[nicky]

nicky asked the Naked Scientists:
   
The conclusion for the double split experiment was that particles behave
differently when 'being observed' - ie it was mysteriously just the ACT
of us OBSERVING that changes particle behaviour.

Is it not possible that it was the observing APPARATUS ITSELF that was interfering with the particle behaviour & therefore the experiment ?

How exactly did they detect the respective particles (photons/electrons)- what type of apparatus did they use? No one ever questions this?


What do you think?

[Chemistry4me]

Why are there so many people asking about this double slit experiment?

[demadone]

I have problems understanding the hologram theory. It sounds absurd. But I guess it deserves the benefit of a doubt.

So 3D doesn't exist? This isn't science.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Why are there so many people asking about this double slit experiment?

Because it's so interesting?

[Chemistry4me]

Are you interested in it too?

[Madidus_Scientia]

It blows my mind actually

[demadone]

In the back of my mind, when I read about the hologram theory, I was hoping they got wrong readings or that the theory is wrong. I need to find an easier explanation of the theory.

[lightarrow]

nicky asked the Naked Scientists:
   
The conclusion for the double split experiment was that particles behave
differently when 'being observed' - ie it was mysteriously just the ACT
of us OBSERVING that changes particle behaviour.

Is it not possible that it was the observing APPARATUS ITSELF that was interfering with the particle behaviour & therefore the experiment ?

How exactly did they detect the respective particles (photons/electrons)- what type of apparatus did they use? No one ever questions this?


What do you think?

It's only ~ 80 years that physicists are discussing about these things  []
When, in divulgative books or papers, they talk about 'being observed' they usually (but not always!) mean 'detected' by the apparatus.
What you say about the apparatus 'interfering' with the particle behaviour should be better expressed in this way:
"Is it possible that the real property of the particle considered doesn't exist, independently of the measuring apparatus?"
That's exactly what I think, but it's only a special kind of interpretation of QM: 'Relational Interpretation':
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

The core idea is to read the theory as a theoretical account of the way distinct physical systems affect each other when they interact (and not of the way physical systems "are")

Of course we have discussed these things a lot of times in this forum...

[lyner]

I have problems understanding the hologram theory. It sounds absurd. But I guess it deserves the benefit of a doubt.

So 3D doesn't exist? This isn't science.

What didn't you get about holograms?

[LeeE]

Hologram theory in what sense?  Are you questioning how holograms work, or the idea that every fragment of anything contains a representation of everything?

[demadone]

I can't understand why the observed flakiness in the observed light leads to a conclusion that things are actually happening in a distant point of the universe. What is transmitting the 3D hologram and in what medium?

[lightarrow]

Hologram theory in what sense?  Are you questioning how holograms work, or the idea that every fragment of anything contains a representation of everything?

I think demadone is talking about the theory of the holographyc universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
http://community.livejournal.com/ref_sciam/1190.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

However I don't understand what this has to do with the OP's question.

[demadone]

Oops, my bad. I mistook the double slit experiment with something about the flakiness of split light from very distant galaxies. Sorry if I confused anyone [] [].

[LeeE]

Ah right - thanks lightarrow.