Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => Science Experiments => Topic started by: Zer0 on 11/06/2023 20:42:33
-
When any particle is shot from the barrel, should it not follow a straight path n just crash & smash right between both slits?
Does it somehow Curve or follow a bent path to go thru any one slit?
If Yes, then Why?
ps - | ? |
-
When any particle is shot from the barrel, should it not follow a straight path n just crash & smash right between both slits?
If you mean a bullet the answer is yes. If you mean something about the size of a Buckyball or less the answer is no, because the 'particle' is not really a particle (like a little ball), it is a quantum particle which means it has wavelike properties, like interference patterns.
Does it somehow Curve or follow a bent path to go thru any one slit?
If Yes, then Why?
No. A quantum particles wavelike properties result in an interference pattern.
-
I have heard Alot about Particle Wave Duality.
Partiwave n Wavicle n wat not!
But to Apply that same principle on Atoms & Molecules is simply too much for me to wrap my head around.
Why is it even called Quantum physics or mechanics, one could simply call it Irrational Insanity!
-
Why is it even called Quantum physics or mechanics, one could simply call it Irrational Insanity!
Quantum physics is neither irrational nor insanity, it is mind boggling though. The reason it is so mind boggling is because quantum effects are not seen in our macroscopic world experience. People are not born with a knowledge of physics we learn physics as we grow and experience the world around us. We learn things like object permanence, forces, momentum and velocity on an intuitive level before we ever learn physics in school.
We never directly experience quantum effects so we have not developed an intuition about them, so they seem strange. Even the comment that quantum objects have a wave and particle duality is misleading. Quantum objects are not waves and they are not particles and they aren't half waves and half particles. Quantum particles are objects that cannot be described classically and when you try to describe them using classical terms you will end up incorrectly describing them and will come away with a false understanding.
Quantum physics is real, consistent and can be clearly described with mathematics, but it is definitely NOT intuitive.
I often hear people say you cannot develop an intuition about quantum mechanics without doing the math. I disagree with this idea. The problem with trying to understand quantum effects from articles that don't use the math is that they will invariably try to use classic analogies. This will leave you with a mistaken understanding. To get an understanding of quantum effects you need to concentrate on the experimental results and refrain from trying to make those results 'fit into' your classical intuition. There are some excellent Youtube videos that will help you to get a bit of an intuitive understanding quantum physics. Unfortunately, there are many more terrible videos on quantum mechanics.
-
Does it somehow Curve or follow a bent path to go thru any one slit?
If Yes, then Why?
Because a "particle" isn't really a particle! We can do a lot of physics and chemistry with "billiard ball models" in which atoms are solid chunks that collide, bounce and stick together like familiar macroscopic objects. But when we look closer we notice that an atom is mostly space, and the more we think about movement, the more we realise that position and momentum do not have unique instantaneous values, so the model of a cannon ball crashing into a wall may be adequate to describe the average performance of umpteen zillion iron atoms all glued together, but not that of a single atom which might just find its way through one of the arrow slits and turn up inside the castle with a probability rather than a predictable position.
Old story of a traveller in Dublin asking the way to Cork and getting the answer "Sure, if I was going to Cork I wouldn't start from Dublin". Much the same with wave and quantum mechanics: if you start with newtonian cannon balls and just make them smaller, you don't arrive at an interference pattern, but if you start with an interference pattern you will end up with wave and quantum mechanics.
-
Confession!
I did end up watching quite a lot of videos on Utube.
I won't say they were terrible or purposefully misleading.
I suppose the creators/uploaders were trying their best to dumb it down for the lay audiences like me to digest.
& Ofcourse all the vids i watched were animated so U get the gist of it.
I kinda realize where i went wrong here...
They showed a string of particles(not photons) shooting thru the barrel, passing thru the slits, creating an interference pattern.
Then placed the whichway detector n switched it ON.
Saying wavefunction collapsed.
& No more interference pattern.
But at both occasions, i could see the particles were curving/bending.
Coz the aimcursor of the barrel to me seemed like pointing towards the spot right between the slits.
Perhaps they should Not have shown Particles in the first place.
Rather replaced them with blurry Waves.
Anyways, i would like to continue to understand this further...
1) If Something is passing thru slits & creating an Interference pattern.
Why do We simply not classify them as Waves?
2) It's Only after Measurements, that a Particle nature is observed.
Why then confuse our ownselves with Duality?
3) Superposition is simply a set of Probabilities.
But there can be only one final Possibility, Correct?
ps - Thanks for your contributions.
Plz continue to bare with me.
Many a times i've read stuff like...
Tree falls in jungle, no one there to see, it does not make no Sound.
The Moon is only there when U look at it.
The Cat is both Dead & Alive at the Same Time.
All of the Above seems like a load full of BS to mee!
-
All of the Above seems like a load full of BS to mee!
They are BS!
"Tree falls in jungle, no one there to see, it does not make no Sound." This is just a matter of semantics, it depends on how you are defining sound.
"The Moon is only there when U look at it." Nope.
"The Cat is both Dead & Alive at the Same Time." Terrible analogy a cat is either dead or alive.
