Double slit experiment revision

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ethernos D Grace, Jan 31, 2022.

  1. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    314
    What if u change screen after each electron is shot through a laser where particle collapse n later combine all the screen to see if it creates a wave pattern?
    Low hanging fruit.lol
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,264
    There is no point in you posting meaningless crap, even in Free Thoughts.

    I am putting you on Ignore.
     
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,951
    Yes, it will still form an interference pattern.

    You can dim an electron emitter so much that you can effectively have it shooting a particle out once every second. Each particle will make a flash where it hits the detector. After a few hundred particles, you will see the cumulative effect that they tend to hit more frequently in certain bands and less frequently in other bands, ultimately building up to form the interference pattern we know and love. Changing the screen every time will make no difference.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    There you go, the appearance of an interference pattern is statistical.

    So of course, you can record a single dot, replace the screen and repeat. If you then combine all the screens, and if the 'sampling' is representative of the 'population', you see the pattern.

    Which is to say, the pattern depends on how many dots are in it.
     
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  8. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    314
    That might mean laser also forms a memory...lol ignore if not probable
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,193
    No.
     
  10. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    If you are a scientist, this answer is not acceptable.
    You can postulate this, accordingly to what you think you already know, or even propose it as an hypothesis but you can't claim it to be the thruth unless you have experimented it for real.
    Therefore the answer is : We dont know and an experience must be achieved to verify this point.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
    Sure it is.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,264
    It’s not a postulate, it’s a confident prediction of what will be observed.

    The whole point of science is to enable predictions to be made of what we should expect to observe. We do not waste our time to confirm the obvious.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,951
    It has been tested and observed countless times in countless labs.
    What you do think experimental quantum physicists do all day?
    Drink lattes in the cafeteria and discuss Fargo episodes?
     
  14. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    1. "It is obvious and it dont need to be tested."

    2. "it has been tested and observed countless times in countless labs."

    So what sentence is correct ? 1 or 2 ?

    In fact i think it has not been tested with the changing of the screen because it is "obvious".
    This is probably the explaination why quantum mecanic (and other domains in physic) remain so mysterious after hundred years of "investigation": A lack of usefull testing because everybody is scared to test something obvious (only dumb peoples test obvious things and nobody want to be declared dumb)
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,951
    Ah now I see the problem Dicart is having. He is concerned about uncontrolled variables affecting the experiment. We have to redo all our experiments with all variables controlled.

    We have yet to make sure that we still get interference patterns when:
    - the lab table is aligned North-South vs. East-West
    - the scientists are wearing Adidas
    - Dems are in power versus Repubs.

    Give me a moment to see if there are other variables we should test.
    (When the Moon is in the second house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars?)
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2022
    exchemist and origin like this.
  16. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    The screen is part of the experience.
    Therefore it is obvious to have special interest considering the screen.

    The table alignement is part of the experiment.
    But it is obvious that it has no effect because nobody take it in account when they do double slit experiment : Therefore this has been tested countless times.
    Your other suggestions are not obviously related to the experience.

    There are other experiment designs you could try, related to the experiment.
    Per example you can change the form of the void where the waves will expand : Square (thats what we always do in labs)/Round/Conic.
     
  17. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Massive double standard here where you decide that you get to determine what's part of the "experience" and what's not.

    If you swap out the screen between measurements why would that have any effect? Why wouldn't whatever memory you think a screen has extend to the next screen? They're all just atoms.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  18. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    I dont know.
    This is how science works.
    You dont know. You try. You confirm the hypothesis or not.
     
  19. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    No it isn't and I'll tell you why. Think about these experiments.

    1 Let's swap the screen for an apple and see if that has any effect.
    2 Let's swap the screen for a boomerang and see if that has any effect.
    3 Let's swap the screen for a canvas bag and see if that has any effect.
    4 Let's swap the screen for a bookshelf and see if that has any effect.
    5 Let's swap the screen for a vase and see if that has any effect.
    6 Let's swap the screen for a tree and see if that has any effect.
    7 Let's swap the screen for a toy car and see if that has any effect.
    8 Let's swap the screen for a real car and see if that has any effect.
    9 Let's swap the screen for a different car and see if that has any effect.
    10 Let's swap the screen for a computer screen and see if that has any effect.
    11 Let's swap the screen for a TV screen and see if that has any effect.
    12 Let's swap the screen for a table and see if that has any effect.
    13 Let's swap the screen for a heatproof mat and see if that has any effect.
    14 Let's swap the screen for a folder and see if that has any effect.
    15 Let's swap the screen for a textbook and see if that has any effect.
    16 Let's swap the screen for a novel and see if that has any effect.
    17 Your experiment

    All of these are equally worthy of consideration according to you because you don't know why any of them might have any effect. Which one do you do first and why?

    The reality is that you do one proposed by someone who can give an argument idea why the change might make a difference because otherwise you'd be wasting your time. Proposing that scientists should try every possible experiment is as dumb as proposing trying to write a good story by listing every string of 100000 characters and reading through all of the \(\approx 30^{1000000}\) "books" looking for a good one. And if you're not proposing doing every possible experiment then you have to be able to explain why yours is more important than my list of sixteen.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  20. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    No.
    The only thing i can understand from your list is that you dont understand physicaly what is "an object" and what rely every objet you mention (yes they are the same... so it is very unsusefull to cite every of them )
    Furthermore you dident try to understand the primor design change.
    Why changing "the screen" ?
    Try to find out this point....
     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
    I think that is the reason. It is completely obvious, so nobody would waste the time to do this time consuming experiment.
     
  22. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Yes it is obvious for some reason and therefore not tested (and nobody knows really the result).
    WHAT ? YOU SPENT THE MONEY OF THE LABORATORY WITH SUCH CRAP !!!! DUMB ASS !!
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
    For some reason? Really? Are you seriously saying you don't understand why it is obvious that the results would be the same?
     

Share This Page