Double slit experiment revision

E

Ethernos D Grace

Registered Senior Member
What if u change screen after each electron is shot through a laser where particle collapse n later combine all the screen to see if it creates a wave pattern?
Low hanging fruit.lol
 
Ethernos D Grace said:
What if u change screen after each electron is shot through a laser where particle collapse n later combine all the screen to see if it creates a wave pattern?
Low hanging fruit.lol
Click to expand...
Yes, it will still form an interference pattern.

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


electrondiffraction.jpg

1*AHZhqp9G0VN7nD8GZB8C6g.gif
 
There you go, the appearance of an interference pattern is statistical.

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

Which is to say, the pattern depends on how many dots are in it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes, it will still form an interference pattern.
Click to expand...

If you are a scientist, this answer is not acceptable.
You can postulate this, accordingly to what you think you already know, or even propose it as an hypothesis but you can't claim it to be the thruth unless you have experimented it for real.
Therefore the answer is : We dont know and an experience must be achieved to verify this point.
 
Dicart said:
If you are a scientist, this answer is not acceptable.
You can postulate this, accordingly to what you think you already know, or even propose it as an hypothesis but you can't claim it to be the thruth unless you have experimented it for real.
Therefore the answer is : We dont know and an experience must be achieved to verify this point.
Click to expand...
It’s not a postulate, it’s a confident prediction of what will be observed.

The whole point of science is to enable predictions to be made of what we should expect to observe. We do not waste our time to confirm the obvious.
 
Dicart said:
If you are a scientist, this answer is not acceptable.
You can postulate this, accordingly to what you think you already know, or even propose it as an hypothesis but you can't claim it to be the thruth unless you have experimented it for real.
Click to expand...
It has been tested and observed countless times in countless labs.
What you do think experimental quantum physicists do all day?
Drink lattes in the cafeteria and discuss Fargo episodes?
 
1. "It is obvious and it dont need to be tested."

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

So what sentence is correct ? 1 or 2 ?

In fact i think it has not been tested with the changing of the screen because it is "obvious".
This is probably the explaination why quantum mecanic (and other domains in physic) remain so mysterious after hundred years of "investigation": A lack of usefull testing because everybody is scared to test something obvious (only dumb peoples test obvious things and nobody want to be declared dumb)
 
Ah now I see the problem Dicart is having. He is concerned about uncontrolled variables affecting the experiment. We have to redo all our experiments with all variables controlled.

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

Give me a moment to see if there are other variables we should test.
(When the Moon is in the second house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars?)
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
We have yet to make sure that we still get interference patterns when:
- the lab table is aligned North-South vs. East-West
- the scientists are wearing Adidas
- Dems are in power versus Repubs.

Give me a moment to see if there are other variables we should test.
(When the Moon is in the second house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars?)
Click to expand...

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

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

There are other experiment designs you could try, related to the experiment.
Per example you can change the form of the void where the waves will expand : Square (thats what we always do in labs)/Round/Conic.
 
Dicart said:
The screen is part of the experience.
Therefore it is obvious to have special interest considering the screen.

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

There are other experiment designs you could try, related to the experiment.
Per example you can change the form of the void where the waves will expand : Square (thats what we always do in labs)/Round/Conic.
Click to expand...
Massive double standard here where you decide that you get to determine what's part of the "experience" and what's not.

If you swap out the screen between measurements why would that have any effect? Why wouldn't whatever memory you think a screen has extend to the next screen? They're all just atoms.
 
Ssssssss said:
If you swap out the screen between measurements why would that have any effect? Why wouldn't whatever memory you think a screen has extend to the next screen? They're all just atoms.
Click to expand...

I dont know.
This is how science works.
You dont know. You try. You confirm the hypothesis or not.
 
Dicart said:
This is how science works.
Click to expand...
No it isn't and I'll tell you why. Think about these experiments.

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

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

The reality is that you do one proposed by someone who can give an argument idea why the change might make a difference because otherwise you'd be wasting your time. Proposing that scientists should try every possible experiment is as dumb as proposing trying to write a good story by listing every string of 100000 characters and reading through all of the \(\approx 30^{1000000}\) "books" looking for a good one. And if you're not proposing doing every possible experiment then you have to be able to explain why yours is more important than my list of sixteen.
 
Ssssssss said:
No it isn't and I'll tell you why. Think about these experiments.

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

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

No.
The only thing i can understand from your list is that you dont understand physicaly what is "an object" and what rely every objet you mention (yes they are the same... so it is very unsusefull to cite every of them )
Furthermore you dident try to understand the primor design change.
Why changing "the screen" ?
Try to find out this point....
 
Dicart said:
In fact i think it has not been tested with the changing of the screen because it is "obvious".
Click to expand...
I think that is the reason. It is completely obvious, so nobody would waste the time to do this time consuming experiment.
 
origin said:
I think that is the reason. It is completely obvious, so nobody would waste the time to do this time consuming experiment.
Click to expand...

Yes it is obvious for some reason and therefore not tested (and nobody knows really the result).
WHAT ? YOU SPENT THE MONEY OF THE LABORATORY WITH SUCH CRAP !!!! DUMB ASS !!
 
Dicart said:
Yes it is obvious for some reason and therefore not tested (and nobody knows really the result).
Click to expand...
For some reason? Really? Are you seriously saying you don't understand why it is obvious that the results would be the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top