History hasn't happened yet
Discussion
Scientists as the Australian National University have carried out an interesting delayed choice experiment
It's the normal wave/particle slit experiment, except with atoms rather than photons and the slits are laser grids.
When passed through a single grid particle behaviour is seen, when passed through two grids in sequence it shows wave behaviour.
The interesting bit - the gap between the grids is large enough that the second grid is only switched on/off after the atom has passed through the first grid - in other words the history of the atom is only fixed once it is observed.
It's the normal wave/particle slit experiment, except with atoms rather than photons and the slits are laser grids.
When passed through a single grid particle behaviour is seen, when passed through two grids in sequence it shows wave behaviour.
The interesting bit - the gap between the grids is large enough that the second grid is only switched on/off after the atom has passed through the first grid - in other words the history of the atom is only fixed once it is observed.
RizzoTheRat said:
My brain hurts. Does this mean that if nobody's there to hear it a tree doesn't even fall down in the forest?
It means the tree never existed until someone sees it. At which point it's vertical or horizontal attributes can be assessed to determine it's future noise making ability.Munter said:
RizzoTheRat said:
My brain hurts. Does this mean that if nobody's there to hear it a tree doesn't even fall down in the forest?
It means the tree never existed until someone sees it. At which point it's vertical or horizontal attributes can be assessed to determine it's future noise making ability.There's another interesting experiment in a Daily Mail article which seems to suggest that uncertainty in quantum measurements goes backwards in time as well as forwards
maffski said:
If I read the release properly it would be something like 'the reason the tree fell down was because you heard it hit the ground' - that the cause was determined by the perceived effect.
There's another interesting experiment in a Daily Mail article which seems to suggest that uncertainty in quantum measurements goes backwards in time as well as forwards
This explains why when I measure up for a shelf or a curtain rail and cut it to the measured size and go to fit it and the bThere's another interesting experiment in a Daily Mail article which seems to suggest that uncertainty in quantum measurements goes backwards in time as well as forwards
d is now the wrong size. However, the uncertainty is also asymmetric - the size is always too fking short...Halmyre said:
maffski said:
If I read the release properly it would be something like 'the reason the tree fell down was because you heard it hit the ground' - that the cause was determined by the perceived effect.
There's another interesting experiment in a Daily Mail article which seems to suggest that uncertainty in quantum measurements goes backwards in time as well as forwards
This explains why when I measure up for a shelf or a curtain rail and cut it to the measured size and go to fit it and the bThere's another interesting experiment in a Daily Mail article which seems to suggest that uncertainty in quantum measurements goes backwards in time as well as forwards
d is now the wrong size. However, the uncertainty is also asymmetric - the size is always too fking short...http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Now lets get to the end of these irrational numbers shall we?
Now lets get to the end of these irrational numbers shall we?
I've been trying to further my knowledge on quantum mechanics but it sounds to me like if you go looking for particles you can find particles, if you go looking for waves you can find waves.
I'm not sure how these recent experiments are to infer that the 'particle' doesn't know what it is until we decide by observation what it is.
Does anyone have the ability to explain it at a more basic level?
I'm not sure how these recent experiments are to infer that the 'particle' doesn't know what it is until we decide by observation what it is.
Does anyone have the ability to explain it at a more basic level?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff