Is the double slit experiment random or not?

[SeanmBateman]

I have shown before my support against the Copenhagen interpretation view of the quantum world. That states at a quantum scale sub-atomic partials behave randomly.

 

There are many experiments to show case this, one being the double slit experiment.

(Watch for more details.)

If photons were really random the result would not be waves or partials. It would be an interference pattern with the double slit pattern at 50% opacity. The results are conclusive and the fact that the results are constant shows that.

This has lead me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variables_theory

The hidden variables theory. But why an observer changes any of this, I don't know.

This theory would make more sense that this constant randomness.

 

 

I am by no means an expert on this so I would like as much help as I can get.

[iNow]

I am not an expert, either, and this may not be completely on topic, but it sounds like you may enjoy this article which I read this morning:

 

 

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F

 

Do subatomic particles have free will?

 

If we have free will, so do subatomic particles, mathematicians claim to prove.

 

"

If the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?

”—Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman philosopher and poet, 99–55 BC.

 

 

Human free will might seem like the squishiest of philosophical subjects, way beyond the realm of mathematical demonstration. But two highly regarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably. <more at

link

>

[swansont]

If photons were really random the result would not be waves or partials. It would be an interference pattern with the double slit pattern at 50% opacity. The results are conclusive and the fact that the results are constant shows that.

 

Not really sure what you mean by this, or what definition of "random" you are using.

 

The observer "collapses" the wave function, so the electron or photon is not in a superposition, which means you don't have states that can can interfere. This destroys the interference pattern.

[bombus]

Great link, great story. I'm with free will all the way. I think consciousness IS the ability to influence sub-atomic particles. I have no proof of this at all though.

 

One other explanation is that we are Sims and the simulation we live in adjusts the answers as we go.

[immortal]

Well I really don't know whether I can discuss these issues here as this is a scientific forum. Currently I am reading the book 'From science to god' by Peter Russell. I think one phenomena which science has not yet explained is self awareness. According to me the best theory of consciousness was given by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff because it was very much consistent with neurophysiology. Roger Penrose himself said that self awareness is something which physics as not yet understood and he also said that self awareness has an element of non-computability. The problem is "experience" can science define pain, pleasure, happiness and sorrow?. This eventually leads to pansychism which says that even rocks have an element of experience.

 

Fortunately I am from the east and we have so much of information about self awareness. Infact today physicist are trying to figure out what are the mechanisms behind quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation. I think quantum teleportation is indeed very much possible and I have read many ancient books and there were many claims that ancient sages were indeed teleporting themselves and also can look into the future. Infact believe it or not even today there are people who can teleport themselves. I know how this feels for a scientist but common sense can be wrong. Its just we should have an open mind to it and take these thing very seriously.

 

If SOULS really exist and if it is immaterial then the question of how can a immaterial substance control a materialistic body naturally arises and this is were the claim made by Roger Penrose becomes important and gives a very important clue into the mysteries of consciousness.

[iNow]

Immortal,

 

One of our members here has posted extensively on this issue. I advise you go the Advanced Search, enter keyword = Penrose and UserName = Bascule, then show results as Posts.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php

 

 

If you're lucky, he may even respond here, although (and this is partially my fault) it's not really on topic for this thread.

[CPL.Luke]

considering this is a forum on quantum physics wouldn't it be appropriate to respond to this post with quantum physics?

 

the results of quantum mechanics experiments are not random, they are probabilistic events with the probability distribution determined by well known and validated laws of physics. The double slit experiment is a very good example of this.

 

The laws of quantum physics dictate that a particle is more of a wavical, the wavicle expands and evolves under the schrodinger equation until someone measures it, at which point it collapses into a smaller wavicle, in the standard double slit experiment this means that as you send particles through the slits 1 at a time they form little pin pricks of light on a screen until after you've sent thousands or millions through you get the familiar wave interfernce pattern.

 

moral of the story is that the particle doesn't collapse randomly, it collapses in a similar way as a weighted die, with different outcomes given different weights.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

One of our members here has posted extensively on this issue. I advise you go the Advanced Search, enter keyword = Penrose and UserName = Bascule, then show results as Posts.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php

 

 

If you're lucky, he may even respond here, although (and this is partially my fault) it's not really on topic for this thread.

 

I know this is off topic. I posted here because you started discussing about free will. Ok anyways thanks for your advice it looks like Bascule is against my views and I does'nt want to carried away by what our philosophers have said.

 

Just four days back I read on the newspaper that max planck institute of technology have shown that humans don't have free will.

Here's the link:-http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/articles-health/2676

 

This is not a surprise as our philosophers have been saying that we all are controlled by a materialistic mechanism and I think that mechanism may be orch objective reduction.

 

the results of quantum mechanics experiments are not random, they are probabilistic events with the probability distribution determined by well known and validated laws of physics. The double slit experiment is a very good example of this.

 

 

It is this probabilistic description of reality which leads everything into a bad state of affairs. Why can't we correctly say that the wavicle will be found at this particular point in space at a particular time on the detector? Either we lack complete information about the wavicle or our perception of matter may be wrong.

[booker]

considering this is a forum on quantum physics wouldn't it be appropriate to respond to this post with quantum physics?

 

the results of quantum mechanics experiments are not random, they are probabilistic events with the probability distribution determined by well known and validated laws of physics. The double slit experiment is a very good example of this.

 

"Probability distribution" is a qualification of "radom", isn't it?

 

The laws of quantum physics dictate that a particle is more of a wavical, the wavicle expands and evolves under the schrodinger equation until someone measures it, at which point it collapses into a smaller wavicle, in the standard double slit experiment this means that as you send particles through the slits 1 at a time they form little pin pricks of light on a screen until after you've sent thousands or millions through you get the familiar wave interfernce pattern.

 

Wavicle is a pop-science term that seems to have been born of the misunderstanding in order to simultaniously combine particle-like and wave-like characteristics to the same thing.

 

Parhaps you're thinking of a wave packet, but the Schrodinger equation isn't confined to describing wave packets alone.

Edited August 27, 2008 by booker

[Kyrisch]

Wavicle is a pop-science term that was born to eliminate misunderstanding that anything is distinctly a particle or a wave. All particles exhibit wave properties as well as particle properties, even simultaneously.