It very clearly shows exactly how wave functions collapsing to create the observers reality. There is a very good fiction book by Robert Lanza, a physicist called Observer that lays out a pretty good story while explaining in simple speak the basics of the major quantum theories. You may enjoy it.
I feel like it just goes to show how valid we are to naturally care about how others perceive us. It could be good to care or it could be bad, depends on who you look to for approval. I pray that I look to God for approval. I don't always though, unfortunately.
Knowing something by our five senses (other species have the same and/or different ones) is WAAAAAY different than actually thinking about something like "do I care"?
@@matthewsandia when you talk about this "god" figure, concept, whatever... what do you mean exactly? the kid running this simulation we perceive as reality?
He's nothing more than probably a good actor...can you understand or know for what is what he talks about. Even if dare to tell me that you understand him, what you gonna do with it...it's useless s...t.
@@juancaquias9330 everything ok at home? Its useful for people who want to be physicist in the future. Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean others don’t.
I think that the photons change based on whether they are being observed or not is possible because maybe our eyes reflect the light slightly in some way? I’m not sure though, just a stupid hypothesis
Maybe this also involves the simulation theory in that the simulations do not process what is being observed in the same way that it is when it is not being observed in an attempt to save processing power.... When we don't observe the outcome, the simulation is not as precise leading to the interference pattern.
That is precisely what it is. It's about information. Things are only rendered as much as they need to be. It's also important to note that a living observer is not required for such rendering. If the path is potentially retrievable by anything, including non living electronic systems, the "collapse of the wave function" occurs. Just as it would be with a computer game played by a non living program designed to do so, things will render to the required resolution.
By observing the photons, or not, you are affecting the past. If you are in the room, we might be talking about one, one hundred millionth of a second, so you don't perceive it. But if someone is doing the double slit experiment five light years away, and we see it in a telescope, we are affecting something that happened five years ago. Mind boggling.
If we don't observe, temporarily, until the experiment is "completed" or at least until the photons are released freely, and then we look, would we change the outcome? Wouldn't that in a way be changing the future? Or would it be changing the past?
This means there's a lot more going on around us, when we're not around. When we're involved, time goes slower, things move slower to but when not involved and you're just going with the flow, time suddenly goes faster, and a lot of things suddenly start happening... Something about our involvement slows other things down. Definitely something there with what reality actually is.
no, this has nothing to do with human involvement. that's a common mistake people make when understanding observer. The observation is an observation with or without a 'sentient' being and is the application of something called a Hermetian operator.
I wonder what happens if they turn on the observer camera but cover the lens. Is it possible that an electronic device was near the slit and it somehow changed the wave or behavior of photons?
I've been thinking the same thing, they have tested with just "pulling the plug" on the detection mechanism, but I guess this case would not cover this question ❓
Years ago i notice this as a single light source ( a distant security light ) shown through the slats in my fence onto a concrete wall and it puzzled me that this yellow light divided itself into yellow bands and white bands ???? ....... several years from then i saw the Double Slit Experiment and it help to shed some light on my bewilderment .
Ok a photon has two parts the storage like a hard drive (the wave part of a photon) that carries the information (the particle part of a photon) of the object that emitted it or reflected it or observed it fully (which full absorbtion is no photon reflected back or photon empty of information reflected back equals black) so a photon leaving the source that emitted it is a wave with the information (particle) of the source it came from when that photon is reflected by an object part or most of the information from the source is transfered into the object and the photon reflected has a percentage of source information that is 49% or less and now has 51% or more information from the object reflecting it. So in the double slit experiment the method used to observe the photon shot before the impact of the back wall takes part or most of the information in it away which takes away the interference pattern and when the method used to observe the photon a second time replaces the information the first observance took out and now you get your interference wave pattern again.
@@MF_JONES Granted... when I first learned of the double-split experiment over a decade ago... my answer immediately seemed like common sense. Now there are several famous scientists that have confirmed that answer to be absolutely correct. Just seems really odd in regards to how very long they took. The same goes for trying to read bits while those are quantum entangled. Both the DSE and QE will need to be in absolute darkness to have those extremely different effects.
@hamzamamdouh8875 There seems to be many this year, but... how about from the man himself to clear up that confusion given 3 weeks ago through his StarTalk UA-cam platform? Such info can be easier to find if you look for it yourself instead of expecting me to always hold your hand.
If only those Phd's scientists asked the UA-cam section for info, they would know that it was the detector that was interfering with results You people shuld check the "delayed choice experiment"
@@CaramelTootle-jb9qwBy stating things the way he did in this clip he is implying that our minds can change reality. He is just spreading misinformation to get views. I don't know if this was taken out of context, but if that's what he meant, he does not deserve the authority he has.
@@rewe3536 the issue is, there is no perfect analogy to explaining mathematically precise things without the language of math. Observation in a lay sense presumes some mind, or some living observer. However, in quantum physics, an observation is the application of a Hermetian operator. It's a particular transformation which produces an observable out of a wave equation that would otherwise have an 'i.' term in it. Therefore the Schroedinger wave equation is something that happens out of the realm of physics until there is some transformation that creates a multiplication with its complex-conjugate or essentially cancels the 'imaginary' part of the math out. For example, if I multiply (1+i) and it's complex conjugate (1-i), I get (1)(1) - i. + i. - (-1) since i. squared is (-1). So this value is simply 2. You see how the i. disappears when it's multiplied by a value that has a negative for the imaginary part of the equation. Quantum wave equations are in and of themselves NOT in the realm of observable reality. It is only in their squaring or something sandwiched between the wave and it's complex conjugate that you are able to bring the math back into 'reality' which does not have an i. in it. (for example if position is sandwiched between the wave function and it's complex conjugate, this can be thought of as a probability of existence wave by location, or a weighted average, with all probabilities adding up to 1). This is what is called an observable or observation. But he wasn't going to spend hours explaining requisite math to people without the adequate background. So he said correctly that observation leads to different results (diffraction pattern or no diffraction pattern). But what's true is that whether or not there is a sentient being, if there is a Hermetian operator applied or a transformation applied that produces and observable in the math sense, then the wave-nature of quanta is lost, and the quanta behaves more particle-like, and yes-- weak or partial 'observations' can be made, which is an area of intense research. You can't really explain QM to people who don't understand statistics or math with imaginary numbers, so he did the best he can with imperfect lay explanations.
I never understand this when i was studying this young s double slit experiment in 11th grade 16 years old at school and i was sooo furious at myself for being so stupid not understanding this ….but i dont mind not understanding this ,i have got my inner peace after watching this even though i don’t understand anything
Dear brothers and sisters, I have solved the problem of particle to behave like particle and wave, when observed and unobserved respectively in double slit experiment. "Particle physics based on real dimensions of space-time" [Volume 09; issue 10; 2022] - arcjournals - International journal of advanced research in physical science - Open access for free download. To think, how the electrons entering the slit knows whether an observation is made on it or the detector is switched ON/OFF and change its results (pattern on the screen) accordingly, is the confusion. This even led the scientist to wonder if quantum mechanics is a future deciding factor of human life. The answer is simple, the experimentation has to include the observer such that observer is equal to observing object together undergoing one of two results at a time. One may think, it is like surrendering oneself and cease to think anymore. No, it is not so. I have published a series of papers (totally 9 nos.) on "Theory of Singularity". Hope this new proposed study serves one fundamental for general relativity and quantum mechanics by solving incompatibility between them. [Volume 10; issue 03,04; 2023] - arcjournals....thank you
you can't understand quantum mechanics. you can only do quantum mechanics. if you do QM you'll 'get' something that most people talking in lay words can never get. and even then you don't 'understand' it because there's a non-local consistency (not causation) that is not what we intuit from localized causality.
In double or single slits experiment, are the fringes extra magnified relative to the original spots (which are of course also magnified through the distance to the screen)? Or are they all shown at the same level of magnification? Would that make any difference for us viewers? Anybody knows?
So if a particle event depends on an observer, perhaps what is happening is not to be questioned but rather can an observer actually comprehend what they are observing at the quantum level. Perhaps other dimensions in space-time come into play in a way we cannot observe with our limited observation tools.
There's a very important aspect of this phenomenon not being mentioned which does make it quite a bit less "weird". You need to understand what it means to make an observation. If the photon is simply travelling through the slit onto the detector, it doesn't matter whether you are "looking" at the experimenal setup with your eyes or not, as you won't be able to see the photons until they hit the screen anyways. Remember, your ability to see anything literally requires photons to hit your eyes. Observing which slit the photons pass through requires that you interact with the photon before they hit the screen. Say we had a detector which allowed the photons to be detected during the experiment. Even if this detector was incredibly efficient and allowed the photons to continue through the slit after observation, an observation still means that the photon had to hit this intermediate detector in some way, which completely alters the quantum system of the photon, collapsing the wavefunction which describes it, effectively reducing it to behaving like a particle as opposed to a wave for the time being.
So you're saying that the fact that there was a detector in the first place is the reason why there are two groups in Young's experiment. And when there's not a detector there that is what causes the five groups? I'm sorry for my lack of understanding. Just a guy who got turned onto the quantum scene.
@@Keep_Feeding_Me If you wish to gain a more intuitive understanding of particle behavior in quantum mechanics, I recommend exploring one of the numerous videos or online lectures that explain wave functions. A fundamental concept here is 'wave-particle duality', which is the empirical observation that quantum entities can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like characteristics under different conditions. Consider a single photon generated and emitted by a laser directed at a double slit. This photon is described by a wave function, a mathematical object that is correlated with a probability distribution of finding the photon at a certain location. Analogous to water waves in a pond, wave functions propagate through space and time, forming crests and troughs. These waves can interfere with themselves and with waves from other photons. The spacing between the slits affects how the waves interfere, resulting in regions of constructive interference (where waves amplify each other) and destructive interference (where waves cancel each other out). These interference patterns are reflected on the detection screen as areas with higher or lower probabilities of detecting the photon, which lead to lighter and darker fringes (the groups you're referring to). A critical aspect arises if we perform a measurement or interact with the photon before it passes through the slits. Such an interaction collapses the wave function to a specific location, causing the photon to exhibit particle-like behavior for the remainder of its path.
@@Keep_Feeding_Me If no observation, then, wave interference is observed. That means light photons act as wave. please see about constructive and destructive wave interference which make brighter and darker band. When observed, they behave just as tiny solid particles, go through two slides, and make the marks in screen in two places only.
This video makes it seem like observation (i.e. by a conscious observer) is what weird effects the experiment. However, it is simply the measurement which causes the photons to behave differently since in order to make a measurement, you must interact with the photon. Consciousness has nothing to do with it
How does that make sense? Is the simple notion that watching this with cameras ect actually interfering with the photon itself? And if so how?. I’m super curious about this subject as of late
@@unkystavros9706 its because “watching” a subatomic particle isn’t possible in the traditional sense since their diameter is much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Thus, to “see” a subatomic particle, you have to measure it somehow. Usually this is done by shooting a photon with high energy (small wavelength) at it and measuring the interaction. Thus, observations in the quantum scale are not passive but are active.
Ahh right so to observe it at all we need to interact with it? If that’s the case when they explain the slot experiment they say when we watch it goes from a particle to a wave and when where not watching it turns back into a particle, why do they think it does what ot does when they’re not looking? Like they couldn’t just be guessing right? Or is there and after math that shows what happened and that’s how they know?
@@unkystavros9706 so when not observed, sub atomic particles behave like waves based on Schrodinger’s equations. We know this for a fact since the double slit experiment produces an interference pattern which can only occur with waves since there must be constructive and destructive interference. A particle could not produce an interference pattern since it could not constructively and destructively interfere with itself. Thus, when not observed, we know a wave must be present. However, when observed/measured, the interference pattern is lost and a simple double slit projection is shown, meaning constructive and destructive interference are no longer occurring. This means Schrodinger’s equations (also called the wave function) has collapsed and the particle behaves like a particle rather than a wave in this case. Hope that makes sense.
See this race is a really interesting question for me I don't know if it's been done if it has someone please let me know whenever they show the double slit experiment are always vertical can you get the same effect if they're horizontal or diagonal?
Doesn't rely on consciousness. Observation is a mathematically precise term related to the elimination of the imaginary part of a wave equation. Also the first part of what you said is aligned with an idea called deBroglie pilot wave theory, which is a fringe theory and disproven in its local form (local hidden variables and a localized guiding wave). The non-local theory still lives but is not exactly popular nor does it make any differential predictions, and so is thought of as not minimalist according to Occam's razor, and metaphysical by suggesting no differential testable experiments. (So is string theory-- which is why the most accepted explanation is the Copenhagen interpretation).
Would this experiment yield the same result if a camera or any record keeping equipment were not involved? Does it have something to do with the equipment or would it be the same result if you could watch the experiment with your own eyes?
I tried it myself, but the light didn't spread as clean as that. It's like a line of wavelength, my paper/cardboard is curved, could that be the reason?? If anyone knows pls answer, I'm haunted by this question.
I just watched a video of someone doing it with a cardboard box, but I honestly have no idea of how to make it properly, this comment is just to reinforce the fact that you can recreate it.
Woooooooooooooowwwww, honestly! Especially the last few moments! Quantum world is a beautiful and fascinating science but too bad the photons are too shy to let us know them 😂
The next experiment, to my mind, would be testing whether the effect persists if observed by non-humans. Does it occur when any organism is observing the event, or only when humans do? And what is it about humans/organisms observing that affects photons in this way? What else are we doing to existence around us, simply by observing it?
Good idea but EVENTUALLY a human needs to find out otherwise how will we ever know? Observation in this case doesn’t literally mean you SAW it happen, but that you eventually find out. The experiment will end the same way even if the scientists involved wait 100 years before looking at the test results.
effect is the same if the which-path info is available or recorded anywhere in the universe regardless of a sentient/living observer. observation is actually taking a quantum wave function which has an imaginary (math term) component in it and making the imaginary parts cancel out. it doesn't depend on a living being. As for trying not to disturb the photon or electron, that has been tried to with the quantum eraser experiment whereby which-path information in one photon was coupled to the polarization of another photon of an entangled pair. By measuring the polarization, they wouldn't be directly disturbing the original photon, and even in that case, if which-path information were available, the interference pattern did not exist (but did exist if the which-path information were not available). And even later in time, toggling on or off the availability of which-path information, changed (not where the entangled original photon hit the backstop of course) the consistency of the aggregate dots on the backstop with interference vs. no interference. (That is which-path info being made available later meant all the dots hitting the back wall were consistent with particles not waves; and for those photons where the which-path information were made unavailable, the dots hitting the backstop were consistent with interference or the wave-nature of quanta).
It has nothing to do with a living "observer" per se; rather, it is dependant upon whether the path is potentially retrievable by anything, including non living electronic systems. It's about information. Just like in a computer game, things are only rendered as much as they need to be.
it's not about that. see my responses elsewhere. it's about informational consistency (even retroactively in time, and even at far off distances where it's impossible for one thing to affect another in a causal sense).
Surely at the scale of photons, anything that interacts with a photon (i.e. literally any tool you could use to measure them) would have to affect them in some way.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. We have many forms of measurement and most of them have no interference with photons. Yet still when they are observed in this experiment they change. We just don’t know why yet.
@@larrikin7713 i have different interpretations now. We see them as particles because we are projecting them from hyper dimensional space to the time-space dimensions. When we study them in their hyperspace we deal with them using waves and probabilities.
To see the photons we need to a provide light(photons) in the mid way that create de coherence and breaks the wave function of photons under observation, but if we don't look at it( that means we don't provide any light in the path to observe photons) the wave function of photons remains intact, atleast i believe it must have happened like that.
no, observation is not about equipment or sentience. its a mathematical transformation. see my answers elsewhere. also see my response about the quantum eraser experiment.
@@bugxa don't get too fixated on the method, because, in the case of the quantum eraser experiment, some clever scientists said, let's not disturb. the particle too much, and instead, let's entangle it (a photon or quanta of light) with another photon such that the left slit vs. right slit path of one photon is coupled with the polarization of the other photon (in quantum mechanics, one photon vs another is actually NOT distinguishable, nor 'labelable'!) And by this clever little set up, the physicists found a way to "measure without measuring" so to speak. We will just bother the entangled twin, and it will reveal which path its other twin took, and we won't collapse the wave function and disturb the interference pattern right? No. Every time the polarization information were read off the entangled twin, even AFTER the other photon had already passed through the double-slit apparatus, the interference pattern (of many halves of pairs of photons entangled in this way-- or the aggregate statistics thereof) disappeared! The scientists then tweaked the quantum eraser experiment such that a switch were inserted that allowed the polarization information to be made available or not available. And every time the information were available, the dots on the backstop for the entangled pair that went through the double-slit apparatus clustered without the interference patterns like BB's going through the slits. And every time the polarization information were made NOT available by the switch, the interference pattern (in aggregate-- the spot where one photon hits the back wall cannot be changed) emerged again. And this is even with the switch being toggled AFTER the photon passing the double-slit apparatus already passed through the apparatus. This looks like the present or future affecting the past; however, it is NOT that as nothing can causally affect the past nor travel faster than the speed of light. It's merely a retro-correlation, not a retro-causation. Meaning which-path information availability is consistently correlated with particle-like or wavelike behavior of quanta, even at faster-than-light distances, and even retrospectively (reverse-direction in time). So to your question, you can ask ChatGPT or google how experiments are set up, but don't get hung up on the exact empircle setup for 'measurement' because that's not the point.
Why is it 50% left and 50% right? There is a middle bar that the photons could hit. Or they could hit the edge of the slit and bounce off at a weird angle.
some do indeed. but that's not the point of the double-slit experiment to talk about photonic interactions with matter such as scattering or absorption and re-emission (photonics, and QFT).
So is the act of observation what makes it concrete for THIS reality? Like not observing means that all quantum possibilities are in play and therefore we get the multi line interference pattern? But once we watch it it HAS to be one slit or the other? I think I need to stay home from work today. 😂
It makes way more sense when you add in the obvious: there is no such thing as passive observation. In order to detect a photon, your measurement device must interact with that photon. Think of how we measure electricity. To determine electrical current, we put a known electrical resistance on a wire and measure the voltage drop across it. The resistor interacts with the electrons and changes their behavior. At this scale of physics, measuring things like position or momentum means banging one particle into another. Imagine you’re in a dark room with a baseball somewhere. You don’t know where it is or how fast it’s moving. To observe it, you may throw another baseball in any direction you want. If you throw correctly and the two balls collide, you now know which position the original ball was in, but you understand that you have just changed the state of the original ball by hitting it with your own.
@@loganwoodxyz They've already concluded that the technology used to measure the outcome has no interaction or effect on the photons themselves. So your assumption is wrong.
@@pepsico815 it’s not an assumption. You have to manipulate particles to measure them. In order to obtain precise location data, you need extremely high energy (small wavelength) which makes momentum difficult to measure. If you want momentum you need low energy (large wavelength) which makes precise location difficult to measure. This is the uncertainty principle. There’s no magic here. There’s no passive observation. When you measure, you necessarily interact with the system. Anything that happens before measurement is the wave function doing it’s thing. There’s no such thing as measuring a particle that then continues doing quantum weirdness. Once the measurement is made, the wave function collapses.
@@pepsico815 if that's true it could be like the Yanny or laurel sound test where the brain is focusing stronger on a curtain frequency so hears something different, the straight particals are probably a stronger frequency than the ones that bounced and dispersed because of the interactions so when you observe the particals your mind focuses on the stronger frequency an when you don't observe you try an focus on anything so you see the ones with weeker frequency too. To see the truth you'd need a thermal reactive paper an see how the color changes.
@@loganwoodxyz lmao the random guy typing on his keyboard from home thinks he knows more then the smartest minds in the world that conducted this experiment
But this experiment doesn’t stop at photons. The same thing happens when you use matter like electrons. Same thing happens when observed vs not observed.
What happens if they set up a camera & observe it......then leave the camera on but not observe it......then watch the recording after the experiment to see if it changed . Or is it impossible to catch it on camera ?
if which-path information is available anywhere in the universe with or without sentient beings, the interference pattern won't exist. and this is even if you toggle the which-path information availability on or off after an electron/photon passed through the double-slit apparatus. See the quantum eraser experiment and pseudo retro-causality which is actually a retro-correlation.
1. Photons are light and our eyes are light detectors that gives us the information based on light. So, the photon is not aware of us but we are aware and our eyes being a photon machine interferes. 2. Our mind has the ability to manipulate things on a quantum level. So, our mind is altering every single photon as we watch it.
light is a wave always that moves at c , but it also can be a particle center of luminosity that produces waves, the particle can be stationary or move at any speed up to c and the wave created by the particle travels at c from the particle center in every direction unless the particle is traveling at c to which the waves then will only be on back half of particle from the trajectory its traveling and the wave will illuminate what ever it shines on, the luminosity gets weaker the further away from the particle you get and the wave it creates it will contain the image of the particle. .
@Timmy Palmer T Why judge my understanding ? I'm pretty familiar with quantum entanglement while observing however not even the most brilliant quantum physicists claim they fully comprehend quantum physics especially when it comes to the big question "why?!" so as someone who is kinda interested in physics/cosmology in general I'm not obligated to understand it either ! I have a pretty good idea of what the double slit experiment is and I'm happy with what I know about it. The guy above comes as if he has something new to add to the information we already know I as a person dont like that kind of smartassy attitude because if that was the case he deserves a nobel prize and should go collect his reward right away lol and I find his explanation weak I can explain it in better terms even though English isnt my native language. His explanation would actually make someone who understands the double slit experiment more confused because of his poor choice of words. Your comment was well put together however the other guy not too well in my opinion.
@Timmy Palmer T Yeah I forgot to tell you that I agree with you on Niel I really liked him in "cosmos a spacetime odessey" but the more and more I watch him being interviewed I find him biased and even sometimes arrogant. He has his pros and cons regardless of how good or bad his explanation was in this video however he irritates me sometimes I agree. Btw have a good day was nice discussing this with you it is a good escape for me to discuss such topics with educated random people on the internet rather than scrolling through twitter all day lol
@@onirud4869 that a photon can only be see as a luminous centre that creates waves that travel at light speed, therefore the photon doesn't have to be moving at light speed but the waves it creates do
does anyone have an actual video of this experiment being done? Cause they keep saying that if you observe the photons they collapse, but then we have video of the waveform. And I cant find a video where the photons are popping out in two lines.
look up "double slit experiment" on youtube and you will see many videos showing how the pattern changes depending on whether observe at the slits. and i can tell you the effect is real. we do this experiment all the time because people love to see it. but it is not very interesting.
No, if information is stored in any part of the universe the outcome will be same , it will show partical nature. But main point is we can not observe the election or proton directly so, we need an external measuring device. Outcome is dependent on this device is it measuring or not . Not on person 🤣.
I want to know, how many different methods of detection have been used to track the particles, and have we eliminated interference from detection to be contributing to the change in patterns - eg waves or emissions from the detector
Yes. Over two hundred years scientists have come up with a myriad ways to perform the double slit experiment and rule out various possibilities. Now that computers exist you can just have the output from the detector be saved to a file on hard disk and that suffices as an "observation" even though no sentient mind has seen the data. However if the file is deleted after the experiment is over before anyone has seen it the double band of light disappears and is replaced by an interference pattern even though the photons no longer exist. Observation can actually change the past. The "Quantum Eraser" version of the experiment also shows that a photon can know whether to behave as a wave or a particle before it has even been observed. It knows the future. Space and time, past and future and cause and effect may be completely unlike we imagine them to be in the macroscopic world.
you can split in time the 'observation' which is the application of a hermetian operator and there'll still be this consistency, meaning if the which-path info is every recorded or available in any way, even indirectly (as in the quantum eraser experiment) and even later in time, then the interference pattern will be gone/unavailable/non-extant or 'destroyed'.
what if the fact that your observing it absorbs the wave. light roams free when not being absorbed but observing it causes the wave to be absorbed thus stopping the randomness. its like putting a waterfall on a lake. the flow of the water will go to the waterfall
They actually thought of this and the answer is crazy. They decided to “trick” the particles by setting up an observer but never turning it on… guess what happened. The particles acted as if they were being observed. And the deeper you go into that fact the crazier it gets. Did we actually trick the particles or did they land in the wave pattern but second we decided to look they change outcomes
There is something called active observation and passive observation. In active observation, something of rays strike on photon which causes it's nature to become particle.
It knows because we live in a physical materialistic reality that is specifically made for our consciousness. Everything revolves around us , and then is generated for us. Choices change our reality
Light is a wave, so it could be possible that consciousness is also a wave like thing and when we look at the photons or think about their outcome, it sends the information to photons and they start behaving like particles.
Does anyone know what happens when we put detectors on both slits and not just on one? Maybe we will have a third behavior or will it be the same behavior?
FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE LOST IN THIS MATTER, READ THIS: 1. This episode is misleading as it takes in the audience into thinking that the particle's behavior has to do with the fact that it is being observed. 2. In his StarTalk video "What is Schrödinger's Cat? | Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains..." , Neil himself talks about the observer effect. At 1min40s he says: "it is unfortunate that somebody called it the observer effect because then new age folk and other people who are basically scientific illiterate were thinking 'it is your consciousness that affects what you are observing' and 'oh my gosh, there is a consciousness field' and they go running off the cliff". Also, later on at 6min35s he summarizes: "it is not so much an observer effect, it is a measurement effect... it has nothing to do with consciousness"
Reality is more astonishing than fiction...this is amazing
Correct.
it is fiction
@@arpitthakur45 nein
Facts
But most times very disappointing
Yeah I think God's gotta patch this bug in 2030.
Yeah, his own algorithm i.e. humans exceeding his estimates.
1 John 1:5 - This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 😉
Hard for me to believe in the God of the Bible, after reading the Bible. But the results suggest intelligent design.
Bruh 😂
@@JohnnyThund3r
The creator is a Scientist
There's Scientific Laws in All of Creation
This brings the old say 'if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound' to a whole new level.
Biocentrism - a pretty fascinating theory regarding this question
"Probably"
Thats one nice quote who was behind it
it does, some guy won a noble price for proving the same
Well we know why…sound waves reach our ears. There is still sound ways which are frequencies but they might not reach our “antenna” aka our ears.
This is the single greatest experiment ever conducted.
It very clearly shows exactly how wave functions collapsing to create the observers reality. There is a very good fiction book by Robert Lanza, a physicist called Observer that lays out a pretty good story while explaining in simple speak the basics of the major quantum theories. You may enjoy it.
I don't think the question should be "how can a photon know if someone's watching?" It should be "why would it care?"
AND, how does this affect its decision making process?
I feel like it just goes to show how valid we are to naturally care about how others perceive us. It could be good to care or it could be bad, depends on who you look to for approval. I pray that I look to God for approval. I don't always though, unfortunately.
Knowing something by our five senses (other species have the same and/or different ones) is WAAAAAY different than actually thinking about something like "do I care"?
We changed it, it didn’t change us.
@@matthewsandia when you talk about this "god" figure, concept, whatever... what do you mean exactly? the kid running this simulation we perceive as reality?
2:14 gives me chills.
Its advait vedant
😮
Literal goosebumps
Not helpful
Neil Degrasse is so charismatic , I swear this guy makes things so interesting
He's nothing more than probably a good actor...can you understand or know for what is what he talks about. Even if dare to tell me that you understand him, what you gonna do with it...it's useless s...t.
@@juancaquias9330 Why are you triggered over my opinion weirdo ?
@@juancaquias9330 everything ok at home? Its useful for people who want to be physicist in the future. Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean others don’t.
@@Aimen-079 Its advait vedant
@@juancaquias9330its useful for people who are passionate about science
Unlike idiots like you who think they are smarter than everyone 😂
hope i live to see the day this gets explained
I have the explanation but no one help me
Thank you for posting a video about this experiment that actually makes sense
Thanks for uploading this. Was looking for this particular clip.
Why only small clip go and watch the whole season 1 and 2
@@theblackdread7274where can i watch?
@@lellow7087 did you find ?
@@lellow7087 hotstar
The mere act of observation changes reality 🙌
@@Elfdogablethey would observe it.
@@Elfdogable
The puncher has Full Observation
Yes .. what you see can make you decide what to do next thus changing reality.I do that everyday ;)
I think that the photons change based on whether they are being observed or not is possible because maybe our eyes reflect the light slightly in some way? I’m not sure though, just a stupid hypothesis
The reality is not changed. It is decided when we observed. Before observation, it just a sort of algorithm
Probably my favorite experiment ever
Maybe this also involves the simulation theory in that the simulations do not process what is being observed in the same way that it is when it is not being observed in an attempt to save processing power.... When we don't observe the outcome, the simulation is not as precise leading to the interference pattern.
Correcto
Exactly what I was thinking
Correct. We are likely in an ancestor simulation - our future selves exploring our ancient past.
Elon Musk believes this... I'm not so sure. I prefer multiple worlds.
That is precisely what it is. It's about information. Things are only rendered as much as they need to be.
It's also important to note that a living observer is not required for such rendering. If the path is potentially retrievable by anything, including non living electronic systems, the "collapse of the wave function" occurs.
Just as it would be with a computer game played by a non living program designed to do so, things will render to the required resolution.
By observing the photons, or not, you are affecting the past.
If you are in the room, we might be talking about one, one hundred millionth of a second, so you don't perceive it.
But if someone is doing the double slit experiment five light years away, and we see it in a telescope, we are affecting something that happened five years ago.
Mind boggling.
