Does Human Observation Affect the Double Slit Experiment Results?

[laymanB]

Let's say we do a double slit experiment with the standard laser/two slit setup with a screen to view the pattern.

1. In the first run, we just turn on the laser and observe the screen with our unaided eyes. We see an interference pattern consistent with the wave-like nature of light, correct?

2. In the second run, we place a video camera on the screen and start recording while we observe the laser light between the source and the two slits with our unaided eyes. When we view the recording from the camera we still see an interference pattern on the screen, correct?

3. In the final run, we place a video camera on the screen and start recording while we observe the laser light between the two slits and the screen with our unaided eyes. When we view the recording from the camera we still see an interference pattern on the screen, correct?

Would not this experiment show that the unaided human eye and brain (or consciousness if you want to use that term) have no effect on the laser light displaying wave-like behavior as opposed to particle-like behavior?

 

[PeterDonis]

The answer to all three of your questions is "yes, correct".

Would not this experiment show that the unaided human eye and brain (or consciousness if you want to use that term) have no effect on the laser light displaying wave-like behavior as opposed to particle-like behavior?

No, because your human eye and brain still has to look at the recording from the video camera and observe that it shows an interference pattern. So a person who wanted to claim that only human consciousness collapses the wave function (or affects the wave-like vs. particle-like behavior of the light, or whatever) could still claim that, until the human looked at it, the video camera recording was actually in a superposition and had not yet collapsed.

A better response to this kind of claim (i.e., a claim that only human consciousness can collapse the wavefunction, etc.) is that, since it is inherently untestable (I've just explained how it can explain away any possible test result you can imagine), it's not a scientific claim.

 

[Khashishi]

How do you intend to observe the laser light before it hits the screen? In practice, there's some dust in the air which will cause the laser to scatter and be visible. Is that what you are talking about?

 

[laymanB]

How do you intend to observe the laser light before it hits the screen? In practice, there's some dust in the air which will cause the laser to scatter and be visible. Is that what you are talking about?

I hadn't really thought about that. Can't you see some laser beams with the unaided eye?

 

[laymanB]

The answer to all three of your questions is "yes, correct".

No, because your human eye and brain still has to look at the recording from the video camera and observe that it shows an interference pattern. So a person who wanted to claim that only human consciousness collapses the wave function (or affects the wave-like vs. particle-like behavior of the light, or whatever) could still claim that, until the human looked at it, the video camera recording was actually in a superposition and had not yet collapsed.

A better response to this kind of claim (i.e., a claim that only human consciousness can collapse the wavefunction, etc.) is that, since it is inherently untestable (I've just explained how it can explain away any possible test result you can imagine), it's not a scientific claim.

But would not the recording on the video camera then show two marks on the screen consistent with particle-like behavior, even if the result was delayed until I watched the video.

 

[Khashishi]

Of course you can see the beam if you stick your eye in the beam. But you can't see the beam just looking at it from the side (except the parts that scatter on dust).

 

[laymanB]

Of course you can see the beam if you stick your eye in the beam. But you can't see the beam just looking at it from the side.

Then if we had some fine particles in the air, like dust, in which to scatter the laser to view it from other angles, would this compromise our experiment?

 

[Khashishi]

The dust helps you see the laser but it doesn't give you any which way information for individual photons hitting the screen, since the photons that hit the dust don't make it to the screen. You will see a double slit pattern.

 

[DrChinese]

I hadn't really thought about that. Can't you see some laser beams with the unaided eye?

You can certainly see laser light that reflects in your direction from dust or gas or other particles the light encounters. But otherwise you would not see that light unless it was going straight into your eyes.

 

[PeterDonis]

would not the recording on the video camera then show two marks on the screen consistent with particle-like behavior

Why? Particle-like behavior only happens if you have something at each slit that records which slit the light went through. Your description of the setup didn't include that, so I assumed it wasn't there. Putting it there changes the experiment.

 

[laymanB]

I am just trying to sort out what seems to be the claim that "observing" or "looking" at the laser light is enough to change the behavior from wave-like to particle-like. Some of the more reputable QM physicists that I have watched on different programs seem to be saying that experimental results change if we "look" or "observe". But if the "photons or waves" or whatever you want to call them in this superposition state never make it to your eyes, you have not "observed" them. So how do you "observe" a "photon or whatever" without interacting with it, and changing it's momentum or position?

