skip to Main Content

The Infamous Double Slit Experiment


Dieser Beitrag hat 213 Kommentare
  1. Love this video: Would be great to use in highschool. –> they could have done a better picture of the waves though – maybe zoom into a node and anti-node to illustrate the point.

  2. This is so dumb!!! Quantumphysics have a big problem,dumb esoterics,who are making an simply electronic effect which known and discribed since 1900 to an mystery of quantumphysics. I hope you know what induction is and how an electron reacts to it and what an doubleslit electrochnically is!!! No hokuspokus simlpy physics and yes it works with light to,i know,thats so easy to describe too

  3. wrong! Electrons are nothing like tiny marbles! Marbles have a radius, electrons don’t. Marbles are spherical, electrons have no spatial extent.

  4. Herpaderp, how are they aware that only ONE is being fired at a time? Please, someone point me in the direction of this measuring device and electron emitting device that is SO ACCURATE that it can fire and measure a single particle that has a mass of 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms perfectly without any error.

  5. As i understand it, It´s not the act of observing that changes the result as much as the WAY the observing is done. in order to pinpoint the fired particle you have to shine light at it, that is, shoot photons at it, causing an „interference“. The double slit experiment is a very important experiment in physics, but this video doesn’t really tell the whole story. there are lots of other videos about it though..

  6. @Kuwaiti1990 actually, under a microscope we can see, that particles, and molecules ARE balls of atoms grouped, but some in different formations, he is explaining it in laymans terms

  7. @Zyphet
    „how are they aware that only ONE is being fired at a time?“
    It is called a big dark sun-glass in front of the laser so dark that only a photo passes through it per second in avarage or even slower or so. The photon hits a detector and gets recorded. The emitter does not emit one photon at a time.

  8. @Zyphet
    „if it doesnt emit one photon at a time how do we know there isnt interference? “
    It is about statistics, sometimes you will have 2 photons emitted at the same time but most of the time it does not. The very dark sun classes that only let 1 photon through can be tested using only one slit and the detector. Test with 1 slot, then test with 2 slits again repeat with the same laser and sun glass. Repeat this thousands of times worldwide. The results are the same always.

  9. for a funny and great physics video come to my profile page and watch it, and subscribe to it plz,
    I will make more funny videos about physics so watch it thanks.

  10. It something like before the big bang everything was the size of the pea so now stretched out we are entirely one as if we were still that size, and observing just causes a reaction between you the observer and the thing being observed becasue there is no difference but singularity.

  11. I’m curious. When they observe one of the slits they get no interference because to ‚observe‘ means to fire a beam of some sort at the electron to find its position and velocity, however bouncing stuff of the electron changes its properties. The video suggests they obeserve one slit only. What pattern do you get if you ‚observe‘ at both slits. Anyone know?

  12. that was quite informative, although i got lost on why the electrons were acting like marbles one time, and then acting like waves anothoer time. still, i enjoyed the video!

  13. Why is this script almost verbatim the exact same as this vid – /watch?v=UMqtiFX_IQQ&feature=related…?
    Who copied whom? This vid is older according to the post date, but I’m not sure the original.

  14. Why is this almost verbatim the exact same as this vid – /watch?v=UMqtiFX_IQQ&feature=related…?
    Who copied whom? This vid is older according to the post date, but I’m not sure the original.

  15. I like it, but you have to be careful.

    This is an extra feature from the movie „What the bleep do we know?“ whatthebleep(dot)com

    This movie is pretty good as far as physics are concerned BUT it uses quantum physics as an excuse for pseudo-science and duality and crap like that. It would have been an even better movie if it didn’t step into that territory. (If you don’t know, don’t speculate.)

  16. Very helpful, but I would have liked to hear more about how „mathematically“ the electron simultaneously goes through both, either, and neither slit. This is simply stated as a fact instead of being explained even briefly.

  17. I guess physicist aren’t clever, shoot the electron 1st so it creates a wave pattern and meanwhile insert the measuring device to record how it changes through the act of measuring their problem solved

  18. @eproulx „I like it, but you have to be careful.
    This is an extra feature from the movie „What the bleep do we know?“ whatthebleep(dot)com
    This movie is pretty good as far as physics are concerned BUT it uses quantum physics as an excuse for pseudo-science and duality and crap like that. It would have been an even better movie if it didn’t step into that territory. If you don’t know, don’t speculate.“ If you never speculate,you never learn anything.

  19. @awesomelittlebox Do you equate „speculate“ to „hypothesize“? Then yes you are correct. Hypothesis are good as long as they are presented as such, not equal to a theory.
    When I said „speculate“ I didn’t mean hypothesis. This movie clearly presents accepted scientific facts alongside pseudo-scientific cultish musings. And that’s why I said you should „be careful“. Plus I heard the three directors are in the Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment, which is a cult.

  20. @owenallan1 damn I was gonna write that when I saw this video. You win this round owenallan1! Ill be back you havent heard the last of MEEEEEeeeeeeeee

  21. @Juggernauticali they’re not really looking at them with eyes. I’m sure the experiment was conducted in an isolated environment. So i don’t see how this photon would hit them.

  22. So electrons exist in all their potential forms unless the form is specifically observed, in which case the form becomes specified…
    Am I right, or do I still not understand quantum mechanics 0_O

  23. It is because God hid his secrets from the proud! Professing themselves wise they became fools indeed. Stop wasting your time with things the religion of science can never answer.

  24. @johnjsal
    In quantum mechanics, everything is based on probability. Electrons around an atom also have a probability distribution. Atoms don’t have a definite atomic radius. They’re not marbles. Instead there is the „95% probability“ radius or the „99% probability“ radius. Usually the electron stays very close. But there is still a slight chance that an atom’s electron might be all the way across the room (or on the other side of the moon… or the universe).

  25. @KIFulgore
    Thanks for the response but it still doesn’t seem to answer my question. Even if there is a possibility of the electron passing through either, both, or neither slit, it still seems ultimately true that only *one* of these possibilities actually happens. Thus, I still don’t see why it can be said that all three possibilities happen simultaneously. I can acknowledge that all three are *possible*, but not that they all *happen*. I know this is part of QM, but it wasn’t explained well.

  26. Does this prove the copenhagen inerpretation is correct?
    I’m no academic so forgive me if I have got my wires crossed and sound like a retard but I though the copenhagen interpritation states that an atom stays as it is when the observer looks but when the observer doesnt look the atom is in superposition

  27. Wait….so either electrons are self aware and could tell that they were being measured or Human beings have the ability to control electrons though the act of observation…….my head hurts.

  28. @dopestghost You got the problem in reverse. When the particles are not observed they produce the interference pattern, but when the particles are observed the wave function is collapsed into particles.

  29. @xxcurnuxx Ok, but the point is this video is trying to turn it into magic by leaving out some important things about how the experiment is really conducted. They were not actually shooting photons from a cannon and videotaping it. =) It´s still really cool stuff, but i would recommend getting other perspectives on the result and that „the observation changes the result“.

  30. @818doodooroo …you must be a professor of quantum physics.this experiment has baffled the brightest of minds but you think its ‚bs‘ and ‚retarded’because you don’t understand it..take a look in the mirror my learned friend and you’ll see what „bs“ and ‚retarded‘ looks like…

  31. Explaination of double slit experiment observation: Electrons behave as any other matter moving in a waveform. Think of the waveform part of the test, it was using water (matter) The double slit experiment proves electrons are matter in high frequency oscillation

  32. @dopestghost Well there’s no other way to observe the particles without the transfer of energy. So it’s just a generalization that, since their is no way to observe the passing, it is the act itself to blame.

    Unless you know another way, that I do not.

  33. @N4K3DN1NJ4 No, that´s correct. But still I think this video implies that it´s the very act of observing that changes the result, and not the act of transferring energy. That´s to say that the experiment was done exactly the same but that the scientists had a „camera“ that recorded the experiment, and that´s not the whole truth. I dont think the explanation given in this video would be sufficent for a scientific report. To me the videos explanation seems more like new age than science.

  34. @dopestghost Ok I see what you’re getting at. You are correct. The video is lacking some of the more detailed information that it would need if it was explained to Physics students. This is taking a more layman’s approach to it. To be watched, then discussed to find the full detail.

    Though when my teacher did show this in class, I thought it was because of energy right away. xD

  35. @N4K3DN1NJ4 Ok, guess you are smarter than me then. =) I thought about this in a kind of strange way for a couple of months, until i read the book „the elegant universe“ by brian greene and got the facts straight.

  36. @dopestghost Hahaha. I doubt I am (I’ve just have a knack with Physics). I kinda thought about it, and that was the only way it make sense to work. I kinda just took a blind guess at it with some Classical mechanics. I was kinda surprised that such a complex event, was easily explained with the basics. Never tried thinking out the box about it. xD

    Good book by the way. It’s definitely one that gives a prime explanation.

  37. To the guys who say that this is all very simple and easy to explain: go get your Nobel Prize now!!! ROFL

    ‚It’s as if the electrons know when they’re being watched and decide to behave as particles again. According to Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, the phenomenon „has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery“.‘

    This quote is NOT New Age but from the very prestigious Nature scientific journal:

  38. @Koolkattj I know that now. I watched this video when i had just started taken an interest in quantum mechanics, and at that time it seemed like magic to me. What i’m trying to say is that i don’t think this video offers a complete explanation, at least for someone not familiar with advanced physics.. of course, if you really think about it its obvious, but it’s hard to really think about something that you don’t know very much about..

  39. @Koolkattj but what is the definition of „observing“. Is it shining light at an object and picking up the reflections, or is it the brain processing those reflections? I would say it is both. And with that definition, saying that the „observation changes the result“ is not exactly correct, because the changing result has nothing to do with the part of the act of observing occurring in the brain. A simpler way of explaining it would be „shining light at the object changes the result“..

  40. @dopestghost Observing it, creates the result. Its doesn’t change it. =P tis a super-position of all possibilities at once as the video says. It only picks one when we observe it. Look at Schrodinger’s Cat.

  41. @Koolkattj Schroedinger’s Cat is just theoretical, I wouldn’t call it scientifically proven that a cat may live and not live at once. I, myself, believe it can, but it’s just my opinion. Science says that in theory it could. And in theory the observation could change, or create, the result. But from a scientific perspective I would rather say that shooting particles, or waves, you choose, at another particle (wave) changes the result. But as I said, I BELIEVE you are absolutely correct. =P

  42. Can someone please tell if the electron gun was firing electrons while the single electrons it had fired before was still airborne and therefore may have possibly interfered with each other or not.

  43. great! such a great medium for me to understand physics..
    nice job man..
    can anyone post to me this dr. quantum more video links…i really need it..
    can anyone send it to my email..

  44. Excellent explanation of this phenomenum. It might just have helped more to explain that by „observing“ (that is „seeing“ the electrons in the slit) it is necessary to shine light on it and those photons of light interract with the electrons so the act of observing causes an unintended effect.

  45. @sadlersinengland Shining light on it has nothing to do with the results. Look up the „delayed choice double slit experiment“ and the „quantum eraser“ experiment. Alteration of the outcome occurs even if the only measurement is taken well after the electron passes through the slit.

  46. @dopestghost So sorry about my previous comments. Had a bit of bad influence there. This video surely simplifies the experiment a bit, but the point is spot on. The world as we know it is just one possibility broken down when viewed by a conscious mind. It’s obvious if you really think about it.

  47. @BloatedSensations Sorry, Im not the one you were commenting to, but I just had a funny thought & wanted to share it….your comment had me looking up the „delayed choice“ experiment. & my first reaction to it… that it reminds me of being a kid and repeatedly opening and closeing the door on the refridgerator trying to catch the always elusive moment when the fridge light turns off!! Perhaps not a scientifically apt comparisiom to the del. choice exp. but I couldnt help but think it! LOL!

  48. Kinda cheesy with the cartoon sillieness, but a great explanation of correct science. Click my favorites list to see the exact experiment of single electron buildup. The confusing part is that the wave function of the electron collapses upon measurement, whether that be hitting the screen or some measuring device before the screen. This temporarily destroys the wave nature of the particle and hence no interference pattern when one measures at the slits.