🤯🤯🤯
Omg you brought me a new perspective of this😂 must find som vids about that omg
If we don't observe, temporarily, until the experiment is "completed" or at least until the photons are released freely, and then we look, would we change the outcome? Wouldn't that in a way be changing the future? Or would it be changing the past?
This means there's a lot more going on around us, when we're not around. When we're involved, time goes slower, things move slower to but when not involved and you're just going with the flow, time suddenly goes faster, and a lot of things suddenly start happening... Something about our involvement slows other things down. Definitely something there with what reality actually is.
no, this has nothing to do with human involvement. that's a common mistake people make when understanding observer. The observation is an observation with or without a 'sentient' being and is the application of something called a Hermetian operator.
@@CaramelTootle-jb9qw I didn't necessarily mean just humans
@@orangelimesky observation doesn't have to do with a living/sentient being's perception of time.
I wonder what happens if they turn on the observer camera but cover the lens.
Is it possible that an electronic device was near the slit and it somehow changed the wave or behavior of photons?
there was no camera used, it was a detector on the slit, camera cannot focus light :D
@@microscopicladdu2500 okay... but it was electronic right? maybe the photons reacted to the electricity nearby that's why it changed its behavior...
@@mrpogz hmmm most probably.....
Good idea
I've been thinking the same thing, they have tested with just "pulling the plug" on the detection mechanism, but I guess this case would not cover this question ❓
It's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: The more blue meth you do, the less things make sense.
You really did almost have me there
Years ago i notice this as a single light source ( a distant security light ) shown through the slats in my fence onto a concrete wall and it puzzled me that this yellow light divided itself into yellow bands and white bands ???? ....... several years from then i saw the Double Slit Experiment and it help to shed some light on my bewilderment .
Once you get this concept in your brain your reality will change guaranteed.
Its advait vedant
Can you name an example or two of how yours has changed? I’m genuinely curious
@@kurstone8511 Mine has changed for sure
Religion is nonsense. Keep your religious bs to yourself.
@@AamAadmiSamajwadiPartyMy ass
Ok a photon has two parts the storage like a hard drive (the wave part of a photon) that carries the information (the particle part of a photon) of the object that emitted it or reflected it or observed it fully (which full absorbtion is no photon reflected back or photon empty of information reflected back equals black) so a photon leaving the source that emitted it is a wave with the information (particle) of the source it came from when that photon is reflected by an object part or most of the information from the source is transfered into the object and the photon reflected has a percentage of source information that is 49% or less and now has 51% or more information from the object reflecting it. So in the double slit experiment the method used to observe the photon shot before the impact of the back wall takes part or most of the information in it away which takes away the interference pattern and when the method used to observe the photon a second time replaces the information the first observance took out and now you get your interference wave pattern again.
OMG this is mind blowing
Absolutely insane
The answer to that... is not the observation in itself, but the technology needed to actually see it.
Are you sure about that
@@MF_JONES Granted... when I first learned of the double-split experiment over a decade ago... my answer immediately seemed like common sense. Now there are several famous scientists that have confirmed that answer to be absolutely correct. Just seems really odd in regards to how very long they took. The same goes for trying to read bits while those are quantum entangled. Both the DSE and QE will need to be in absolute darkness to have those extremely different effects.
Its advait vedant
@@ThankYouESMwhat famous scientists and can you tell me their reasoning?
@hamzamamdouh8875
There seems to be many this year, but... how about from the man himself to clear up that confusion given 3 weeks ago through his StarTalk UA-cam platform? Such info can be easier to find if you look for it yourself instead of expecting me to always hold your hand.
The way Neil talks he's like a kid in a toy store love him keep looking up
If only those Phd's scientists asked the UA-cam section for info, they would know that it was the detector that was interfering with results
You people shuld check the "delayed choice experiment"
Nope, you’re naive to think you know better than Dr. Tyson.
@@CaramelTootle-jb9qwBy stating things the way he did in this clip he is implying that our minds can change reality. He is just spreading misinformation to get views.
I don't know if this was taken out of context, but if that's what he meant, he does not deserve the authority he has.
@@rewe3536 the issue is, there is no perfect analogy to explaining mathematically precise things without the language of math. Observation in a lay sense presumes some mind, or some living observer. However, in quantum physics, an observation is the application of a Hermetian operator. It's a particular transformation which produces an observable out of a wave equation that would otherwise have an 'i.' term in it. Therefore the Schroedinger wave equation is something that happens out of the realm of physics until there is some transformation that creates a multiplication with its complex-conjugate or essentially cancels the 'imaginary' part of the math out. For example, if I multiply (1+i) and it's complex conjugate (1-i), I get (1)(1) - i. + i. - (-1) since i. squared is (-1). So this value is simply 2. You see how the i. disappears when it's multiplied by a value that has a negative for the imaginary part of the equation. Quantum wave equations are in and of themselves NOT in the realm of observable reality. It is only in their squaring or something sandwiched between the wave and it's complex conjugate that you are able to bring the math back into 'reality' which does not have an i. in it. (for example if position is sandwiched between the wave function and it's complex conjugate, this can be thought of as a probability of existence wave by location, or a weighted average, with all probabilities adding up to 1). This is what is called an observable or observation. But he wasn't going to spend hours explaining requisite math to people without the adequate background. So he said correctly that observation leads to different results (diffraction pattern or no diffraction pattern). But what's true is that whether or not there is a sentient being, if there is a Hermetian operator applied or a transformation applied that produces and observable in the math sense, then the wave-nature of quanta is lost, and the quanta behaves more particle-like, and yes-- weak or partial 'observations' can be made, which is an area of intense research. You can't really explain QM to people who don't understand statistics or math with imaginary numbers, so he did the best he can with imperfect lay explanations.
I never understand this when i was studying this young s double slit experiment in 11th grade 16 years old at school and i was sooo furious at myself for being so stupid not understanding this ….but i dont mind not understanding this ,i have got my inner peace after watching this even though i don’t understand anything
It’s okay, I know it’s frustrating. Be pleased with knowing it frustrates scientists who study it for a living
Dear brothers and sisters,
I have solved the problem of particle to behave like particle and wave, when observed and unobserved respectively in double slit experiment.
"Particle physics based on real dimensions of space-time" [Volume 09; issue 10; 2022] - arcjournals - International journal of advanced research in physical science - Open access for free download.
To think, how the electrons entering the slit knows whether an observation is made on it or the detector is switched ON/OFF and change its results (pattern on the screen) accordingly, is the confusion. This even led the scientist to wonder if quantum mechanics is a future deciding factor of human life. The answer is simple, the experimentation has to include the observer such that observer is equal to observing object together undergoing one of two results at a time. One may think, it is like surrendering oneself and cease to think anymore. No, it is not so.
I have published a series of papers (totally 9 nos.) on "Theory of Singularity". Hope this new proposed study serves one fundamental for general relativity and quantum mechanics by solving incompatibility between them.
[Volume 10; issue 03,04; 2023] - arcjournals....thank you
awesome answer
you can't understand quantum mechanics. you can only do quantum mechanics. if you do QM you'll 'get' something that most people talking in lay words can never get. and even then you don't 'understand' it because there's a non-local consistency (not causation) that is not what we intuit from localized causality.
In double or single slits experiment, are the fringes extra magnified relative to the original spots (which are of course also magnified through the distance to the screen)? Or are they all shown at the same level of magnification? Would that make any difference for us viewers? Anybody knows?
So if a particle event depends on an observer, perhaps what is happening is not to be questioned but rather can an observer actually comprehend what they are observing at the quantum level. Perhaps other dimensions in space-time come into play in a way we cannot observe with our limited observation tools.
brilliant comment
Best comment!
