder 2y agoThat version is called the quantum eraser experiment. It really is brain bending.
- wruza 2y agoI think Sabine explained this social effect few years ago. I know she's a little controversial, but the key thing in the video (as opposed to all other videos about DSE on the internet) was that you don't get "two clusters" actually. They are both statistical parts of a single [non-]interference pattern. "||" is a lie. I'm not in a physics rebel camp and don't prefer Sabine either, but after that I sort of lost trust in the interpretations that can't even get the resulting picture right. I even suspect that showing dumbed results amplifies "wow" effect and monetizes better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U This is the video if you're interested. Again, I'm no physicist and don't know if explanations are legit or statistically correct. But that little || trick that all other popsci videos play on you, that's a true concern.