That experiment is obsolete. It's not the "act" of observing that forces photons to behave like a particle. The thing is those detectors are laser detectors that emit photons as well, and when those photons interact they will behave as particles. The experiment that is actually interesting is the delayed-choice experiment, and the quantum entanglement experiment. Which in summary shows that the particle we are measuring will behave differently depending on the way we choose to measure it.
there’s a movie from 2004 called What the Bleep Do We Know!? Check it out, I just found it. It solidifies the concept with the doors I was talking about. See I know I wasn’t talk no BS, I knew somebody had to clarify it. Lol
Here's why: Observation of the photon is a direct interaction. In other words, the photon has to strike something - an atom or an electron - for it to register in the devlce,. Once the interaction occurs, that photon no longer exists, and a new photon is created due to the excitation of the atom or electron it hit. The new photon starts its journey without the double slit, so there is no interference pattern
@adama.4622 it's a tautological setup. There is no actual retrocausality. Instead, we are actually just seeing individual subsets of all interference patterns made available by the paths of entangled photons. Nothing actually changes along the path.
That's not the full explanation. You can directly interact with quantum particles to some extend without collapsing the wave function, but if you check what happens it collapses immediately.
You die and end up in a game lobby full of trillions of formerly living things from all over the universe yelling slurs at each other while queuing up for the next Big Bang.
Observing things on this much smaller scale requires you get something to interact with the thing you are observing. It's like if you're slinging your arms around in a dark room to find somebody and are surprised when your friend's behavior becomes more hostile when your hand "finds" his face.
This is answered in Star talk with Neil De Grasse Tyson, he gives the answer simply as, these are light particles; photons are so tiny that the object used to observe them is also projecting its own light particles in order for the observation to even take place therefore disrupting how the wave patterb would naturally occur causing the photons to behave how they do, when not observed they go back to the natural wave pattern because there are no other photons to disrupt the natural behaviour
WOW, I never heard this explanation before!! Thank you so much! I had a slight intuition that the actual explanation would be somehow like this and not the mainstream and kinda romanticised view of "the presence of an observer changes the nature of the particle/wave ♡". Even if I am a very open-minded scientist, (well, still a student xd) and actually applaud and appreciate that there's being changes in mainstream science when it comes to issues such as materialism, determinism, quantum physics and also the nature of consciousness, I never liked the woo-woo explanation of "your consciousness/the observer changes the behaviour of the photon". This explanation you gave makes so much more sense, I think, so thank you.
Wheeler's delayed-choice experiments demonstrate that extracting "which path" information after a particle passes through the slits can seem to retroactively alter its previous behavior at the slits. it isnt just photons interacting with other photons
No one mentions how the sensing device operated. Was it passive or active? Was it simply a camera or did it project out something that needed to be reflected back? If it used a light source then it would interact with the incoming waves and a new interference pattern would be created. Also, was this experiment ever done in a vacuum chamber? Is it possible that light was interacting with the air molecules it was passing through corrupting the results?
Theyre measuring photons which are incredibly small so you need an incredible amount of energy to measure something so small. The device wasn't passive and the only reason this idea is popular is because people intentionally leave this info out to sensationalize this bs
This is one of the things that caused the creation of quantum theory. Basically light behaves both as a wave and a particle. And actually every particle does. And as an "after effect" of quantum theory , string theory emerged trying to explain everything
We in fact know exactly why observing a particle causes it to change. It takes light to observe or measure something. Atoms are so small and dense that when light interacts with them they move/change. We’re dealing with something so small that light has the strength to push or move it. Atoms are less dense than the light acting on it and less dense than the space it takes up.
So you seriously believe that these top level scientists would be dumb enough to try to measure light by using a device that projects light also??? Really now?
"A measuring device" is the glossed over part. Exactly what is the measuring device doing to the light to change its nature? They never mention that in these brief discussions of the double slit experiment.
When you die you hear a voice say "and cut" you raise up and remove a mask just to find out that your Gary Oldman, cos that's how good a actor Gary Oldham is.
“…No one knows why observing a particle causes its behavior to change.” Yes we do, it’s apparent that whatever device was used to observe which slit the photon/particle passed through -disturbed, interfered with, and scattered the waveform leaving only two lines. The experiment was faulty and we need a non invasive way to observe which slit the photon/particle goes through. In the end when observed uninvasively, we will still see a waveform interference pattern and still know which slit each photon/particle went through. The measurement device blocked the waveform and only allowed the photon/particle through.
almost correct, except that it always was just a wave, never a particle, and because a wave has an area of infuence, it can only ever pass through both at once if they are close enough. you cannot measure were it went through because its a wave and particles are not real, but trying to determine one side results in one side triggering first and interacting with it, disturbing it in the process, which results in the disturbed part not contributing to any interference because it got scattered
I mostly agree with this, it’s that we interfere with it that causes it to be this way not kuz we are watching it with out eyes. That’s dumb to think that particles have brain lol
This is ridiculous, that is not a proof at all. 1) The universe does not seem to be rendering things as we deal with them, like in a game. We can observe the spectra of atoms billions of light years away, which were emitted long before we existed, in all directions, and by the spectra of that light, we conclude that the electrons were, billions of years ago, acting like standing waves around the nucleus and emitting the photons like so. 2) What does it mean to observe something? The wave nature of particles is not something we can't even write equations about, we literally have a wave function which describes exactly how the 3d waves propagate in space and time, and how the electron waves oscillate around the nucleus of atoms. 3) The "two points / slits" that we observe when we detect particles do not mean "particle", it means we are less precise about one of the conjugate variables, like Heisenberg taught us. Simply because of the nature of waves, and that we are using waves to detect other waves. 4) This is a problem in the logic of science. The universe can be a simulation created by aliens, if you would like to follow this hypothesis, but the "Measurement Problem" in quantum mechanics is just not good evidence for it. Logically, the Cosmic Event Horizon would be better evidence for this hypothesis, for example, but even though better, would still be bad.
@@lawrencefrost9063 Thanks, Lawrence Frost, for having some time to have a conversation about this and for answering me. I appreciate it a lot! And I would like to clarify some arguments against it. 1) The universe does not seem to be rendering things as we deal with them, like in a game. We can observe the spectra of atoms billions of light years away, which were emitted long before we existed, in all directions, and by the spectra of that light, we conclude that the electrons were, billions of years ago, acting like standing waves around the nucleus and emitting the photons like so. 2) What does it mean to observe something? The wave nature of particles is not something we can't even write equations about, we literally have a wave function which describes exactly how the 3d waves propagate in space and time, and how the electron waves oscillate around the nucleus of atoms. 3) The "two points / slits" that we observe when we detect particles do not mean "particle", it means we are less precise about one of the conjugate variables, like Heisenberg taught us. Simply because of the nature of waves, and that we are using waves to detect other waves. 4) This is a problem in the logic of science. The universe can be a simulation created by aliens, if you would like to follow this hypothesis, but the "Measurement Problem" in quantum mechanics is just not good evidence for it. Logically, the Cosmic Event Horizon would be better evidence for this hypothesis, for example, but even though better, would still be bad.
@@cai0_o The thing is, what you think that you're always observing is an illusion, as long as you're looking at it with the telescope it exists but as soon as you shut it down, you basically don't see them and therefore don't exist. And as soon as you look at them again, the image you see has just been made with all of its proprities such as age and etc. The space as i look at it with the naked eye is just pixels ( the stars are small and everything looks smaller), but if I use a telescope i see more and therefore more gets rendered in the same way in a game, you're in a road and you see a big sight right at the horizon and doesn't look more that just few pixels but as soon as you get closer to the city the game reders more frames and it becomes more detailled. The Simulator (or i like to call him god) won't have to make the whole universe at once, the same way the Game doesn't load the whole game up at the same time. However, this Double Slit Experience isn't considered as the biggest piece of proof to me, there is much more evidence to prove that we are likely in a simulation than this such as the golden ration and the indeniable intellegence design of the universe and how everthing seems to be made with equal vallues.
@@dipdip907it is the “greatest proof” doesn’t mean it’s hardcore proof, but this experiment is the greatest experiment that backs simulation theory When observed photons change the way they travel and don’t travel like waves. This is very similar to a video game, when you “render” something in and the game behaves differently because your player is there to observe whatever is occurring. In Minecraft you load chunks around you based on your players location. In this experiment, the method at which photons travel changes if the traveling is observed, aka if you player is there to watch these photons travel they will not behave as they would if you weren’t there trying to observe. The photons are seemingly conscious of being observed aka ‘when they are being rendered’ I am not bsing you, this experiment is that mind blowing, go do more research
@@frankjamesbonarrigo7162People in this comment section seem to be really dumb, so I don't recommend going to others to find the answer, I'll give it simply to you. "Observing" or "measuring" needs, per definition, to interfere with the system. How so? To measure something, you need to interact with it, either receiving the particles emmited by the system or emmiting your own towards the system; both of them imply adding or removing energy. In quantum physics, isolated particles behave in superposition (which is what this experiment shows), that means they have a lot of different states at the same time (spatial states, spins and so forth). All these possible states can be described in a wave function, which represents the probability of each state happening. When you interact with the system, you FORCE it to CHOOSE a state, as it cannot withhold superposition after interaction with the ambient, we call that decoerence (the wave function collapse). This experiment is really important exactly because it proves that (I've seen people in the comments say this experiment doesn't show anything, which is SO FUCKING STUPID). You realise that, before measuring, light acts as a wave, with tons of states and possible spatial outcomes (positions in space). After measuring, it enters decoerence and chooses a state (based on probability) which becomes fixed, therefore, acts like a particle. Those aspects are what make quantum physics probabilistic, in contrast to classical physics, which are deterministic. In classical physics, you can predict an outcome with certainty (based on logic, math, etc); in quantum physics you can't, you know the probability of each state being chosen after decoerence, but that's it, probability. Any one of them could happen.
@@Ljkyormann That's not how it works, people seem to have a strange idea about what "observed" means. Observing is a literal synonym in quantum physics for "direct measuring". Measuring something implies altering the system, as to measure you need to catch something or emit something yourself (like a photon), which means you NEED to add or subtract energy from the system. As soon as the system interacts with the ambient, it can't continue superposition, so it enter decoherence (behaves like a classical particle). Human mind has NOTHING to do with it, the only thing that matters is any kind of interaction.
@@Ljkyormann The measuring device obviously isn't being used at all in the non-measured experiment, or else it would be a "measured experiment", being measured by a measuring device.
The reason why the particles behave differently is because you’re sending light at the particles when you’re recording it or watching it you’re sending energy, which is an interference with the particles. That is why they behave differently.
One possible way to understand reality from this experiment could be; 1- Observation creates our reality. 2- Reality is one possibility that we bring into existence from waves of all possibilities. 3- All possibilities exist but our action bring one into existence to form our reality. Just guessing!
We'll done! best explanation on here, to me. No disrespect to any other responses 🧘🏽♂️ Do not try and bend the spoon-that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.” Neo: “What truth?” Young Monk: “There is no spoon. …
What about dBB theory? Physical pilot waves (from measuring device) disturbs other pilot waves (from the source in the experiment = laser) -> original interference pattern is destroyed. So elegant, simple, verified interpretation. I did bachelor thesis about this theory and I have no idea why more physicist do not support this idea. It is almost like some global brainwashing :D
Glad to read most comments here point out that in this experiment "the act" of observation cannot be done without interfering with what is observed, thereby changing the outcome. Great work everyone!
This is like sticking your hand in the water and being confused by the water altering direction to get around your hand. By attempting to measure the particles, you are dispruting their normal path, hence the behavior change.
You can’t observe something without interfering with it in some way. Even just looking at it, the light bouncing off of it interferes with it ever so slightly.
The only real proof we will ever have about the simulation hypothesis is when we ourselves create hyper-realistic worlds with sentient agents inside computer simulations. It needs to have nearly all the same capabilities and laws of physics and level of detail as our current world. When that happens, we can be quite sure this is a simulation as well. Because it proves it is possible, and if it is possible, it is unlikely we are the very first one to do it, the so called base-reality. If we find out it's impossible to create these kinds of universes in this reality, it will not prove that we are not in a simulation but it will give us a strong indication about the nature of our reality (likely not a simulation)
Us Being in a simulation is no more far fetched than saying space/universe never ends. Or that we were created God. Or were created by some alien life form. Or that life on earth was created by amino acids & other things that hitched a ride on comets & ☄ meteors that hit earth, planspermia I think it's called. All sound kinda crazy but are also very possible because we had to of came from somewhere.
We actually do understand this pretty well when all of the phenomena become quantitative. The issue is actually interpreting what exactly the math means.
I'm no physics major, but the instrument which is used to observe the photons interacts with the photons( since observing photons is not a simple task, we have to project some sort of a ray towards the protons and then the reflection of the ray is what we observe). anyone well versed in this topic please elaborate and enlighten!
