How does observing a particle change it

Humans cannot see at this level in any case. Machinery is used, and humans don't have to be in the room for the effects to continue. Observation just means measurement, and Wheeler's Delayed Choice and the Quantum Eraser experiments showed the measurement can occur after the photon, electron, or molecule has hit the wall This word is used for convenience, but no conscious observer is required.

And by detected what is meant is that information exists that is, in principal, detectable even if not yet technically feasible. This is BS. When being observed by a sensor, electrons behave as particles. You lack sufficient understanding of the double slit experiment. A summarily dismissal of a complex phenomenon that has world class physicists, accompanied by a " You don't understand" line illustrates a simple mind. This experiment shows that matter is not what we think it is.

Scientists have known this for a century yet scientific materialism for some reason still prevails. Matter is a product of Mind. NOT the other way around. For more information read "Ontological Mathematics". That is not what comes out this. It does not specifically refer to humans, nor even conscious creatures, although they can be. What if the light is reacting to the material the slits were cut out from.

Maybe electromagnetism causing the light particles to bend and change their direction just like how planets and comets change their orbits when passing near something with mass. The double slits, are on the both sides of the direction of the flow of light. Also, the slit will be more massive on the two outer edges of the double slits.

If it were to be hindered due to presence of slits, wouldn't the effect be more on the outer edges and not on the inner edges, i. Such is the problem. Particles don't bend when acted upon by electromagnetic fields. They simply form a trajectory. Bending or warping is the property of a wave. Their trajectory could be altered but I'm sure the material is neutral in all aspects to avoid interference. Electrons have almost no mass and therefore almost no gravity. Atoms of the slit have a huge mass compared to the electrons.

As the electrons passes the slit the gravity of the atoms cause some of the closest electrons to start to spin, the same way water spins when shot through a slit.

This spin then sends some of the electrons out of their normal straight line trajectory which causes the apparent wave effect. This is a fundemental property of electrons and all fermions. Even if electrons were pushed off their trajectory, how do electrons shot one at a time form an interference pattern? I also thought the materials used may have properties that interfere, and the detector might too.

How does the detector itself work? Does it not rely on an intrinsic property of electrons to function? Connecting the detector to that property then necessarily interferes with the experiment. That interference is then to be expected and can be explained rationally rather than through a spooky effect, quantum effect.

Agree with you. This topic needs to discussed and debated. Could you please submit a detailed testable theory, with an internally consistent mathematical formulation, of how the Buddha arrived at this conclusion. Didnt the above experiment just provide a testable theory, with internal consistent mathematical formulation? Budha may not have had the math, but perhaps the insight.

Or, he got it right for the wrong reason. Hypothesis: Human consciousness in the form of measurement alters the behavior of photons.

Hmm, seems like that has been already published. So are you then hypothesizing that the quantum realm is interactive with consciousness? What if two separate, distinct observers isolated from one another choose each option. Will they observe different results? But if a particle knows it is being observed and that means the particle is observing its surroundings to see if there's an observer present making the particle itself is an observer, and If particles themselves are observers, then there would always be an observer present particles regardless of our recording device or not.

And if there is always an observer it should always act as is being observed due to particles existing all around.

Im no larry bird but it's intresting to read the comments here each one has a reply stating how the previous comment is incorrect. Now im starting to wonder is it physics thats hard to understand or is it more like physics is hard to explain maybe we need to assign words more meanings then we can just make everything make sense a great example is the dollar - we all know the dollar isnt worth shit or hasnt when our genious money people decided to stop backing it with gold so in essense they said the dollar is worth this much because we said and no matter how many equations and big words you want to use to try and prove me wrong it dont matter because when it comes down to it paper is paper.

I had a pretty good generic understanding of the double slit thingamabob until i decided to read the comments here now i cant hit a three pointer unless nobody is watching I never miss when nobody is watching Here is something you all can discuss - why is it that the english language has one word that means two different things?

For example the word watch why not take the definition that came second and give it its own word? I love your conclusion here. An easy example of equipment interfering is a thermometer. The mere presence of a thermometer will either raise or lower the heat of whatever you are trying to measure. The equipment certainly has the possibility of causing the observer effect, but even if the equipment were perfect, we would still have the same problem. I once heard an excellent analogy that does a good job of explaining the principle.

It goes as follows:. You can say where the stool was, but not where it is now. That detection necessarily requires that the electron disturbs some part of the the detection device's electric field if it is to be registered by that detection device. Due to Newton's third law, the electron must be similarly disturbed.

Or if you prefer to "see" that electron with a photon, you must necessarily use a photon with a very short wavelength aka very high energy because the electron is so small. That high energy photon will also disturb the electron when it reflects off of it, due to conservation of momentum. In other words, the electron does not "understand" that it is being observed The wave equations satisfy a boundary equation with the double slit.

This results in the incident wave showing an interference pattern. Whatever you do that would measure "where do these low-intensity photons cross" is actually not a double slit pattern anymore, hence you get a single gaussian fringe. We do not know how does it know, we just experimentaly proven that it knows. The experiment is delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. It basicaly does double slit experiment with a trick to produce two photons out of one AFTER it gone through the slits.

One photon travels to the detector where we observe or do not observe interference. Surpise surprise when we knew which slit photono came through there were no interferance paterns, when we didnt interferance paterns emerged.

Fun fact, the photons that told us which slit original photon came through hit sensors 8ns later than the one which generated paters. So the photon knew what we would know or what we will not know which slit it came through 8ns later. We do not quite know. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.

Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. How does the electron understand that it being observed in the double slit experiment? So we set up the same experiment, but this time, we have a little light we shine across each of the two slits. When the electron goes through, the light is slightly perturbed, so we can "flag" which one of the two slits it passed through.

With each electron that goes through, we get a signal coming from one of the two slits. At last, each electron has been counted, and we know which slit every one went through. And now, at the end, when we look at our screen, this is what we see. If you measure which slit an electron goes through when performing a one-at-a-time double slit Instead, the electrons behave not as waves, but as classical particles.

That interference pattern? It's gone. Instead, it's replaced by just two piles of electrons: the paths you'd expect each electron to take if there were no interference at all.

What's going on here? It's as though the electrons "know" whether you're watching them or not. The very act of observing this setup — of asking "which slit did each electron pass through? If you measure which slit the quantum passes through, it behaves as though it passes through one and only one slit: it acts like a classical particle. If you don't measure which slit the quantum passes through, it behaves as a wave, acting like it passed through both slits simultaneously and producing an interference pattern.

By setting up a movable mask, you can choose to either block one or both slits for the double slit One experiment you can set up is to put a movable mask in front of both slits, while still firing electrons through them one-at-a-time. Practically, this has now been accomplished in the following fashion:. The results of the 'masked' double-slit experiment. Note that when the first slit P1 , the second It's as though if both paths are there as available options simultaneously, without restriction, you get interference and wave-like behavior.

But if you only have one path available, or if either path is restricted somehow, you won't get interference and will get particle-like behavior. So we go back to having both slits in the "open" position, and shining light across both of them as you pass electrons one-at-a-time through the double slits.

A tabletop laser experiment is a modern outgrowth of the technology that enabled proving the absurd