1) If Something is passing thru slits & creating an Interference pattern.
Why do We simply not classify them as Waves?
The reason, as you probably saw in the video, is that when the wave hits the detector screen it leaves a dot. A wave does not hit a screen in one tiny spot, that is something particles do. But the individual dots combine to make an interference pattern, like a wave. So again, I say don't try to visualize what this quantum particle looks like because it 'looks' like something you have never seen nor will ever see.
2) It's Only after Measurements, that a Particle nature is observed.
Why then confuse our ourselves with Duality?
It is not just measurements. Essentially, any time a quantum particle interacts with another particle, the quantum particle displays a particle nature as opposed to a wave nature. For instance when an electron absorbs a photon the photon is displaying it's particle nature because the entire 'photon wave' is being absorbed by a point particle.
Your last question I will leave to someone with more knowledge than me and they can also point out any errors in my attempt to answer your other questions.
-
Yup!
It indeed is BS.
Propagated by certain Utubers as clickbaits to get more n more views.
The tree falling would create a shockwave.
The surrounding ground could be tested for clues.
The moon at times isn't visible, but tides exist.
Also moon formed before, abiogenesis later.
It is just a Probability of the cat being dead or alive, the final possibility ain't dual in nature.
I'm Sure you All have seen stuff online sayin " Physicists prove Reality is not Real " & " Scientists confirm the Universe doesn't Exist ".
Lay folks like me read up all this Stuff n feel soo cool & good.
Until we bump into a REAL scientist...
It doesn't end well for us.
: (
Philosophy, Religion, Politics are Plagued sure enough.
But Science has a few bad rats too!
(sorry)
-
1) If Something is passing thru slits & creating an Interference pattern.
Why do We simply not classify them as Waves?
The reason, as you probably saw in the video, is that when the wave hits the detector screen it leaves a dot. A wave does not hit a screen in one tiny spot, that is something particles do. But the individual dots combine to make an interference pattern, like a wave.
2) It's Only after Measurements, that a Particle nature is observed.
Why then confuse our ourselves with Duality?
It is not just measurements. Essentially, any time a quantum particle interacts with another particle, the quantum particle displays a particle nature as opposed to a wave nature. For instance when an electron absorbs a photon the photon is displaying it's particle nature because the entire 'photon wave' is being absorbed by a point particle.
So...a wave comes out of the barrel.
a wave goes thru both slits.
the wave crashes into the detector screen, wave function collapses as measurement is made.
If by algebraical deduction We reach m=f...
If a wreckin ball, a moon, a planet, all have miniscule wavelengths n frequencies..
Then is there any Unmeasured Undetected Unobserved Particle in this Universe?
[ 3) Superposition is simply a set of Probabilities.
But there can be only one final Possibility, Correct? ]
(unanswered)
ps - it doesn't seem irrational anymore, neither insane.
But measuring waves(particles) by using waves(instruments) being observed by waves(US) sure sounds SILLY!
^__^
-
1) If Something is passing thru slits & creating an Interference pattern.
Why do We simply not classify them as Waves?
2) It's Only after Measurements, that a Particle nature is observed.
Why then confuse our ownselves with Duality?
3) Superposition is simply a set of Probabilities.
But there can be only one final Possibility, Correct?
Usual problem of assuming that a model is reality.
We observe a pattern. We also observe that this pattern corresponds to what we would calculate as the interference pattern of waves emanating from both slits. But when we put a single-particle detector at the receiving end, it detects individual events with the same energy and composition as the source - no "partial electrons" or "redshifted photons".
So we need two models: a wave model of propagation and a particle model of interaction.
You can combine the two per Schrodinger by saying that the calculated wave interference pattern has the same form as the probability of finding the particle at any position downstream, which it does.
So it's more logical to say that (3) probability is modelled by superposition.
-
Thanks to You both for spending your precious Time.
Much Appreciated!
" The more i Know,
The more i Realize...
i know Nothing! "
(Gadfly)
-
Old aviators' adage:
After 100 hours you know everything
After 1000 hours you know you don't know everything
After 10000 hours you know you can't know everything
Much the same in science.
-
@Zkzm
If We know, that We cannot know, does it kinda mean, that We do Know?
(lol sorry)
Anyways, could a Layperson think of the Barrel as a hollow cylindrical Wave.
Whatever shoots outta it, a free flowing Wave as well.
The double slits as gapped out Waves too.
& the final detection wall as a huge stagnant Wave as well.
It's all higgledy-piggledy anyways, isn't it?
(lol sorry again)
-
So again, I say don't try to visualize what this quantum particle looks like because it 'looks' like something you have never seen nor will ever see.
Hmm...that sounds similar to...
Trying to write the word ' WATER '...
On the surface of water..
By using only Water!
What if the Wave Function is just a mathematical construct trying to define Probabilities.
& the crux of the problem lies in Our ways of Measurements?
(I've heard drunk people..umm..really really drunk peeps can see twos & fours of one)
Anyways, if a Lay Mind went the absolutist dogmatic way, & thought of the barrel n what comes outta it as a Particle.
The double slits & detector screen as particles too.
