A light source illuminates two narrow adjacent slits in an otherwise impenetrable barrier, the image of the light that passes through the two slits is detected on a screen. Due to the wave-like nature of light both slits act as light sources which leads to two interfering waves behind. The result is a very characteristic interference pattern on the screen: white bands for constructive interference and black gaps where the waves cancel each other out (see this simulation). We are all familiar with that kind of interference from sound waves coming from two stereo speakers – the volume of the sound depends on where we are relative to the speakers, it is loudest in the middle.
If we were to carry out the same experiment with electrons that are usually treated as particles (like tiny little marbles), we would expect only 2 white bands on the screen as the particles go through either the left or the right slit and then hit the screen accordingly. However, we end up of with exactly the same interference pattern as we saw with light waves.
You might say “that's clear, the electrons bounce off each other behind the barrier thus creating some kind of interference pattern on the screen". But the interference pattern prevails even if we fire the electrons at the barrier one at a time, so there is no way they could bounce off each other. Obviously individual objects like electrons have nothing to interfere with, so how does the interference pattern come into existence?
Each electron is interfering with itself, one after another, producing an interference pattern in time!
Here is the explanation: each electron behaves like it would be going through both slits at the same time, an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects. Clearly, the electrons that are usually treated as particles in this case behave like waves (more precisely waves of probability). This is a general phenomenon: subatomic particles sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves - this strange characteristics became known as 'particle-wave dualism'.
To understand this we have to apply the concept of a wave-function again, remember from the last post: the natural state aka wave-function of any given system is a super-position of all possible quantum states.
Let's translate that into what we encounter in the given experimental setup: the natural state of an electron passing through the two slits is a super-position of all possibilities: it goes through the right slit, it goes through the left slit, it goes through both slits, it goes through neither of the two slits – all at once.
It is those different possibilities or probability waves that are interfering with each other resulting in the interference pattern on the screen. Obviously the electron is not in a well-defined state while going through the slits, it acts as being a wave of probabilities.
In the last post we saw how an observer would lead to a collapse of the wave-function, so what do you think is the effect of say a detector which we place at one of the two slits? The detector measures what the electron “really does”, whether the electron goes through only one of the slits (particle nature) or through both (wave nature).
Magically, the moment we switch on the detector the interference pattern disappears and two white bands emerge – exactly like you would expect from individual particles passing through one of the two slits. There's no more interference of probability waves, in other words: the wave-function collapsed, the electron behaves as a particle this time.
In this altered experimental setup (which now includes performing a measurement at one of the two slits) the probabilistic wave nature of the electrons is eliminated : only the particle nature remains and individual particles cannot produce interference patterns.
It seems that if the experimentalist choses a setup that has a more deterministic touch (measurement via detector), then the particle nature is found. Without the detector (i.e. the experimentalist does not measure which slit the electron goes through) the probabilistic wave nature is found.
A quantum entity such as an electron has a dual potential nature, but its actual (observed) nature is one or the other depending on the way it is measured. It seems that somehow the electron 'knows' what the experimentalist intends to measure and then behaves accordingly. I wonder how it does that trick ...
Clearly the double-slit experiment indicates that there is a much deeper relationship between the observer and the observed system, at least at the subatomic level, which is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality.
But who am I telling? Meditators know, or should I say experience this for thousands of years already.
Here is a very nice animation of this wave/particle dualism and the effect of an observer, taken from 'What the bleep do we know', part 2:
Some remark on the side: The fact that sub-atomic 'particles' like electrons, photons or protons behave like probability waves if you don't look is the reason why the sun is able to produce light through nuclear fusion (although it's actually not hot enough to do so) or plants produce oxygen via photo synthesis. Without that seemingly nerdy behaviour of those particle-waves life on earth would not be possible.
The last post in this series describes an extension of that experiment to demonstrate how causality breaks down on a quantum level .... now that is REALLY weird stuff :-)



Comments
So can meditation help us in not instantaneously collapsing the wave functions of our reality? Keeping an open mind and heart to what is to come, rather than per-determining our reality by our close-mindednes s and habits, cancelling out all the other, and often more positive, states of being and reality?
