Observer Effect- Photon detectors, how do they work? Split from: Double Slit Experiment

[MigL]

You can put a donkey in a box ( stall ), thereby fixing its position and momentum.
If you try that with an electron, sometimes you find it outside the box.
If the box is too small, fixing its position too tightly, the electron can have enough momentum ( and energy ) to overcome the potential 'wall' of the box. This is experimentally verified, and commonly known as tunneling.

The HUP can be derived mathematically; i.e. it is completely unrelated to the methods used for measurements.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Did I ?

I thought I said that the subject was not purely quantum.

The subject of the dialogue you replied to wax the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. 

[Eise]

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

HUP is about phenomena with momentum/position. That's not necessary about QM, Physics or science...Most of what we observe has momentum/position.

This is totally beside the point. I explained in what way the uncertainty principle is related to the mathematics of waves, so it is valid for any wave phenomenon (sound, light, waves on water). it has nothing to do with a measurement process, and so is not related to the observer effect. 

You do realise that I gave some precise arguments, and you do not countered them at all? You just make some sweeping statement ('HUP is about phenomena with momentum/position') which is only partially true (it exists also with energy/time), and is definitely false when you consider none-wave phenomena.

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

My view point is that HUP and observer effect is not necessary about physics or science  I backed it up and, explained it.

You backed up that there are many examples of the 'observer effect', and there I agree with you. However, depending on what is measured, there are different mechanisms that are causing it. Knowing these mechanisms, it gives clues about improvements of your measurement methods, to minimise or even get rid of the observer effect. But the HUP says something different: wave phenomena are basically unsharp, not because our measurement is not precise enough, or we have any effect on the phenomenon we are observing (of course we have too, but that it is not what the HUP is about), but that is inherent to waves.

I had a look into Studiot's video. Again, the author is very clear (at 15:35):

Quote

What we're seeing here is that the particle is the wave, so the spread out over space and over momentum is not some artifact of imperfect measurement techniques, it is a spread fundamental to what a particle is.

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Eise

[Itoero]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 10:53 AM, Eise said:

This is totally beside the point. I explained in what way the uncertainty principle is related to the mathematics of waves, so it is valid for any wave phenomenon (sound, light, waves on water). it has nothing to do with a measurement process, and so is not related to the observer effect. 

You do realise that I gave some precise arguments, and you do not countered them at all? You just make some sweeping statement ('HUP is about phenomena with momentum/position') which is only partially true (it exists also with energy/time), and is definitely false when you consider none-wave phenomena.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle forms a fundamental element of quantum mechanics. Uncertainty relations in terms of entropies were initially proposed to deal with  conceptual shortcomings in the original formulation of the uncertainty principle and, hence, play an important role in quantum foundations.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.04857.pdf

I'm sorry I did not counter your arguments. I didn't see them.

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 8:02 PM, StringJunky said:

No, you do not affect the energy of a donkey when you observe it. I really don't think you should argue with swansont like you know what you talking about, when you know he's a working physicist and has likely forgotten more than you and I know.

When I look/go close to a donkey it changes it's behavior. It's the Hawthorne effect this is mo the real observer effect.

You change the energy of something by interacting with it or by using measuring devices...this is rather a measurement effect. You still have to observe what you measure…...

 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 4:55 AM, MigL said:

You can put a donkey in a box ( stall ), thereby fixing its position and momentum.
If you try that with an electron, sometimes you find it outside the box.
If the box is too small, fixing its position too tightly, the electron can have enough momentum ( and energy ) to overcome the potential 'wall' of the box. This is experimentally verified, and commonly known as tunneling.

The HUP can be derived mathematically; i.e. it is completely unrelated to the methods used for measurements.

True but in the Hawthorne effect, you change what you observe because it has a conscious mind.

Also, observing/looking doesn't change lightning(electrons), measuring the lightning does.

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Also, observing/looking doesn't change lightning(electrons), measuring the lightning does.

 

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with this statement.

 

'change it' implies something rather startling.

It implies that 'it' is one thing and then something else after the change.

This further implies that you know both the before and after.

How do you know the before if you don't measure?

And if you don't know because you haven't measured, how do you know it has been changed?

I am using before and after to mean before and after the change.

 

30 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle forms a fundamental element of quantum mechanics. Uncertainty relations in terms of entropies were initially proposed to deal with  conceptual shortcomings in the original formulation of the uncertainty principle and, hence, play an important role in quantum foundations

Heisenberg's original work was in terms of matrix representation.

The unvcertainty principle is inherent in matrix multiplication, which is how he found it.

The maths of this is cut and dried, and was then.

There were no shortcomings, although the principle was so radical it confused many, even its originator at times.

Edited February 26, 2019 by studiot

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 Also, observing/looking doesn't change lightning(electrons), measuring the lightning does.

What if you measure by looking at the photons it gives off, which it does regardless of whether you are looking?

 

34 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 True but in the Hawthorne effect, you change what you observe because it has a conscious mind.

If the Hawthorne effect doesn't have an h-bar in the formula, it has nothing to with the HUP. It's not a quantum effect.

[StringJunky]

52 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Also, observing/looking doesn't change lightning(electrons), measuring the lightning does.

Looking at/measuring a photon emitter like lightning, you don't change its behaviour. Measuring a a single atomic entity you will.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Looking at/measuring a photon emitter like lightning, you don't change its behaviour. Measuring a a single atomic entity you will.

Only if you have to add a photon in order to do it. But there are circumstances where that's not necessary.

Or, you can do two-photon absorption (and possibly emission) if the photons are back-to-back, with equal energy photons (such as the Hydrogen 1S-2S excitation) which would have minimal perturbation. Possibly less than the HUP would dictate, because this is not dependent on the HUP.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Only if you have to add a photon in order to do it. But there are circumstances where that's not necessary.

Or, you can do two-photon absorption (and possibly emission) if the photons are back-to-back, with equal energy photons (such as the Hydrogen 1S-2S excitation) which would have minimal perturbation. Possibly less than the HUP would dictate, because this is not dependent on the HUP.

Right.

[Eise]

13 hours ago, Itoero said:

I'm sorry I did not counter your arguments. I didn't see them.

So you are not even reading my postings? 

I think you confuse a few things about arguments: e.g. that a bad argument and a good argument are both arguments. Bad arguments can easily be countered, good arguments can be more difficult to counter (or even impossible). 

So if you say you did not see my arguments, you either mean you think my arguments are bad, or you really did not read them. In the latter case you really cannot understand texts. In the first case it would be easy for you to counter them. So what is it? Do you show us that you can read? Then please counter my arguments (must be easy...). If you don't, then obviously you cannot understand even the simplest of argumentative texts. But then, just being opposed against a (scientific mainstream) viewpoint without caring to understand and to argue against arguments given, is trolling.