The Double-slit Experiment - How and by what Process are the Impacts Marked on the Screen?

[Kartazion]

It's been a while since I wanted to reproduce the double-slit experiment by placing photosensors on the reception screen.

The question is already how and by what process are the impacts marked on the screen?
 

[Markus Hanke]

The outcome of the experiment does not depend on the particulars of the detector apparatus, or even on the layout of the setup itself; it depends only on what information is accessible to the experimenter. So long as the only accessible information is position and time of each individual detection event at the receiver device, a large ensemble of such events will always form an interference pattern. On the other hand, if any form of which-path information is available from the setup, then there will be no interference pattern.

[Kartazion]

16 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The outcome of the experiment does not depend on the particulars of the detector apparatus, or even on the layout of the setup itself; it depends only on what information is accessible to the experimenter. 

It is precisely the interest of the photosensors , to be able to study the interference according to the behavior of the experimenter.

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It is precisely the interest of the photosensors , to be able to study the interference according to the behavior of the experimenter.

As I said, the outcome does not in any way depend on the experimenter, but only on whether or not which-path information is available within the apparatus. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It is precisely the interest of the photosensors , to be able to study the interference according to the behavior of the experimenter.

You can independently test if the photosensors depend on the behavior of the experimenter. (if being near the circuit changes the capacitance and thereby changes the efficiency, for example)  You don’t need to do an interference experiment. In fact, you would have to test this independently, if you want a valid experiment.

Only then could you test the effect on the interference. Which, as Markus has noted, would be unaffected

[Kartazion]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

As I said, the outcome does not in any way depend on the experimenter

Even if the experimenter observe it? Or if he doesn't observe it?

And what do you call outcome? The outcome of what?

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

but only on whether or not which-path information is available within the apparatus. 

The experimenter observe it with a captor?

Thank you Markus Hanke for taking your time to answer.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You can independently test if the photosensors depend on the behavior of the experimenter.

 

That's the point.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You don’t need to do an interference experiment. In fact, you would have to test this independently, if you want a valid experiment.

Ok, do we already have similar studies?

Thanks swansont

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Kartazion said:

That's the point.

Ok, do we already have similar studies?

I doubt anything published. This falls under the umbrella of good experimental technique. Proper grounding and insulation so there is no electromagnetic interference.

If you think there’s some other effect, you need to be more specific about the interaction you think is in play.

[Kartazion]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

I doubt anything published. This falls under the umbrella of good experimental technique.

Well that falls under Psychokinesis.

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Proper grounding and insulation so there is no electromagnetic interference.

Yes thanks for the advice.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you think there’s some other effect, you need to be more specific about the interaction you think is in play.

I just want to experience it in order to see. Hard to say before.

[swansont]

Not believing in pseudoscience is good experimental practice 

[Kartazion]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not believing in pseudoscience is good experimental practice 

Yes it's sure. But there I just want to place photosensors on the screen for the double-slit experiment. It is not pseudoscience that.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

Yes it's sure. But there I just want to place photosensors on the screen for the double-slit experiment. It is not pseudoscience that.

If you want to test psychokinesis (or any other pseudoscience), I don’t see why interference is required.

[Kartazion]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you want to test psychokinesis (or any other pseudoscience), I don’t see why interference is required.

No. I don't want to test psychokinesis. Why do you say that? 

I only want to study the behavior of the electromagnetic wave.

For this I need to understand the interference in relation to the particle.

But the particle is a wave. 

I think I find a compromise in Electromagnetic radiation.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Kartazion

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

No. I don't want to test psychokinesis. Why do you say that? 

Because you brought it up.

28 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I only want to study the behavior of the electromagnetic wave.

A beam of light is an EM wave. No interference necessary. 

 

[Kartazion]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because you brought it up.

Yes, it's true. I thought that in saying to myself good experimental technique raised from the pseudoscience domaine. I misinterpreted.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

A beam of light is an EM wave. No interference necessary. 

Yes interference occurs with double-slit.

No?

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Yes interference occurs with double-slit.

No?

Yes. But interference is not an inherently EM interaction. Electrons, neutrons, and neutral atoms have all been used to demonstrate interference.

[Kartazion]

I wish to study the transition from the interference pattern to a corpuscular impact pattern, and vice versa. Was this transition already studied theoretically or experimentally?

The photosensors allow us to understand if there would be a pattern transition procedure order

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Even if the experimenter observe it? Or if he doesn't observe it?

The outcome is the same.

16 hours ago, Kartazion said:

And what do you call outcome?

The statistical distribution of many individual hits on the detector.

16 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The experimenter observe it with a captor?

The which-path information does not need to be physically observed, it only needs to be accessible in principle, for there not to be an interference pattern.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I wish to study the transition from the interference pattern to a corpuscular impact pattern, and vice versa. Was this transition already studied theoretically or experimentally?

The photosensors allow us to understand if there would be a pattern transition procedure order

So it’s not that you want to study EM.

What is this “transition”? The detection is both - you detect particles, and it follows the interference pattern. The more you detect, the better your statistics get (to first order, anyway) 

[Kartazion]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is this “transition”? 

This of the wave function collapse.

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

This of the wave function collapse.

The wave function collapses for each particle when it is detected

[Kartazion]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

The wave function collapses for each particle when it is detected

Specifically the transission to it.