A thrilling thought...
Thanks for offering yet another angle to approaching meditation in this versatile meditation blog. Will recommend it further.
Pure awareness without intention, without "looking" in a dualistic way should avoid the collapse of the wave function thus allowing to see reality, not just a frozen aspect of it.
Guess we have to ask the Buddhas if that is true ...
I mentioned the many-world theory in the first post as one possible way to avoid the quantum weirdness by saying that every possible outcome of any experiment actually manifests in one universe. Lanza also talks about that briefly in his book.
Is is true that this would shine a different light on the probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics, yet the catch is that you have to introduce an infinite number of universes to make it work - to me that is not less weird.
Also there is no experimental evidence for the multi-verse I am aware of. Still I agree that it is an interesting idea, maybe one day I meet my other selfs from some other universes :-)
I agree the multiverse is wierd..I think the great thing about the deutsch book is how he demonstrates the explanatory power of the multiverse theory if you use it on other problems. He also has a great take on occams razor too, which I don't have the space ( or wit) to replicate here!
Thanks anyway.
> Obviously individual objects like electrons have nothing to interfere with, so how does the interference pattern come into existence?
As you say because the model used by human brains has limited validity
> the moment we switch on the detector the interference pattern disappears and two white bands emerge
But how do you know it has disappeared? Because you used a detector which is designed a certain way?
That is - did the interference disappear, or did you just decide to stop detecting it, like looking at light through a red filter and saying 'the blue light has disappeared'
I mean by this the 'billiard ball' type model of an electron.
That is the causality of how DM2 affects either the event or DM2 is not known?
Strictly speaking one can only say that 'observation' seems to be involved in this causality...
But is there a very clear definition of 'observation'? Does this phenomena work for a variety of DM1's and DM2's?
Well - that is certainly true... in fact the model used by human brains has quite limited validity, and this can be shown by many experiments, for instance of optical illusions, subjective estimations of probabilty...
> But who am I telling? Meditators know, or should I say experience this for thousands of years already.
But... there is an awful whiff of pseudo science in comparing quantum physics to meditative experience...
The problem is "What aspects of meditative experience are a valid experience of a more 'real' reality, and what are just further examples of the tendency of the brain to manufacture 'reality'?"
Yet in this particular example both advanced meditators and quantum physics say the same: the separation between observer and observed objects is just an illusion.
That is: non-conscious devices do not have 'illusions'? If you do not look at the output of DM2: destroy the data as it is created, does DM1 still change?
Does it work if DM2 works passively? What level of observation is required to achieve the effect?
- mental constructs obscure the direct experience of an 'actual' less dualistic or non-dualistic reality.
- when these stop the non-dualistic reality is 'experienced' (for want of a better word) by non-dualistic consciousness
But: devices do not have mental constructs...
Are there experiments which control for intention?
For instance by:
- varying the intention (and recording that)
- turning the device on or off automatically and independently
- selecting the data which will be used at random and throwing the others away
...etc
Here is a proof that the collapse of the wave-funtion is not due to a physical interaction between electron and measuring device (see a paper by Jacques et al published in Ann.Phys.Fr.1,2 008): Instead of electrons photons were shot at the slits, an interferometer that observed the wave-or-particl e behavior of those photons was either inserted or not inserted (ie measurement or non-measurement).
The insertion of the interferometer took only 40 nanoseconds while it would take 160 ns for the information about the configuration to travel from the interferometer to reach the photon before it entered the slits. This means in order for an exchange with the photon to take place, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible according to Einstein.
The deeper yoiu dig the weirder it gets. You can imagine that physicists were not happy at all about the measurement problem, that's why even the founders of quantum physics said that you cannot really understand what's going on.
Many even discarded the Copenhagen interpretation (like Einstein) but nobody has come up yet with an alternative that is experimentally verified.
If you would like to conjunct with me. Please respond to this comment. Or send me an Email to: Urmyfriend20
Regards
RSS feed for comments to this post