- Murshid Salam
- Gurgaon, Haryana, India
- India
Program Controller, Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd.
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, why do electrons (particles) behave like waves when we aren't observing them?
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, electrons (particle) behaves like a particle when they are under observation. But how they suddenly behave like a wave when we do not observe them.
Topics:
quantum superposition
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Dejay Davison
I was once walking home questioning the same thing, but I thought...
"What IF someone completely believed they could alter how these 'particles' acted simply by thinking?"
Would, or could that change how they acted?
I found it strange that when we observed, they acted like we expected them to, BUT is that because we 'expected' them to? And our consciousness had some effect on how they acted?
Who is to say humans brainwaves don't have unknown 'powers', it's a controversial subject I know, but the evidence behind a 'sixth sense' is overwhelming in many fields of study.
Just a thought.
paul Ashton
Dejay Davison
paul Ashton
Some mind blowing stuff for you viewing and reading pleasure:
BBC 4 - Dangerous knowledge (on YouTube)
The Atom
M- theory
PBS Nova (on you tube)
-Hunting the Hidden Dimension (fractles)
-The Elegant Universe (series of 3 or four shows related to the bbc material but older-optional but simply explanitory)
(all of the below available on YouTube)
(hokey but thought provoking)
Holographic Universe (Part 1)
Introduction and Illustration on the Holographic Principle
-explains the role of black holes and potential information storage
Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Mind STUART HAMEROFF (P.1)
(also check out his website by the same title for a little light reading)
Check out on Ted.com -
Lucianne Walkowicz: Finding planets around other stars
Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object
Andrea Ghez: The hunt for a supermassive black hole
Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse
http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/io9/vip/~3/peGfJikxy74/the-human-mind-may-secretly-follow-the-laws-of-quantum-mechanics
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-09/two-key-computing-advances-bring-quantum-computers-closer-reality
Dejay Davison
Barry Palmer 50+
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Michael McLoughlin
That is to say, no matter how many people are thinking or how hard they think, physics goes on, entirely undisturbed.
They idea that anyone's thoughts effect the outcome of the double slit experiment (or any other experiment or physical event) is an unfortunate misunderstanding that results from the use of the word 'observer'.
When physicists say that they 'observe' a particle in the double slit experiment they do not literally mean that someone actually looked at it, or thought about its location during experiment. In fact, there is no 'observer' at all in the sense of the term where observer means conscious agent (like a scientist, for example). Instead, the 'observer' is actually a detector that is part of the experimental apparatus. In order to make an observation though, the detector must interact with the particle as it travels along. Imagine being blind; the only way to 'observe' the location of, say, the remote control would be to touch it to discover its location. The touching, crucially, is the observation without which nothing could be definitively known. In the same way, any detector must 'touch' the particle to find out something about it: like how fast it's moving or where it is or what slit it went through. Crucially, however, by doing this, by 'touching' or 'observing' the particle, the particle's state is irrevocably changed (like leaving fingerprints on the remote) thereby altering the outcome of the experiment.
While admittedly bizarre, the way in which these experiments play out, both observed and otherwise, is completely and thoroughly explained by quantum mechanics.
Non-intuitive and difficult to understand? Yes. Sixth sense? Not so much.
This is rather interesting if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Read it carefully.
Dejay Davison
But, in my defense:
I, nor anyone alive fully understands the nature of consciousness, and it's spectrum of capabilities.
Michael McLoughlin
And yeah! Definitely.
Consciousness is rather bizarre and no one's figured it out completely. Yet!
But when it's all said and done, I'd place my bets on consciousness being an entirely physical phenomenon. I feel that a lot of people may find that idea rather disenchanting but I think it's lovely, imagining everything that I identify as 'me' as just a curious consequence of the very universe I'm a part of.
paul Ashton