Would it be Really Silly then to deduce that Everything except All of Space is Waves?
-
There are some excellent Youtube videos that will help you to get a bit of an intuitive understanding quantum physics. Unfortunately, there are many more terrible videos on quantum mechanics.
Which category is this video?
-
Here's another video from The Royal Institution on double slit experiment.
-
This video emphasizes the wave behavior in double slits experiment with laser.
-
And this video puts the double slits experiment under a microscope to see the on going process.
-
@Yusuf
I have a few questions about the apparatus/instruments/devices used in the DSE.
Will you Help me in figuring out the Answers?
ps - totally fine if u can't.
-
@Yusuf
I have a few questions about the apparatus/instruments/devices used in the DSE.
Will you Help me in figuring out the Answers?
ps - totally fine if u can't.
What are the questions?
-
Let's not forget that double slits experiment is a special case of multiple edges diffraction experiments. In this case, the number of edges is four. The interference pattern produced here is like double wires experiment, which also has four edges.
I think most explanations we can find online are inadequate to account for observed effects in variations of multiple edges diffraction experiments.
The Original Double Slit Experiment
Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light made up of waves or particles?
The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots. Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did in his experiment.
The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was impressive for observers at the beach.
-
@Yusuf
I have a few questions about the apparatus/instruments/devices used in the DSE.
Will you Help me in figuring out the Answers?
ps - totally fine if u can't.
What are the questions?
I would like to know the following...
Only concerning an Atom & Not Photons.
1) What is the Size of the Single Atom in DSE?
2) There are 2 Slits.
|A| & |B|
What is the |Size| of each slit?
3) What is the Size of the gap between both Slits?
|A|<--Size-->|B|
4) In a Sniper rifle, there is an aiming scope with Crosshairs.
(+)
The firing tube or discharging cylinder thru which the Atom is sent in the Direction of the Slits...it must be Aiming at a Specific point.
So where is or on what is the Crosshair aimed at?
Slit A?
|(+)| |B|
Slit B?
|A| |(+)|
Or Right in the Centre of A & B?
|A| (+) |B|
ps - i have a few more doubts, shall ask later on, Thanks!
-
I never made the double slit experiment using particles. I only used light. So, what I'm going to write is not based on first hand experience.
1) The size of single atom can be found in the online periodic table. But I read that DSE has been done with large molecules such as C60, Buckminsterfullerene.
2) Some source require the size of the slits and the gap between them to have similar size as the wavelength, although experimentally, we can still get the interference pattern with the aperture size a thousand times larger than the wavelength.
3)ditto
4) Since the pattern is usually symmetrical, it's likely that the cross hair is aimed at the center, which is the gap between the slits. But it's not a sharpshooter, hence the bullets spread around the cross hair according to a statistical distribution.
-
3) Ditto means what?
&
You sure about point 4)?
DSE conducted with Molecules, Aiming right at the Centre gap of 2 Slits, should produce No Pattern.
Why do they deviate from a Straight path?
Isn't the experiment conducted in a Vacuum?
& What about Gravitational Fields & Static Charges, is Everything accounted for?
ps - What I'm trying to Understand but Failing...
If the ' Bullet ' is ' Aimed ' n fired,
Why does it " Miss the Target " ?
Is the ' Gun ' a Sniper rifle or a damm Shotgun?
-
3) Ditto means what?
&
You sure about point 4)?
DSE conducted with Molecules, Aiming right at the Centre gap of 2 Slits, should produce No Pattern.
Why do they deviate from a Straight path?
Isn't the experiment conducted in a Vacuum?
& What about Gravitational Fields & Static Charges, is Everything accounted for?
ps - What I'm trying to Understand but Failing...
If the ' Bullet ' is ' Aimed ' n fired,
Why does it " Miss the Target " ?
Is the ' Gun ' a Sniper rifle or a damm Shotgun?
Same as above.
I think so.
I think it's called uncertainty.
Anything hotter than absolute zero are in state of motion.
-
Honestly...DSE has Alot of Uncertainties.
Right at the beginning of every video I've watched...
It is said, " We shall shoot a stream of Particles " OR " We shall emit one Particle at a time ".
Why are WE even calling or naming them as Particles?
Why not say or use the term
" Blobs " ?
ps - weirdly funny, the emitting rod is a blob, the slits are blobs, the detector screen blobs & we're blobs too!
(lol)
-
Honestly...DSE has Alot of Uncertainties.
Right at the beginning of every video I've watched...
It is said, " We shall shoot a stream of Particles " OR " We shall emit one Particle at a time ".
Why are WE even calling or naming them as Particles?
Why not say or use the term
" Blobs " ?
ps - weirdly funny, the emitting rod is a blob, the slits are blobs, the detector screen blobs & we're blobs too!
(lol)
I think it came from historical context. Google Bard tells me.
A particle is a small localized object which can be described by several physical or chemical properties, such as volume, density, or mass. In the physical sciences, particles are the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy.
I think that using particle model to describe electromagnetic propagation has a lot of drawbacks. It doesn't seem to be localized, as I found out in my experiment with microwave attempting to measure the "size of photons".