• Sciaphobia@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Last I read about this was years and years ago, and the claim at the time from the source I learned about it from was that the cause of this behavior is unknown. Is it known now?

    • yuri@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I vaguely remember an explanation that whatever device/mechanism is actually used to “observe” the experiment was affecting the behavior of the light. Boiling it down to “observation changed the outcome” makes you picture something that changes depending on whether you look at it with your eyes, but there’s a lot more moving parts to the whole thing.

      • 200ok@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Exactly. The apparatus used to take measurements slightly alters the thing being measured. It’s not the act of looking at it with our eyes that causes any change.

        An analogy that I find easier to understand is the tool used to measure tire pressure releases a small amount of air, thus changing the tire pressure (albeit negligible).

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s just proof that light behaves as a wave, because it generates an interference pattern like the first picture. The second picture is how it would theoretically behave if it was (only) a particle, which it isn’t. The proof that light acts like a particle comes from a second experiment proposed by Einstein dealing with the photoelectric effect.

      This article is meant for kids but it explains things pretty plainly. The duality is unexplained, but the experiment is well understood.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It actually does behave like a particle in this experiment if you use a measuring device to see which slit it went through. It’s also enough to turn the heat up in the room. Then random air molecules take on the role of a measuring device.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, if you alter the experiment to try and prove duality then of course you can do that because light is both. The classic double slit experiment, as commonly understood and illustrated above, just proves the wave part though. You’re not going to see just two lines from shining a flashlight through a couple holes.

          • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            The illustration above explicitly shows someone “looking” at the slits, implying the use of a measuring device.

            • underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Eyes are a measuring device and using them here would not result in two lines. Using a different measuring device produces a different result. Nothing I’ve said is counter to anything you’ve said. The image is a joke, not a real experiment.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Its source is known. Unfortunately, it requires a different way of looking at everything. (It’s all waves, even if it looks like a particle most of the time). Wrapping this up as simple pop science, that can be digested by most laymen, is difficult.

      What we don’t actually know is why everything is made of waves. We know the rules it follows, but not the underlying cause. Figuring that would would likely require an understanding of quantum relativity, something we only have a very weak handle on.

    • blargerer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Depends on what you mean by unknown. The meme (and a lot of common understanding) doesn’t know what it means to be observed. There is a leading theory, the Copenhagen interpretation. The biggest theory in opposition would be multi-world.