Huh? This doesn’t make sense. They are looking at the end result of the photons.
We don't have right observation technology this shows
Its the act of using equipment to observe that interacts with the photons
not you looking at it.
Spooky action at a distance
that's the EPR paradox, not this.
There's a very important aspect of this phenomenon not being mentioned which does make it quite a bit less "weird". You need to understand what it means to make an observation. If the photon is simply travelling through the slit onto the detector, it doesn't matter whether you are "looking" at the experimenal setup with your eyes or not, as you won't be able to see the photons until they hit the screen anyways. Remember, your ability to see anything literally requires photons to hit your eyes. Observing which slit the photons pass through requires that you interact with the photon before they hit the screen. Say we had a detector which allowed the photons to be detected during the experiment. Even if this detector was incredibly efficient and allowed the photons to continue through the slit after observation, an observation still means that the photon had to hit this intermediate detector in some way, which completely alters the quantum system of the photon, collapsing the wavefunction which describes it, effectively reducing it to behaving like a particle as opposed to a wave for the time being.
Yep, soooo many channels know this but don’t explain as click bait
So you're saying that the fact that there was a detector in the first place is the reason why there are two groups in Young's experiment. And when there's not a detector there that is what causes the five groups? I'm sorry for my lack of understanding. Just a guy who got turned onto the quantum scene.
@@Keep_Feeding_Me If you wish to gain a more intuitive understanding of particle behavior in quantum mechanics, I recommend exploring one of the numerous videos or online lectures that explain wave functions. A fundamental concept here is 'wave-particle duality', which is the empirical observation that quantum entities can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like characteristics under different conditions.
Consider a single photon generated and emitted by a laser directed at a double slit. This photon is described by a wave function, a mathematical object that is correlated with a probability distribution of finding the photon at a certain location. Analogous to water waves in a pond, wave functions propagate through space and time, forming crests and troughs. These waves can interfere with themselves and with waves from other photons. The spacing between the slits affects how the waves interfere, resulting in regions of constructive interference (where waves amplify each other) and destructive interference (where waves cancel each other out). These interference patterns are reflected on the detection screen as areas with higher or lower probabilities of detecting the photon, which lead to lighter and darker fringes (the groups you're referring to).
A critical aspect arises if we perform a measurement or interact with the photon before it passes through the slits. Such an interaction collapses the wave function to a specific location, causing the photon to exhibit particle-like behavior for the remainder of its path.
@@Keep_Feeding_Me If no observation, then, wave interference is observed. That means light photons act as wave. please see about constructive and destructive wave interference which make brighter and darker band.
When observed, they behave just as tiny solid particles, go through two slides, and make the marks in screen in two places only.
This video makes it seem like observation (i.e. by a conscious observer) is what weird effects the experiment. However, it is simply the measurement which causes the photons to behave differently since in order to make a measurement, you must interact with the photon. Consciousness has nothing to do with it
you should see the PBS version of it, even more crazy
How does that make sense? Is the simple notion that watching this with cameras ect actually interfering with the photon itself? And if so how?. I’m super curious about this subject as of late
@@unkystavros9706 its because “watching” a subatomic particle isn’t possible in the traditional sense since their diameter is much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Thus, to “see” a subatomic particle, you have to measure it somehow. Usually this is done by shooting a photon with high energy (small wavelength) at it and measuring the interaction. Thus, observations in the quantum scale are not passive but are active.
Ahh right so to observe it at all we need to interact with it? If that’s the case when they explain the slot experiment they say when we watch it goes from a particle to a wave and when where not watching it turns back into a particle, why do they think it does what ot does when they’re not looking? Like they couldn’t just be guessing right? Or is there and after math that shows what happened and that’s how they know?
@@unkystavros9706 so when not observed, sub atomic particles behave like waves based on Schrodinger’s equations. We know this for a fact since the double slit experiment produces an interference pattern which can only occur with waves since there must be constructive and destructive interference. A particle could not produce an interference pattern since it could not constructively and destructively interfere with itself. Thus, when not observed, we know a wave must be present. However, when observed/measured, the interference pattern is lost and a simple double slit projection is shown, meaning constructive and destructive interference are no longer occurring. This means Schrodinger’s equations (also called the wave function) has collapsed and the particle behaves like a particle rather than a wave in this case. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for cutting it short… JO
Of course we simply don't understand yet. Very strange it is like watching any magic amazing
This reminds me of how mind boggling the fact that no matter where you look for an electron you will always find one
what is effect of the velocity of electron on the result of the experiment
Our subconscious knows the laws of physics and reality so it creates the 50/50 that we need.
this begs the question, what is it about the observation process that changes the outcome?
See this race is a really interesting question for me I don't know if it's been done if it has someone please let me know whenever they show the double slit experiment are always vertical can you get the same effect if they're horizontal or diagonal?
Waves of potential manifest as particles of experience. The way our consciousness interprets our physical reality.
Doesn't rely on consciousness. Observation is a mathematically precise term related to the elimination of the imaginary part of a wave equation. Also the first part of what you said is aligned with an idea called deBroglie pilot wave theory, which is a fringe theory and disproven in its local form (local hidden variables and a localized guiding wave). The non-local theory still lives but is not exactly popular nor does it make any differential predictions, and so is thought of as not minimalist according to Occam's razor, and metaphysical by suggesting no differential testable experiments. (So is string theory-- which is why the most accepted explanation is the Copenhagen interpretation).
Would this experiment yield the same result if a camera or any record keeping equipment were not involved? Does it have something to do with the equipment or would it be the same result if you could watch the experiment with your own eyes?
I tried it myself, but the light didn't spread as clean as that. It's like a line of wavelength, my paper/cardboard is curved, could that be the reason?? If anyone knows pls answer, I'm haunted by this question.
This experiment only works for the quantum world, not our world I believe.
I just watched a video of someone doing it with a cardboard box, but I honestly have no idea of how to make it properly, this comment is just to reinforce the fact that you can recreate it.
This guy talks about how to replicate it: ua-cam.com/video/CN-wjj_phVA/v-deo.html
This is crazy
this is insane
My favorite is showing my lady the single slit experiment.
Woooooooooooooowwwww, honestly! Especially the last few moments! Quantum world is a beautiful and fascinating science but too bad the photons are too shy to let us know them 😂
What episode of "Cosmos Possible Worlds" is this clip from?
episode 9, magic without lies
The next experiment, to my mind, would be testing whether the effect persists if observed by non-humans. Does it occur when any organism is observing the event, or only when humans do? And what is it about humans/organisms observing that affects photons in this way? What else are we doing to existence around us, simply by observing it?
Good idea but EVENTUALLY a human needs to find out otherwise how will we ever know? Observation in this case doesn’t literally mean you SAW it happen, but that you eventually find out. The experiment will end the same way even if the scientists involved wait 100 years before looking at the test results.
@@dazrienhaizor8624 but would a human seeing the test results change the results?
effect is the same if the which-path info is available or recorded anywhere in the universe regardless of a sentient/living observer. observation is actually taking a quantum wave function which has an imaginary (math term) component in it and making the imaginary parts cancel out. it doesn't depend on a living being. As for trying not to disturb the photon or electron, that has been tried to with the quantum eraser experiment whereby which-path information in one photon was coupled to the polarization of another photon of an entangled pair. By measuring the polarization, they wouldn't be directly disturbing the original photon, and even in that case, if which-path information were available, the interference pattern did not exist (but did exist if the which-path information were not available). And even later in time, toggling on or off the availability of which-path information, changed (not where the entangled original photon hit the backstop of course) the consistency of the aggregate dots on the backstop with interference vs. no interference. (That is which-path info being made available later meant all the dots hitting the back wall were consistent with particles not waves; and for those photons where the which-path information were made unavailable, the dots hitting the backstop were consistent with interference or the wave-nature of quanta).
It has nothing to do with a living "observer" per se; rather, it is dependant upon whether the path is potentially retrievable by anything, including non living electronic systems. It's about information. Just like in a computer game, things are only rendered as much as they need to be.
Cuál es el programa completo?
I love how the brightest minds ever can’t explain this and yet the comments section has nailed it…university degree, who needs one!
I figured it out : the Earth & universe is moving 400,000 kms a sec & depends what speed you fire Photon = wave pattern
Yes but it still doesnt explain what makes difference on the pattern between looking and not looking situation while sending photons.
@@estenj - agreed but think of this everything you touch is solid and everything else is a wave pattern - my idea
Is it possible that the measuring instrument used to count the photos have some someway changed the nature photon behaves?
Yes exactly but the exact process is not understood.
it's not about that. see my responses elsewhere. it's about informational consistency (even retroactively in time, and even at far off distances where it's impossible for one thing to affect another in a causal sense).
Does anyone know what episode this is from?
How did you see the second result if you weren't watching?
What if you make multiple slits and only monitor one?
It's clearly the detector causing it. It's like placing metal stuff near you WiFi router.
those slits are our eyes, we observe always thus we cant see the photons interference pattern
Why don't you make the light move in a wave pattern ??
Surely at the scale of photons, anything that interacts with a photon (i.e. literally any tool you could use to measure them) would have to affect them in some way.
I’ve said it’s like detecting cars by throwing other cars at them. It starts to make more sense why observations have an impact.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. We have many forms of measurement and most of them have no interference with photons. Yet still when they are observed in this experiment they change. We just don’t know why yet.
Isnt it more interesting that they shot electrons? Since the electron has mass and still collapes the wave function?
They're too big, the laws of physics still apply to them
it's the same with massless photons.
What if the watcher instrument has an influence on the photons which changed their behaviors from waves to particles?
Clearly some sort of interference through observation. But what?
@@larrikin7713 i have different interpretations now. We see them as particles because we are projecting them from hyper dimensional space to the time-space dimensions. When we study them in their hyperspace we deal with them using waves and probabilities.
To see the photons we need to a provide light(photons) in the mid way that create de coherence and breaks the wave function of photons under observation, but if we don't look at it( that means we don't provide any light in the path to observe photons) the wave function of photons remains intact, atleast i believe it must have happened like that.
We live in a simulation for sure
this doesn't per se suggest that at all
Perhaps, an "Observation device" used plays a role on how the outcome would be.
I agree
no, observation is not about equipment or sentience. its a mathematical transformation. see my answers elsewhere. also see my response about the quantum eraser experiment.
@@CaramelTootle-jb9qw oh okay, how exactly did they measure it though
@@bugxa don't get too fixated on the method, because, in the case of the quantum eraser experiment, some clever scientists said, let's not disturb. the particle too much, and instead, let's entangle it (a photon or quanta of light) with another photon such that the left slit vs. right slit path of one photon is coupled with the polarization of the other photon (in quantum mechanics, one photon vs another is actually NOT distinguishable, nor 'labelable'!) And by this clever little set up, the physicists found a way to "measure without measuring" so to speak. We will just bother the entangled twin, and it will reveal which path its other twin took, and we won't collapse the wave function and disturb the interference pattern right? No. Every time the polarization information were read off the entangled twin, even AFTER the other photon had already passed through the double-slit apparatus, the interference pattern (of many halves of pairs of photons entangled in this way-- or the aggregate statistics thereof) disappeared! The scientists then tweaked the quantum eraser experiment such that a switch were inserted that allowed the polarization information to be made available or not available. And every time the information were available, the dots on the backstop for the entangled pair that went through the double-slit apparatus clustered without the interference patterns like BB's going through the slits. And every time the polarization information were made NOT available by the switch, the interference pattern (in aggregate-- the spot where one photon hits the back wall cannot be changed) emerged again. And this is even with the switch being toggled AFTER the photon passing the double-slit apparatus already passed through the apparatus. This looks like the present or future affecting the past; however, it is NOT that as nothing can causally affect the past nor travel faster than the speed of light. It's merely a retro-correlation, not a retro-causation. Meaning which-path information availability is consistently correlated with particle-like or wavelike behavior of quanta, even at faster-than-light distances, and even retrospectively (reverse-direction in time). So to your question, you can ask ChatGPT or google how experiments are set up, but don't get hung up on the exact empircle setup for 'measurement' because that's not the point.
I just remembered the meaning of hadith of prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) that a bad eye on someone can effect someone badly
It's cuts off too early 😭
What happens if you put a detector in each slit, but do not pay any attention to what the detector says?
Why is it 50% left and 50% right? There is a middle bar that the photons could hit. Or they could hit the edge of the slit and bounce off at a weird angle.
some do indeed. but that's not the point of the double-slit experiment to talk about photonic interactions with matter such as scattering or absorption and re-emission (photonics, and QFT).
So is the act of observation what makes it concrete for THIS reality? Like not observing means that all quantum possibilities are in play and therefore we get the multi line interference pattern? But once we watch it it HAS to be one slit or the other? I think I need to stay home from work today. 😂
It makes way more sense when you add in the obvious: there is no such thing as passive observation. In order to detect a photon, your measurement device must interact with that photon.
Think of how we measure electricity. To determine electrical current, we put a known electrical resistance on a wire and measure the voltage drop across it. The resistor interacts with the electrons and changes their behavior.
At this scale of physics, measuring things like position or momentum means banging one particle into another. Imagine you’re in a dark room with a baseball somewhere. You don’t know where it is or how fast it’s moving. To observe it, you may throw another baseball in any direction you want. If you throw correctly and the two balls collide, you now know which position the original ball was in, but you understand that you have just changed the state of the original ball by hitting it with your own.
@@loganwoodxyz They've already concluded that the technology used to measure the outcome has no interaction or effect on the photons themselves. So your assumption is wrong.
@@pepsico815 it’s not an assumption. You have to manipulate particles to measure them. In order to obtain precise location data, you need extremely high energy (small wavelength) which makes momentum difficult to measure. If you want momentum you need low energy (large wavelength) which makes precise location difficult to measure. This is the uncertainty principle. There’s no magic here. There’s no passive observation.
When you measure, you necessarily interact with the system. Anything that happens before measurement is the wave function doing it’s thing. There’s no such thing as measuring a particle that then continues doing quantum weirdness. Once the measurement is made, the wave function collapses.
@@pepsico815 if that's true it could be like the Yanny or laurel sound test where the brain is focusing stronger on a curtain frequency so hears something different, the straight particals are probably a stronger frequency than the ones that bounced and dispersed because of the interactions so when you observe the particals your mind focuses on the stronger frequency an when you don't observe you try an focus on anything so you see the ones with weeker frequency too. To see the truth you'd need a thermal reactive paper an see how the color changes.
@@loganwoodxyz lmao the random guy typing on his keyboard from home thinks he knows more then the smartest minds in the world that conducted this experiment
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen.
I think its not the waves that confuse but its the eyes that do
But this experiment doesn’t stop at photons. The same thing happens when you use matter like electrons. Same thing happens when observed vs not observed.
We can only have the 3D Threshold of knowledge and logic, anything beyond the point will be unexplained
What happens if they set up a camera & observe it......then leave the camera on but not observe it......then watch the recording after the experiment to see if it changed .
Or is it impossible to catch it on camera ?
if which-path information is available anywhere in the universe with or without sentient beings, the interference pattern won't exist. and this is even if you toggle the which-path information availability on or off after an electron/photon passed through the double-slit apparatus. See the quantum eraser experiment and pseudo retro-causality which is actually a retro-correlation.
Other scientist said: it's not if we watch it, it's when the photons get smaller. This make more sense.
Does a tree make a sound when it falls if no one is around?
Could anyone tell me what's the episode name and the season , please?
Magic Without Lies, Season 1 of Cosmos
@@cassolibro333 season 2 actually
It's happening because the detector changes the energy of the incident photon resulting in no interference pattern
Yes, but.........with what apparatus is the Double Slit Experiment observed? I cant seem to find an answer. Please ....No educated guesses.
It's 3am.. and now I can't sleep
lol same here 03:01
1. Photons are light and our eyes are light detectors that gives us the information based on light. So, the photon is not aware of us but we are aware and our eyes being a photon machine interferes.
2. Our mind has the ability to manipulate things on a quantum level. So, our mind is altering every single photon as we watch it.
light is a wave always that moves at c , but it also can be a particle center of luminosity that produces waves, the particle can be stationary or move at any speed up to c and the wave created by the particle travels at c from the particle center in every direction unless the particle is traveling at c to which the waves then will only be on back half of particle from the trajectory its traveling and the wave will illuminate what ever it shines on, the luminosity gets weaker the further away from the particle you get and the wave it creates it will contain the image of the particle. .
So you know the answer to the question even the most brilliant minds in quantum physics couldn't answer. Cool
@Timmy Palmer T Why judge my understanding ? I'm pretty familiar with quantum entanglement while observing however not even the most brilliant quantum physicists claim they fully comprehend quantum physics especially when it comes to the big question "why?!" so as someone who is kinda interested in physics/cosmology in general I'm not obligated to understand it either ! I have a pretty good idea of what the double slit experiment is and I'm happy with what I know about it. The guy above comes as if he has something new to add to the information we already know I as a person dont like that kind of smartassy attitude because if that was the case he deserves a nobel prize and should go collect his reward right away lol and I find his explanation weak I can explain it in better terms even though English isnt my native language. His explanation would actually make someone who understands the double slit experiment more confused because of his poor choice of words.
Your comment was well put together however the other guy not too well in my opinion.
@Timmy Palmer T Yeah I forgot to tell you that I agree with you on Niel I really liked him in "cosmos a spacetime odessey" but the more and more I watch him being interviewed I find him biased and even sometimes arrogant. He has his pros and cons regardless of how good or bad his explanation was in this video however he irritates me sometimes I agree. Btw have a good day was nice discussing this with you it is a good escape for me to discuss such topics with educated random people on the internet rather than scrolling through twitter all day lol
Wth are u even uttering dude 😂😂.
@@onirud4869 that a photon can only be see as a luminous centre that creates waves that travel at light speed, therefore the photon doesn't have to be moving at light speed but the waves it creates do
does anyone have an actual video of this experiment being done? Cause they keep saying that if you observe the photons they collapse, but then we have video of the waveform. And I cant find a video where the photons are popping out in two lines.
look up "double slit experiment" on youtube and you will see many videos showing how the pattern changes depending on whether observe at the slits. and i can tell you the effect is real. we do this experiment all the time because people love to see it. but it is not very interesting.
This is like quantum fracture , the shifters. Is scary
What if there are two persons in front of the experiment. One watches and the other is not. Will the outcome be different for both of them?
No,
if information is stored in any part of the universe the outcome will be same , it will show partical nature.
But main point is we can not observe the election or proton directly so, we need an external measuring device.
Outcome is dependent on this device is it measuring or not .
Not on person 🤣.
I want to know, how many different methods of detection have been used to track the particles, and have we eliminated interference from detection to be contributing to the change in patterns - eg waves or emissions from the detector
Yes. Over two hundred years scientists have come up with a myriad ways to perform the double slit experiment and rule out various possibilities. Now that computers exist you can just have the output from the detector be saved to a file on hard disk and that suffices as an "observation" even though no sentient mind has seen the data. However if the file is deleted after the experiment is over before anyone has seen it the double band of light disappears and is replaced by an interference pattern even though the photons no longer exist. Observation can actually change the past. The "Quantum Eraser" version of the experiment also shows that a photon can know whether to behave as a wave or a particle before it has even been observed. It knows the future. Space and time, past and future and cause and effect may be completely unlike we imagine them to be in the macroscopic world.
what the actual fuck@@davidsmith7653
really? too creepy for me man@@davidsmith7653
@@davidsmith7653how do they know if it behaves differently if they delete the file?
@@Rocketman0407by looking at the pattern
How do they know that the results depend on whether the experiment's being observed without observing the experiment?
you can split in time the 'observation' which is the application of a hermetian operator and there'll still be this consistency, meaning if the which-path info is every recorded or available in any way, even indirectly (as in the quantum eraser experiment) and even later in time, then the interference pattern will be gone/unavailable/non-extant or 'destroyed'.
what if the fact that your observing it absorbs the wave.
light roams free when not being absorbed but observing it causes the wave to be absorbed thus stopping the randomness.
its like putting a waterfall on a lake. the flow of the water will go to the waterfall
They actually thought of this and the answer is crazy. They decided to “trick” the particles by setting up an observer but never turning it on… guess what happened. The particles acted as if they were being observed. And the deeper you go into that fact the crazier it gets. Did we actually trick the particles or did they land in the wave pattern but second we decided to look they change outcomes
Its advait vedant
Where's the full video
Where is this taken from
Yess the theory of multiple histories !!
Of we observe something we set up just one history.
Observing and looking involves interacting with photons
Observing and looking involves interacting with photons - correct
There is something called active observation and passive observation.
In active observation, something of rays strike on photon which causes it's nature to become particle.
It knows because we live in a physical materialistic reality that is specifically made for our consciousness. Everything revolves around us , and then is generated for us. Choices change our reality
It knows because we are a part of it.
🤯
Light is a wave, so it could be possible that consciousness is also a wave like thing and when we look at the photons or think about their outcome, it sends the information to photons and they start behaving like particles.
Some people are certainly waving forth and back on the highway. ;-)
Or it could be that a photon starts as a particle ,and unrestricted expands into a wave...
@@gazshaikh2394 No, that's not how it works, either. A photon is an irreversible energy transfer to and from the electromagnetic quantum field.
Does anyone know what happens when we put detectors on both slits and not just on one? Maybe we will have a third behavior or will it be the same behavior?
same behavior.
I honestly think if they let me play around with it I'll have it figured out in under 168hrs.
which show and which episode?
FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE LOST IN THIS MATTER, READ THIS:
1. This episode is misleading as it takes in the audience into thinking that the particle's behavior has to do with the fact that it is being observed.
2. In his StarTalk video "What is Schrödinger's Cat? | Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains..." , Neil himself talks about the observer effect. At 1min40s he says: "it is unfortunate that somebody called it the observer effect because then new age folk and other people who are basically scientific illiterate were thinking 'it is your consciousness that affects what you are observing' and 'oh my gosh, there is a consciousness field' and they go running off the cliff". Also, later on at 6min35s he summarizes: "it is not so much an observer effect, it is a measurement effect... it has nothing to do with consciousness"
Which episode is this?
Nick from the yard brought me here😊
Strange, i wonder if the answer has any relation to the feeling you get when somebody is watching you