I think because being “observed” really means being measured, as in atoms are being used to interact with the wave to gather a reading, causing it to break down from its wavelike tendencies to a particle.
Even if it's the act of measuring that's causing the change, that still doesn't explain why the particles seem to be in a superposition of states (i.e., both wave-like and particle-like) until we measure them. In physics, the act of measuring a system can indeed affect its behavior, but this doesn't mean that the measurement itself causes the change. This is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, known as the "measurement problem." In essence, when we measure a system, we interact with it, which can disturb its state. However, the key point is that the system's behavior changes because of its inherent properties, not solely due to the measurement. Think of it like this: - A system's properties, like position or energy, exist regardless of measurement. - When we measure, we interact with the system, which can cause its state to change. - The change is a result of the system's internal dynamics, not just the measurement. This change isn't solely due to the measurement; rather, it's a result of the electrons' intrinsic properties and interactions with the environment. So, to summarize: the act of measuring doesn't directly cause the change in behavior; instead, it's a result of the system's internal dynamics and interactions.
Everything here depends on the definition of "measuring device." Why isn't the setup producing the wave pattern considered to be a measuring device? Perhaps she means a particle detection device.
even when light from distant galaxies was so faint it took weeks for enough photons to create an image they still arranged themselves as waves one photon at a time exactly in the right place although random to create the wave function.
Maybe it's because our eyes can't see the waves. Just like we can't see radio, micro, infrared light - our eyes aren't advanced enough to visibly see energy as waves only as particles.
You act like you are above or different from scientists, we are all human, all knowledge they acquire is the only one you will get to use but people stoll root dor god who has never shwon himself to anybody and disregard science which has given us literally everything Self sabotage.
They need to do the experiment without the red light or whatever on the measuring device. The light from that also emits protons that may change how the light partials and waves are observed.
Im discussing the interference of light waves and the potential impact of the measuring device's emitted protons on readings. The idea is that removing the light protons emitted by the device might yield more accurate results in observing the behavior of the light waves. Essentially, it revolves around the interaction of light with light and the attempt to isolate the phenomenon being observed from external influences. Does this make any sense yet?
@tausenrico126 When I refer to "light vs. light," I am describing the interaction of light waves. Light behaves both as particles (photons) and waves. When two light waves encounter each other, they can interfere constructively (amplifying each other) or destructively (canceling each other out). This phenomenon is based on the superposition principle in wave physics. In constructive interference, the peaks of two waves align, resulting in a stronger, amplified wave. In destructive interference, the peak of one wave aligns with the trough of another, causing cancellation and a weaker overall wave. Think of how water crashing against itself reflects the concept of interference, where wave patterns change based on their interaction. In the context of my comment, the emitted light protons from a measuring device may interfere with the light waves being observed, potentially affecting the accuracy of measurements or observations. Hopefully this clears up any confusions you or anyone else may have by what I said.
For a long time it felt like the double slit experiment was presented like the mere act of a person looking at it changed how the particles behaved (hence the woo woo factor). I did wonder how they could know if the recording device interfered or interacted with the experiment. I might still have the wrong idea because I haven’t figured out Schrödinger’s cat’s viability status. 😊
It has nothing to do with the act of "observation". It's the interaction with the measuring device which "forces the photon" to "make a choice". You're implying that it's the presence of a concious being that matters somehow, which is simply not the case.
I read an explanation once that goes as, to see something light must be reflected from it so as electrons are practically massless( very light)the incident light on the electron actually changes the direction of motion of the particle and so the path deviates. But i don't think this explanation will be applicable here(I don't know if the result of this experiment is same every time) because instead of deviating randomly they just choose to obey a fixed route🙂
There is no way to prove the simulation theory without being outside of it, which will never happen. I promise. All this proves is that there are things we still do not understand. What is truly fascinating is that human beings are still surprised by this fact.
People act different when they are observed. Just think about how different you are when you are alone. Just think about how different you are when your aren’t thinking what so ever…
This proves quantum physics physics and the theory that observing changes the outcome, like that thing about the carbon box. If you put a cat I a box with a vial filled with nuclear energy and close it, the cat is in a state of being both alive and dead based on quantum physics, since we won’t know if the cat died until we open the box, this technically also makes the cat immortal. Or at least that’s what foot out of it but this is simple summary
I'm pretty sure it's with electrons in the experiment (maybe not) and the device can change the wave or particle based on quantum superposition or wave particle duality allowing it to behave as both as well as changing as you interact with it. It's like you touch an ant it speeds up. The act of measurement causes the photon or electron to choose a form
It's like a video game, something that isn't in sight isn't rendered (usually it refers to visual objects that have many shapes, details, collision boxes and hitboxes) untill it is observed as a way to save resources. It's like game going low detail when it's outside of the view of a player, you can see that with games that use old engines.
Any other field this would be considered a fault in the equipment or interference from the observing sensors. But we're too arrogant as a species to admit this so we just make crazy claims about it instead.
This video left out an important detail, the wave pattern only goes away with single particles when they are destroyed by the detector... (this is the observer effect, our only ways to detect for the particles destroys them!!) stop spreading misinfo and making reality seem weirder than it is. There is weird QM stuff but this isn’t it
Observation with the naked eye doesn't interfere with the behaor of the particle so the particle could be physiologically manipulated by the physiologicl makeup of the measuring tool
I can the reason is you're using a A measuring device that also has waves that interfere or even intersect the wave. So it's gonna cause the particles and the waves to act differently
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser However, what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that, unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler was not made until 8 ns after the position of the signal photon had already been measured by D0. wrong it is something fundament to do with quantum physics "Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]."
Correct, this is the best and pretty much only scientific evidence (in my opinion) supporting a simulated universe. This is actually incredibly difficult to discern.
The matrix doesn't want us to know what really is happening. This is a patch just like when you try to find bugs and manipulate a game/application the developer patches that bug.
Much of the mysteriousness of the double slit experiment disappears once you understand that 'particle' and 'wave' are just analogies. Light is its 'own' thing - its just it is a bit wave-like and a bit particle-like in certain conditions... this is only 'mysterious' if you somehow expected the fundamental 'stuff' of the universe to behave like larger objects do at the human scale. It is hard to understand the mathematics but no truly 'spooky' stuff is happening.
@@lawrencefrost9063 In the context of the sub-atomic world; Observation is Interaction... and Interaction results in Change. Its just that we don't have an analogy (like billiard balls or ocean waves) for what the fundamental 'stuff' should behave like when Changed... but we do have a detailed mathematical description; Schrodinger's equation... and while it's weird it isn't 'spooky'.
@@StuartDesign how is observation an interaction? if you're just looking with your eyes, how do you interactc with something while there is no single particle emmited from your eye towards the photons?
@@Pirroli Think about what it means to 'see' a thing. You cannot 'see' a photon without that photon entering your eye and stimulating your retina (a physical interaction). Likewise how would you detect a photon without interacting with it in some capacity (it hitting a screen, being absorbed, etc). Now, Quantum Mechanics is weird in that Light can be 'distributed' - meaning it's not in one definite place, until something interacts with it... but that's just how it is. Nothing on the human scale works exactly that way, hence why it feels 'wrong'...but we should never have expected it to in the first place.
@@StuartDesign Thank you for clarifying this to me. You seem to be very knowlegable about this quantum stuff. but i need to clarify something else : let's say we god rid of the human eye, and instead we put a device to see what's happening, do we get the same results ? ( i mean, do photons end up as mutiple lines if the device ( camera for example) is off and get 2 lines if the camera was on ), i do think the think the camera works like the eye in general. What do you think?
It doesn’t require simulation to explain, which is a deus ex machina approach. We expect that the universe operates in higher than 4 dimensions, and this is probably an example of how a change on spatial perspective can bias your perception of higher dimensional behavior. Describing that in a way that agrees with our limited capacity for experimental observations is proving tricky is all.
Implications could be that most of whats being observed & assumed to be true yet could also be untrue, any experiment .. We know water molecules change shape with observation & Buddhists monks praying over, I’ve seen in docos so perhaps the energy coming from those observing anything
Option 1: the interaction with the quantum particle and the measurement makes it break coherence Option 2: there’s an overarching function of probabilities that we haven’t discovered Option 1000000001: we’re in a simulation man! 🤪
You just need to learn more about physics, the device you're using to observe the streams of light is interacting with them in the mechanism of its observation, thus changing the outcome of the experiment.
that means... protons is sensitive if there's observation it will show it's magical trick if no one is looking.. but if there's observing it.. well it acts differently
