Quantum Physics

We've created animations of important experiments and presented them in chronological order to help those of us who are non-scientists understand the basic concepts of quantum physics. (During this beta-test phase of building the website, we don't yet have the soundtrack for some of the animations.)

Thomas Young Experiment

In the 1800's physicist Thomas Young showed that light had a wave property, since it created an interference pattern like waves in water when it went through two slits in a barrier.

Comments (1 with 0 Responses)

That proves Ether

Let's imagine doing the double slit experiment with water 'particles' in vacuum. We would obviously get a particle pattern of impacts on the 'hydrosenstive' detector screen. No imagine we repeat the experiment under water. Now the same water particles which produced particle pattern before would now result in a wave pattern of impacts on the 'hydrosensitive' detector screen. The reason is that each water particle that gets fired would initiate a water wave and parts of the wave pass through the two slits, emerge on the other side, interfere with each and result in the interference pattern on the detector screen. Similarly, the interference pattern produced by photons can be easily explained by proposing the existence of a cosmic ocean of photons (one may call that as Ether or Higg's ocean) without resorting to the illogical propositions of the quantum theory. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/12/08/explaining-the-double-slit-experiment/

Questions (2 with 2 Responses)

Second

A Second Question

Sound?

Do any of these clips have sound?

Responses (2 with 0 Responses)

Yes

All the clips on this page have audio now.

Sound

The animations will have narration soon. We wanted to get them online ASAP to start beta testing, so we didn't wait for the audio.

The Double Slit Experiment

In the early 20th century, Einstein explained that light travels as particles called photons. So it was assumed that the photons were colliding with each other after going through the slits to somehow create the interference pattern (also known as a wave or fringe pattern), which gave an illusion that light was a wave. To test the theory that photons are particles, physicists experimented with firing one photon at a time at the slits. They expected to see a particle pattern on the screen, like they were firing little pellets as illustrated in this animation:

Detectors

However, the physicists were very surprised to find that the experiment still resulted in an interference pattern. So they put detectors on the slits to see what was happening and got a particle pattern again! And when they removed the detectors, they were back to an interference pattern:

Comments (2 with 0 Responses)

Detector collapses the wave

I believe that light is a wave until it forced to give up it's energy and that's when it reacts with an atom in the target where upon it gives the energy to the atom. So if the detector detects a particle or photon then the wave has collapsed because the detector has forced it to.

Effect of placing the detectors

Detection involves blocking the path of one wavelet. So only one wavelet emerges on the other side each time, hence no interference occurs i.e. particle pattern is produced on the screen.

The Measurement Problem

Since measuring / observing the photons caused the wave property to "collapse" to a particle, the phenomena became known as the "measurement problem." It was a problem for a lot of physicists wedded to Newtonian physics because for quantum physicists, the experiment showed that consciousness was involved in the process of creating our reality. As Nobel Prize winning physicist, Eugene P. Wigner said, "...it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality." To combat that assault on a Newtonian concept of an objective physical universe, opponents claimed that observation of the photons couldn't be causing the wave function to collapse, instead, the detectors must be physically affecting the photons.

Comments (2 with 3 Responses)

Dean Radin's double slit experiments involving human "observation" of light passing through the slits

Dean Radin has done some experiments in which he has people try to direct their attention (in their mind's) on the two slits in order to see if fringe visibility (a defraction pattern) is reduced. Quoting from his paper, "During a test session, participants were instructed by the computer to direct their attention toward the doubleslit apparatus or to withdraw their attention and relax. To announce the attention-toward task, a computer-synthesized voice said, ‘‘Please influence the beam now’’; for attention away, it said, ‘‘You may now relax.’’ Participants were asked to direct their attention toward two tiny slits located inside a sealed black box (the double-slit optical system). It was explained that this task was purely in the ‘‘mind’s eye,’’ i.e., an act of imagination. To many this instruction proved to be somewhat abstract, so to assist their imagination they were shown a 5 min animation of the double-slit experiment, where a particle detector was portrayed as analogous to a human eye. If the task was still unclear, it was suggested that they could try to mentally block one of the slits, or to ‘‘become one with’’ the optical system in a contemplative way, or to mentally push the laser beam to cause it to go through one of the two slits rather than both." Reduced diffraction was observed for the times when the subjects (experienced meditators) were focusing on the beam.

Responses (1 with 1 Response)

Dean Radin's Double Slit Experiment.

Our plan is to eventually post an animation of the experiment on this page as the ultimate evolution of the Double Slit Experiment to the point where it becomes a true bridge between physics and consciousness research. However, besides creating the animation, we want to first understand the math that led Radin to conclude that the experiment demonstrated statistically significant results. Unfortunately, we can't follow the math well enough. Can you? We need someone to put it in laymen's terms.

Responses (1 with 0 Responses)

Contact Dean Radin

I have been in email contact with Dr. Radin and he said he would gladly help with any questions about the experiments to assist the animation. You can find his contact information here: http://noetic.org/directory/person/dean-radin/ I suggest getting in contact with him and asking any questions you have. I'm not a math expert either and don't understand all of the details either.