 

[laymanB]

Why? Particle-like behavior only happens if you have something at each slit that records which slit the light went through. Your description of the setup didn't include that, so I assumed it wasn't there. Putting it there changes the experiment.

No, you are correct. I did not have such a device in this experiment.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am just trying to sort out what seems to be the claim that "observing" or "looking" at the laser light is enough to change the behavior from wave-like to particle-like.

Then you need to point us at a reputable source (textbook or peer-reviewed paper) that makes the claim, so we can look at what it says. Pop science videos or articles or TV shows don't count. Physicists will say all kinds of things in such venues that they know they can't get away with in a textbook or peer-reviewed paper.

 

[laymanB]

Then you need to point us at a reputable source (textbook or peer-reviewed paper) that makes the claim, so we can look at what it says. Pop science videos or articles or TV shows don't count. Physicists will say all kinds of things in such venues that they know they can't get away with in a textbook or peer-reviewed paper.

Busted. I was hoping that Filipenko, Carroll, Greene, Susskind, and Weinberg from PBS Nova couldn't steer me wrong. Stupid pop-sci misinformation.

 

[laymanB]

if you have something at each slit that records which slit the light went through

How does such a device interact with the "light wave"?

 

[PeterDonis]

How does such a device interact with the "light wave"?

It depends on the device. The key point is that, with such a device present, the outcome of the experiment is now not "what is observed on the screen", but "what is observed on the screen, plus which slit's device registers the passage of a photon".

 

[DrChinese]

How does such a device interact with the "light wave"?

To add to PeterDonis' answer: there are a number of approaches. I like one in which the slits have polarizers in front.

a. Orient the polarizers PERPENDICULAR, and it is possible to identify which slit the light goes through by its polarization. Regardless of whether you check the light's polarization or not, there will be NO interference pattern on the screen.

b. Orient the polarizers PARALLEL, and it is impossible to identify which slit the light goes through by its polarization. There WILL be an interference pattern on the screen.

Obviously, it is a bit difficult to assert that the individual polarizer itself modified the momentum of each light particle so as to collapse the interference. Because there are polarizers present in both a. and b. It is only the relative orientation that is a factor.

 

[laymanB]

It depends on the device. The key point is that, with such a device present, the outcome of the experiment is now not "what is observed on the screen", but "what is observed on the screen, plus which slit's device registers the passage of a photon".

Thanks, I appreciate the responses. Is there a free paper online that you could recommend that discusses the different mechanisms for detection of said photons and what implications the mechanism may have on the nature of the light ray?

 

[laymanB]

To add to PeterDonis' answer: there are a number of approaches. I like one in which the slits have polarizers in front.

a. Orient the polarizers PERPENDICULAR, and it is possible to identify which slit the light goes through by its polarization. Regardless of whether you check the light's polarization or not, there will be NO interference pattern on the screen.

b. Orient the polarizers PARALLEL, and it is impossible to identify which slit the light goes through by its polarization. There WILL be an interference pattern on the screen.

Obviously, it is a bit difficult to assert that the individual polarizer itself modified the momentum of each light particle so as to collapse the interference. Because there are polarizers present in both a. and b. It is only the relative orientation that is a factor.

Fascinating.

 

[DrChinese]

Fascinating.

I think so. Here is a more detail description if you are interested:

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...-demonstrations/files/single_photon_paper.pdf

 

[laymanB]

Do electrons have polarization also?

 

[Nugatory]

Let's say we do a double slit experiment with the standard laser/two slit setup with a screen to view the pattern.

That's a standard experiment, but not one that has anything to do with quantum mechanics. You shine light through a barrier with two slits, you see an interference pattern on the screen behind the barrier because according to ordinary non-quantum electrodynamics light is a wave and waves interfere behind a barrier with two slits. This is all stuff that was observed early in the 19th century (Young's double-slit experiment) and completely explained by 1861 (Maxwell's equations of classical electrodynamics), more than a half-century before any quantum phenomena had been observed.

To demonstrate quantum effects, you need a source that sends a single photon at a time towards the barrier. Because you're sending a single photon, it's just going to make a dot where it lands on the screen - there's no pattern to be seen. To get a pattern, you use something like a piece of photographic film that records each individual dot as it forms; and then when you're done with the experiment and develop the film you'll see a whole bunch of dots that form some pattern (A google image search for "quantum interference pattern builds up" will find many good examples).

Now we see something that is uniquely quantum mechanical and that has no classical explanation: We send the particles one at a time, and each one makes a single dot on the screen; but when two slits are open the dots form an interference pattern even though classically we'd expect each particle to go through one slit or the other and make a dot behind that slit. Then if we close one slit, or place a detector (such as drChinese's polarizers if we're using photons) we find that the dots don't form an interference pattern. We get either a clump behind each slit (we have a detector in one of the slits) or we get one clump behind one open slit (we closed the other slit).

Either way, conscious observation is pretty much irrelevant. The pattern is in the photographic film whether we develop it and look at it or not.

Do electrons have polarization also?

No, but they have other properties that we can use (electric charge, magnetic moment) to build a detector that will tell us which slit an electron went through. However, this entire question of observing which slit the particle went through is a bit of a red herring - the uniquely quantum mechanical phenomenon is that when both slits are open and there is no detector, the one-particle-at-a-time experiments produce an interference pattern. Not getting an interference pattern isn't surprising, it's what you'd expect out of a single particle moving from source to screen.

 

[PeterDonis]

Do electrons have polarization also?

They have spin, which has similarities to photon polarization, but is not quite the same (because electrons are spin-1/2 fermions and photons are spin-1 bosons).

 

[bhobba]

Busted. I was hoping that Filipenko, Carroll, Greene, Susskind, and Weinberg from PBS Nova couldn't steer me wrong. Stupid pop-sci misinformation.

Susskind? I know his QM book and he doesn't say that.

But overall books, shows, etc about QM written for a lay audience, to try and get some feel for QM across, take liberties with the 'truth'. Come here if you want the correct answer.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Either way, conscious observation is pretty much irrelevant. The pattern is in the photographic film whether we develop it and look at it or not.

Can you prove this scientifically?

 

[bhobba]

Can you prove this scientifically?

Are you suggesting the chemical reactions that took place on the photographic plate were not there when developed? I don't think a chemist wouldn't believe that. Prove it - of course you can't - but the world would be rather strange if it wasn't like that. Scientists generally believe a tree that falls in a forest when no one is there to listen still makes a noise - its philosophers that argue about such - well I won't mince my words - from a scientific viewpoint - nonsense. I for example could say forces don't move things - every-time something moves it was the shade of Newton that did it and forces made him do it. Prove its not true - of course you can't - but scientists apply common-sense.

Its like my doctor was telling me the other day there was this famous medical practitioner who in virtually every other way was excellent - but he believed in Homeopathy. Its obvious Homeopathy is rot of the first order, but he actually put it to the scientific test and of course found out it was rot. He was then good enough to stop believing in it - but really - why bother - its just so damn obvious.

QM seems to be one of those areas people make the job of understanding much harder than it should be.

Thanks
Bill

 

[laymanB]

Susskind? I know his QM book and he doesn't say that.

To be fair to Susskind, I don't think he said that in these PBS Nova programs. Most of the other scientists that I listed did though. I'm sure the producers of Nova knew they would lose a lot of viewers if they starting talking about definitions of measurements/observations and methodologies used in experiments. It is far more sensational to introduce some philosophical idealism to blow people's minds.

 

[vanhees71]

To be fair to Susskind, I don't think he said that in these PBS Nova programs. Most of the other scientists that I listed did though. I'm sure the producers of Nova knew they would lose a lot of viewers if they starting talking about definitions of measurements/observations and methodologies used in experiments. It is far more sensational to introduce some philosophical idealism to blow people's minds.

The difference beteween philosophers and natural scientists is that the latter try to understand Nature while the former take the results from science and make them as incomprehensible as possible. SCNR.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Are you suggesting the chemical reactions that took place on the photographic plate were not there when developed? I don't think a chemist wouldn't believe that. Prove it - of course you can't - but the world would be rather strange if it wasn't like that. Scientists generally believe a tree that falls in a forest when no one is there to listen still makes a noise - its philosophers that argue about such - well I won't mince my words - from a scientific viewpoint - nonsense. I for example could say forces don't move things - every-time something moves it was the shade of Newton that did it and forces made him do it. Prove its not true - of course you can't - but scientists apply common-sense.

Its like my doctor was telling me the other day there was this famous medical practitioner who in virtually every other way was excellent - but he believed in Homeopathy. Its obvious Homeopathy is rot of the first order, but he actually put it to the scientific test and of found out it was rot. He was then good enough to stop believing in it - but really - why bother - its just so damn obvious.

QM seems to be one of those areas people make the job of understanding much harder than it should be.

Thanks
Bill

From your argumentation, it seems to me that you assume that there exists an objective, observer-independent reality. I have no problem with that, of course, although I have a complete different point of view. But these are mere assumptions which cannot be proven by means of physics. Thus, what I find annoying when following discussions about quantum mechanics (QM) is that sometimes “statements” are made alongside without disclosing the implicit assumptions these “statements” are based upon. What someone assumes or not, has nothing to do with physics. QM provides calculational recipes to predict the probabilities of various directly observed macroscopic outcomes and the used symbols, such as the probability amplitudes, are intellectual tools used by physicists to perform these calculations. That’s all, QM describes a priori no external reality and you will find no answer in QM whether there is something out there or not or whether a conscious observer plays a decisive role or not.

 

[laymanB]

I think so. Here is a more detail description if you are interested:

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...-demonstrations/files/single_photon_paper.pdf

Thanks for the link. I see in this experimental setup there is a second polarizer which is used as a "quantum eraser". One which makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon went through. Is there an experiment with electrons that utilizes such an eraser?

 

[laymanB]

Thus, what I find annoying when following discussions about quantum mechanics (QM) is that sometimes “statements” are made alongside without disclosing the implicit assumptions these “statements” are based upon.

I understand what you are saying, history has always shown that it is hard to argue with someone who holds to an idealism philosophy. But unless we agree on the rules of language and the law of non-contradiction in logic, you cannot have a meaningful discussion with someone else. I'm sure it's frustrating, as it seems a lot of people on here either take a realist position or don't disclose their position because they know you could argue in circles forever. Like it has been stated many times in these threads and you just said yourself, it is not a question which science can answer.

What frustrates me about these pop-sci shows like Nova is they give you the impression that everyone accepts a non-realist position instead of clearly saying that there are different interpretations of QM, some of which are mutually exclusive, and adopting a certain interpretation has no bearing on the observed facts and the non-intuitive nature of the subatomic world.

 

[DrChinese]

Thanks for the link. I see in this experimental setup there is a second polarizer which is used as a "quantum eraser". One which makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon went through. Is there an experiment with electrons that utilizes such an eraser?

I am not aware of one with electrons, no. There are a variety of interference experiments relating to particles other than light or electrons, but again I am not aware of ones that happen to use this technique. But perhaps another member does...

 

[laymanB]

I am not aware of one with electrons, no. There are a variety of interference experiments relating to particles other than light or electrons, but again I am not aware of ones that happen to use this technique. But perhaps another member does...

Thanks. I was just thinking if you could do something similar with electrons, it would provide further credence to some sort of retrocausality and not some specific effects of the polarization of light. I'm probably thinking about it too simplistically.

 

[PeterDonis]

Can you prove this scientifically?

No; you can't "prove" anything scientifically. You can only accumulate evidence and compare it with the predictions of various theories.

In the case under discussion, the basis for the statement @Nugatory made is that we expect decoherence to occur when the light hits the photographic film--i.e., long before any conscious observation becomes involved in the process. We would only expect consciousness to be required for the pattern to be "there" if no decoherence occurred until whatever-it-was began to interact with the portions of the observer's brain that were involved in consciousness. But there is no known case where that happens: there are always other objects in the causal chain (things like photographic films, detectors, recording instruments, etc.) which will induce decoherence long before the causal chain reaches a conscious observer.

 

[Khashishi]

A photographic film measures the which way information of the photon and encodes it into the chemicals of the film, much like the polarizers measure the which way information and encodes it into the polarization of the photon. So the photon creates a single dot on the film somewhere rather than spreading over the whole film. Now, if the film were carefully destroyed without observing it, theoretically it should be possible to erase the measurement such that the photon is/was retroactively no longer localized to a point on the film prior to destruction. But the film is constantly interacting with the environment, so the information stored on the film spreads like a virus, and in practice it's not possible to erase the measurement. It's hard to build a quantum computer because any interactions with the environment destroys the superposition in the qubits.