The Double Slit experiment

[greyg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

The findings of this experiment (and similar ones) have always fascinated me. To see the workings of consciousness not only as the is-ness inside you, but as a scientifically proven study, is amazing for me.

[Glycine]

IMO, this experiment has nothing to do with consciousness (except if everything is consciousness, in which case the experiment is not needed).
Human observers were present in both cases and didn't change anything.
The observer that they are talking about, the one that detects through which slit the electron goes through, is an electronic device that interferes/changes the electron's behavior.
In the "normal experiment", an interference pattern is obtained - showing that electrons behave both as particles and waves.
For the "consciousness experiment", they add a device (containing moving electrons) that changes the result.

[Ananda]

It's wonderful that science is finally catching up. Maybe one day children in schools will be taught the reality of who they are, and self realisation will be revealed for more than a tiny minority. Wouldn't that be heaven on earth!

[greyg]

Glycine:
Actually, no humans were present in either case. Humans measured their findings based on what the interference patterns showed after the experiment had been completed. They didn't watch as the experiment was underway.

I'm curious how you came to the understanding that the physicality of the measuring devices affected the particles' performances. The electron shooter itself is a mechanical device as well, much larger than the measuring devices, and yet that didn't alter the performances the first time round.

Anada:
I agree, it's wonderful that science has kind of been backed into a corner now. I remember there was an article in New Scientist with the headline "Reality Is An Illusion." (Obviously they mean the physical realm when referring to reality, but still very true.)

[Glycine]

Humans/Consciousness can be present without being in the same room.
The electron shooter produces the electrons in the same way in both cases, but the measuring device changes the behavior when the electron is passing by it. The change is linked to the measuring process.
Measurement cannot be done without changing the system, and this is especially obvious in the case of microscopic particles.

[karmarider]

Humans/Consciousness can be present without being in the same room.
The electron shooter produces the electrons in the same way in both cases, but the measuring device changes the behavior when the electron is passing by it. The change is linked to the measuring process.
Measurement cannot be done without changing the system, and this is especially obvious in the case of microscopic particles.

The double slit experiment, first, very consistently shows the duality of wave/particle--that something can exist both as wave and particle. This is strange enough. When observed the wave collapses to a particle. Whether a human being observes or an electron detector detects doesn't make a difference. The point is observation changes isness--not just behavior.

The experiment also showed that any attempt to determine whether the electron was a wave or particle destroyed the interference pattern; showing that isness is not deterministic.

Further, when electrons are shot one at a time, they still behave as a wave. This is very strange; this shows that there is some sort of connection amongst the electrons. How does a solitary electron know that it is part of a larger wave? The "sum of histories" explanation is unsatisfactory. Another experiment shows quantum entanglement, where two electrons produced at the same time will affect each other's behavior, even when they are separated by long distances. Still this is different; this an entanglement that is independent not just of time, which is what the quantum entanglement experiment shows, but also of space.

The double-slit experiment challenges an assumption that science makes, and that is that universe is objective. Science presumes the universe is separate and can be understood through observation. That measurement is intrusive does not challenge the presumption; that only shows that the universe is not deterministic (the Heisenberg Principle). That observation changes isness is a very different thing. The double-slit experiment shows that the universe is not objective.

[greyg]

I'll post a bit about the EPR Parodox that karmarider mentions:

"The experiment is so named because it was a thought experiment devised by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. As with Schrödinger's cat-in-the-box experiment, its purpose was to expose the 'foolishness' of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The experiment focuses on the phenomenon of quantum theory known as 'non-locality', which concerns communication between particles. A pair of protons, for example, associated with one another in a configuration called the singlet state will always have a total angular momentum of zero, as they each have equal and opposite amounts of spin. Just as we have seen in the other experiments, the protons will not collapse their probability wave and 'decide' which spin to adopt, until they have been observed. If you measure the spin of one proton, according to quantum theory, the other proton instantly 'knows' and adopts the opposite spin. So far so good, we have come to expect this sort of behaviour from particles, so what is the problem with this particular experiment?

It is possible, and has been carried out in laboratory tests over a short distance, to split the particles apart and send them in opposite directions and then measure one of them for spin. The instant it is measured, and the spin determined, the other particle adopts the opposite spin. The time interval is zero, the event takes place instantaneously, even though the particles are separated, and theoretically would still do so even if they were separated by a distance measured in light years. This is what upset Einstein, the implication that particles could communicate at faster than light speed, as it is impossible for this to happen according to Einstein's theory of relativity."

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm

[Sighclone]

Einstein referred to this entanglement as "spooky actions at a distance." He never resolved the Copenhagen interpretation - the EPR paradox remains unresolved, I believe. Moreover, Bell's Theorem, which has been proved experimentally by Aspect and Gisin, has radically challenged our understanding of space-time, and, by the way, helped me to accept intellectually the experience of nondual unity consciousness.

Namaste, Andy

[ashley72]

Andy,

You might find this interesting in respect to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

http://www.clemson.edu/glimpse/?p=1177

[Sighclone]

Thanks, ash. I'm always open to new interpretations, esp for spooky stuff!

Andy

[ashley72]

Andy,

Another article worth reading.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... s-revealed

More and more experimental proof that a "concrete" wave does not collapse simply by observing it!

[DavidB]

There is no spoon.

[ashley72]

There is no spoon.

David,

Your post is unneeded.. your signature says enough about your philosophy ... Now go back to the state of pure being (oscillating between wisdom & love) & stop annoying me!

[Clouded]

Maybe you will find this video interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agI2O8C8pGA

[DavidB]

The double slit experiment proved two things, that a particle can behave like a wave, and that observation of an experiment can and does influence the result.

This says two things to me.

1) The wave influences the field in which it moves, appearing to behave as a wave, when not observed.

2) The observer further influences the field, disrupting the wave, causing it to appear as a particle. The observer then, is in some regard, another wave of influence.

Where two waves merge, there is a crest. So a particle in my estimation, is a crest of a wave.This can influence our perception of consciousness, or at least the potentiality and emergent properties of consciousness.The field in this regard could be hypothesized to be the field of consciousness, and the waves the potential, and the intersecting waves the emergent properties. Or something like that.