I was just reading and watching a couple youtube videos about the famous Double Slit Experiment. It was all very interesting and fascinating, until the end. It is said that the electrons behaved one way, and then behaved differently once an observation device was put by the slits. Almost as if they chose to behave differently. Is this experiment (particularly the part with the 'observer') completely accepted in the scientific community, or are many skeptic? Just wondering, because that is absolutely incredible if true...
In case you are not familiar with the experiment, there are many youtube clips about it. The following link is the most simple explanation:
The Double Slit Experiment
Moderator: Moderators
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: The Double Slit Experiment
Post #2That is a very classic experiment, and it has been repeated thousands upon thousands of times .. they even managed to get the 'it went through both slits' pattern when shooting a single photon , but that disappeared when a detection device was placed on one of the two slots.Q wrote:I was just reading and watching a couple youtube videos about the famous Double Slit Experiment. It was all very interesting and fascinating, until the end. It is said that the electrons behaved one way, and then behaved differently once an observation device was put by the slits. Almost as if they chose to behave differently. Is this experiment (particularly the part with the 'observer') completely accepted in the scientific community, or are many skeptic? Just wondering, because that is absolutely incredible if true...
In case you are not familiar with the experiment, there are many youtube clips about it. The following link is the most simple explanation:
Welcome to the world of Quantum mechanics, where is very counter intuitive. It, however, is testable, and repeatable.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella