Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380867 > unrolled thread

Observer in the double slit experiment

Started by	Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com>
First post	2016-04-04 05:48 -0700
Last post	2016-04-05 10:25 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 26 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

  Observer in the double slit experiment Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 05:48 -0700
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 06:45 -0700
      Re: Observer in the double slit experiment mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-04 06:56 -0700
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:11 -0700
      Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:07 -0500
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:56 -0700
      Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:53 -0500
      Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-04 22:18 -0500
        Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-05 13:57 +1000
          Re: Observer in the double slit experiment The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-04 23:53 -0700
            Re: Observer in the double slit experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 06:54 -0700
              Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:31 -0700
                Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:47 -0700
                  Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:57 -0700
                    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:19 -0700
                    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:31 -0700
                Re: Observer in the double slit experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 11:55 -0700
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 11:15 -0700
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:59 -0700
      Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:27 -0700
        Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:48 -0700
        Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:19 -0700
          Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:27 -0700
          Re: Observer in the double slit experiment David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:41 -0700
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:04 -0700
    Re: Observer in the double slit experiment Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:25 -0700

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#380867 — Observer in the double slit experiment

From	Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 05:48 -0700
Subject	Observer in the double slit experiment
Message-ID	<3db665d0-c9d3-4050-a5ee-1f5695979193@googlegroups.com>

In the double slit experiment with photons, the interacting observer is an instrument, detector... 
If you replace the detector with a piece of metal with the same mass as the mass of the detector, the wave will collapse?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#380876

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 06:45 -0700
Message-ID	<7a55ab2f-ba94-40a0-b178-b03e99d73d51@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380867

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-4, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> In the double slit experiment with photons, the interacting observer is an instrument, detector... 
> If you replace the detector with a piece of metal with the same mass as the mass of the detector, the wave will collapse?

No. The wave never "collapses". The word "collapse" has nothing to do with QM and is just an embellishing word used by some authors (metaphysical interpretations). Do not parrot what authors say. Parrot what the math says. "shut up & calculate".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380877

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-04-04 06:56 -0700
Message-ID	<edee4336-7dfe-4747-bfb7-630edb2c3203@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380876

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 kwietnia 2016 15:45:14 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-4, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> > In the double slit experiment with photons, the interacting observer is an instrument, detector... 
> > If you replace the detector with a piece of metal with the same mass as the mass of the detector, the wave will collapse?
> 
> No. The wave never "collapses". The word "collapse" has nothing to do with QM and is just an embellishing word used by some authors (metaphysical interpretations). Do not parrot what authors say. Parrot what the math says. "shut up & calculate".

And, when talking about math, always remember, that
the oldest and one of most trustful pieces of it
was rejected by Great Guru that didn't believe
"common sense prejudices".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380878

From	Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 07:11 -0700
Message-ID	<57ee0d4c-b469-4a10-a117-20c0dd565f34@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380867

The same thing for double slit experiment with electrons?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380883

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 11:07 -0500
Message-ID	<ndu3g8$60n$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#380878

On 4/4/2016 9:11 AM, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> The same thing for double slit experiment with electrons?
>

Yes, absolutely.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380895

From	Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 10:56 -0700
Message-ID	<a826e42a-57e4-4ae2-8355-f6a99b1b9e92@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380867

No physicist tried in the last 100 years this experiment!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380905

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 13:53 -0500
Message-ID	<ndud82$n69$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#380895

On 4/4/2016 12:56 PM, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> No physicist tried in the last 100 years this experiment!
>

What? Electrons through a double slit? You're dead wrong.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380921

From	Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2016-04-04 22:18 -0500
Message-ID	<boKdnWlzh4vrs57KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#380895

On 4/4/16 4/4/16 - 12:56 PM, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> No physicist tried in the last 100 years this experiment!

Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?

There have been numerous repetitions of this experiment in the past decade, and 
even the original experiment with electrons falls within your "past 100 years". 
There have been many more instances of closely-related experiments.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380922

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-04-05 13:57 +1000
Message-ID	<dmgrckF4ssuU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#380921

On 5/04/2016 1:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/4/16 4/4/16 - 12:56 PM, Adrian Ferent wrote:
>> No physicist tried in the last 100 years this experiment!
>
> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> There have been numerous repetitions of this experiment in the past
> decade, and even the original experiment with electrons falls within
> your "past 100 years". There have been many more instances of
> closely-related experiments.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
>

Indeed, it's even been done with neutrons.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380929

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-04-04 23:53 -0700
Message-ID	<570360EC.5B3D@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#380922

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 5/04/2016 1:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 4/4/16 4/4/16 - 12:56 PM, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> >> No physicist tried in the last 100 years this experiment!
> >
> > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> >
> > There have been numerous repetitions of this experiment in the past
> > decade, and even the original experiment with electrons falls within
> > your "past 100 years". There have been many more instances of
> > closely-related experiments.
> >
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> >
> 
> Indeed, it's even been done with neutrons.
> 
> Sylvia.


how about 'machine gun bullets'??? Has it been done with 'machine gun
bullets'?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380959

From	dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net>
Date	2016-04-05 06:54 -0700
Message-ID	<670ec7dc-781c-417a-ad8a-7d973fe1d109@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380929

Dear The Starmaker:

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:52:51 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
...
> how about 'machine gun bullets'??? Has it been
> done with 'machine gun bullets'?

It has been done with buckminsterfullerene, and molecules even larger than that.  But not with bullets.

I would bet that if they analyzed the tire tread marks downstream of all bridges of similar sizes, that they did not find a sort of interference pattern...  Google images might be too coarse...

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380965

From	David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 08:31 -0700
Message-ID	<55f72d00-cb8f-431c-9dc2-6a49d82508da@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380959

8:54 AMdlzc
Dear The Starmaker: 

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:52:51 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: 
... 
> how about 'machine gun bullets'??? Has it been 
> done with 'machine gun bullets'? 

It has been done with buckminsterfullerene, and molecules even larger than that.  But not with bullets. 

I would bet that if they analyzed the tire tread marks downstream of all bridges of similar sizes, that they did not find a sort of interference pattern...  Google images might be too coarse... 

David A. Smith 

Yep ... And all those things are surrounded by electrons. 
The double slit, the detectors, the projectiles. 
All those things covered by repelling negative charge. 

Except neutrons ... Their interference pattern would seemingly be caused by not energy, but gravitational interference. 

Light = 45 degrees

Gravity = 45 degrees / 50 = 0.9 degrees

45 * 0.9 = 40.5

http://i57.tinypic.com/2s8ihio.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380966

From	David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 08:47 -0700
Message-ID	<23743916-b06d-42f7-a182-ae8635c4df7f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380965

((45 - 0.405)^0.5) * (10^(-11)) = 6.6779488e-11


G / (((45 - 0.405)^0.5) * (10^(-11))) = 0.999420662

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380967

From	David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 08:57 -0700
Message-ID	<3c5f98c8-423a-4ccb-8b10-c4f786436cc4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380966

(45 - (45 - ((20 / 3)^2)))^0.5 = 6.66666666667

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380971

From	David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 09:19 -0700
Message-ID	<a0fc7294-2a40-4c59-91e1-6cd777208791@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380967

40.5 / ((0.5^0.5) * (180 / pi)) = 0.99964866108
40.5/45=0.9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380972

From	David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 09:31 -0700
Message-ID	<f0ac768a-776d-4845-8716-784e5d42cf04@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380967

50 - 4.5 - 0.45 - 0.045 - 0.0045 - 0.00045 - 0.000045 = 45.000005


http://oi68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380994

From	dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net>
Date	2016-04-05 11:55 -0700
Message-ID	<82b0983e-449f-4f7e-ae4c-78b0e4dcf482@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380965

Dear David Fuller:

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:31:15 AM UTC-7, David Fuller wrote:
> 8:54 AM dlzc
...
>> It has been done with buckminsterfullerene, and
>> molecules even larger than that.  But not with
>> bullets. 
> 
> Yep ... And all those things are surrounded by electrons.

As is the material of the slits.  Except when they produced interference with large molecules, they use light beams for the "material" of the slits, so the charge argument largely vaporizes.

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380896

From	RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-04-04 11:15 -0700
Message-ID	<35aa12cc-a00d-4fd8-98c3-d43436aad07a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380867

On April 4, Adrian Ferent wrote:
> In the double slit experiment with photons, the interacting 
> observer is an instrument, detector... 
> If you replace the detector with a piece of metal with the 
> same mass as the mass of the detector, the wave will collapse?

No.

This has already been done - simply cover the display 
panel which indicates which slit the photon traversed, 
or shut off power to the instrument.  voila, a hunk of 
metal, the same mass as the instrument!  And no wave collapse.

As Anton Zeilinger says, information is a physical quantity.

Removing the observer drastically affects the outcome.  
Yet we have the bizarre situation, where no one knows 
what an 'observer' is - 

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380974

From	Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 09:59 -0700
Message-ID	<0c3970ed-a4a2-47a7-abe8-f4ed50a28853@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380867

Other atomic-scale entities such as electrons are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380977

From	David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-04-05 10:27 -0700
Message-ID	<fc0edec3-106e-4810-a0a4-a2722aaca5e7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#380974

Other atomic-scale entities such as electrons are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment 

https://goo.gl/photos/41jALQnTyqm3LwDW6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

Observer in the double slit experiment

Contents

#380867 — Observer in the double slit experiment

#380876

#380877

#380878

#380883

#380895

#380905

#380921

#380922

#380929

#380959

#380965

#380966

#380967

#380971

#380972

#380994

#380896

#380974

#380977