Dean Radin's research on when the collapse occurs

Dean Radin, PhD. has done work on the question of when the collapse happens, and the results show that it must be when a conscious observer first views the results. He has done retro-causal PK experiments in which a binary random number generator built from an electron gun, a semitransparent mirror (M) and two electron counters (C1 and C2) was used to generate binary numbers (0s and 1s) which were recorded on a magnetic tape. On the tape, if the electron was registered in C1 you would hear a right click and if registered in C2 you would hear a left click, and there was a 50/50 probability for the electron to go into C1 or C2. The tapes were recorded, but no one looked at the results (listened to the tape) until later. At a later date the tape was listened to and as the person listened, they tried to skew the results by willing more clicks into either the left or right ear. The results (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html) show a deviation from chance in the "willed" direction whereas control tapes (where the results were recorded and the results observed without willing the clicks into the left or right ear) show no significant deviation from chance. Radin has also informed me that if the tape is first listened to and the results noted, then someone else gets the tape and tries to will the clicks into the left or right ear the PK effect doesn't work. It has to be done with the results are first looked at (heard in this case) These results are strongly suggestive that everything remains in superposition until a conscious observer first looks at the results.

Responses (1 with 0 Responses)

Tiny Effect

The problem I have with much of Dean Radin's data is that it shows a very tiny effect. In much of his research the effect is often a couple percentage points beyond random chance. And I wonder if this is could be explained by "researcher bias" more than the effect actually, consistently working.

The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

Finally, the question of whether the detectors were physically causing the wave function to collapse was settled by experiments like the 1999 Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. It was performed by a team of physicists led by Dr. Marlan Scully, currently a professor at Princeton, Texas A&M and Baylor universities. (See the article about a recent visit with Dr. Scully.) The experiment showed that the wave property couldn't possibly be collapsed into a particle by some physical effect of the detectors. That's because there were no detectors between the slits and the screen and the "which-path" detection was made after the photons were already registered on the screen.

As quantum physicists have said for almost a hundred years, there is no physical action required to cause quanta to act like particles. Merely having the information about which path a quanta took is the determining factor as to whether the quanta behaves as a probability wave or a particle. In other words, information / data / knowledge is paramount. (Which is one of the reasons that we're interested in physicist Tom Campbell's digital virtual reality model that is featured in our THEORIES section.)

Following is an animation to show how the results were obtained in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. (If you'd like to see just the full graphic without any explanation, click here.)

Disagreements (1 with 1 Response)

Consciousness affecting experiment not true.

If particles/photons are assumed to go through the prism then it leads to ideas about our consciousness playing a part in the outcome of the experiment. But the following explanation rules this out. One of the entangled particles appears at D0 with or without an interference pattern, depending on the entangled wave through path A & B. The other entangled particle appears at: 1. D3/D4, where wave paths A & B are seperated, therefore no interference. 2. D1/D2, where wave paths are combined causing interference. As paths A & B are longer than the path to D0, there is a mystery here because the outcome of D0 should occur before any detection at D1 to D4. So It appears either, photons landing at D0 can see the future result of D1 to D4 or vica-versa.

Responses (1 with 0 Responses)

nonlocality

The result is no different to the nonlocality displayed by entangled particles, in that the effect seems to transcend our notion of time and space, yet it does not violate causality as the correlation cannot be confirmed without bringing the two sets of data together, which cannot be done at faster than c, hence no information is transmitted. The photon is travelling at c already so it does not experience time, (infinite time dilation), but exists simultaneously as a point in spacetime which extends through the entirety of its path from creation to destruction. It finds its path and the path of its quantum twin instantaneously, it is only our experiment which experiences time and thus gives the illusion of retrocausality.

Questions (2 with 0 Responses)

What's Missing Here

Since the length of all of the paths - including the "eraser" paths - are different (because humans could never space their instruments as "exact" distances), or could be made to differ, the length of time it took each photon to be detected would reveal which path it took, even if the structure of the apparatus does not. So, something’s ‘not right’ with this demonstration – either in the interpretation of the results (why aren’t there two clumps in the third plot, one for each slit), or in the description of the apparatus (left out some crucial detail(s)). What’s missing, or what am I missing? Thanks

mr

the vertical axis of the plot is time? shouldn't it be how many particles hit that spot? shouldn't the time only be used to find the entangled pair? shouldn't the fringe and particle patterns be made out of how many particles hit a spot intsead of when they have hit it?

The Retro-Causation Problem Jump to Responses

Having settled the debate about the measurement problem, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment brings up another issue that can be said to be both amazing and very perplexing! It's the appearance that the experiment demonstrates an ability to reach back in time to affect the state of quanta in the present.

To help us understand his experiment, Dr. Scully's colleagues referred us to a two year long debate about retro-causation carried by the American Journal of Physics. The debate resulted in this article in which the author, who had been arguing with Dr. Scully conceded that he had been wrong and that Dr. Scully was right. Unfortunately, we don't completely understand the article, so if you do, please comment with your explanation!

Double Slit Experiment Using Consciousness as the Detector

Perhaps the ultimate version of the Double Slit Experiment for showing the involvement of consciousness is the one done by Dr. Dean Radin, who is featured in our Consciousness section. Please go there to learn more about the IONS Double Slit Experiment.

Double Slit Detector Debate

NOTE: We started a project to encourage someone to run the Double Slit experiment in a way that will settle a very important debate about the role of detectors, consciousness and data. Learn more about it on the Projects page.