  49. @TheAlexander356 „Can someone please tell if the electron gun was firing electrons while the single electrons it had fired before was still airborne and therefore may have possibly interfered with each other or not.“

    This experiment is done so that one electron is fired and completes its journey to the screen long before the next one sets off. It may well be a standard undergrad experiment in some university physics courses.

  50. @harveyshideout „how come they dont get an interferance pattern before they shrink?“

    Maybe they do…. But the wavelength of a macroscopic object is very very very very tiny, so the effect of interference is too small to measure. It’s only when you get to quantum objects that the effect is large enough to see.

  51. People are reading WAY too much into this. It’s not the act of observing that affects the end-result. It’s the fact that we have to set up observation equipment that affects the end-result. It’s incredibly silly that people believe that particles have a brain and act differently when we’re watching like it’s some kind of overly shy teenager in a locker room shower.

  52. @NeuroticDummy is it possible that the change from particle to wave changes as a result of light being shed on the electron? like the light itself changes it not the fact that theres a camera watching? or is there normally light shinning on the experiment? i gotta learn more about this experiment…..

    Yes, this video is very misleading and you hit the nail right on the head. The light that is needed for observation is what changes the results, not the observation itself.

  54. @NeuroticDummy what rubbish. The electron is invisible as it is smaller than the wavelength of light.
    Observation also collapses the probability wave when balls are observed falling onto a board with pegs. The pattern of balls must be a bell-shaped curve, but the observation changes the result.
    Only a christian would have problems with this.
    The only little mind is in the christian.

  55. @SHIBBYiPANDA The electron is invisible as it is smaller than the wavelength of light.
    Observation also collapses the probability wave when balls are observed falling onto a board with pegs. The pattern of balls must be a bell-shaped curve, but the observation changes the result.
    Only a christian would have problems with this. The universe is weird.
    Check out quantum spookiness.

  56. @baalisgod666
    I suppose you’re smarter than Stephen Hawking then, and furthermore I suppose Stephen Hawking is a Christian, cause he confirms what I’ve just explained in his most recent book ‚Grand Design‘. Go read it.

  57. @NeuroticDummy if steven hawking told you to jump of a bridge would you do it ?
    Most likely no, but go research and find out for yourself rather than plagurising other peoples work.

  58. The act of observing, is the key. What was the act of observing? The video maker left out the important information for his audience. What instrument did the observing? And could the use of such an instrument alter the results?

  59. you know i tried this experiment at home and did the same thing with blowing farts through two slits. The farts bonced off each other and created a wave pattern so i concluded my farts arn’t made of particles.

  60. I dont get the obseverer part, isnt it only if consciouness is looking at the particle? if you had a video recorder that could see electrons how would that change the results? is it becomes somone knows that the experiment is being measured? if so what if you had 70 studies doing the same experiment! half of them were being observed and the other were not, but they were chosen at random and no body knew which ones were being observed. then after you look at the patterns of all 70, THEN check

  61. You realize now, as you read this, that there is no such thing as light or hard or soft or MATTER as you know it. Its all a vibrating sea of points of electricity, like points of light. Nothing you touch is real like you imagine, its just like two magnets pushing eachother away, its not actually solid , it just feels that way….

  62. If the smallest particles do not exist until looked at, and everything is made up of particles, then this proves that the universe only exists because we are looking at it. Life is but a dream, a real dream. This is where science and faith collide. If a tree falls in the forest, somebody hears it. or it wouldn’t have made a sound. So I deduce that collective group faith / focus create the weather patterns , and everything. The world is at our command? I think slit test is key.

  63. @SlingShotKid007 In becoming an observer, you also become *part* of the system you seek to measure, potentially changing the outcome. In a macroscopic world, this doesn’t have an obvious effect, but introducing even a small light in the sub-microscopic world would throw photons all over the experiment, possibly changing the result.

  64. Lesardah is correct. The video is mis-leading in that it implies that the observer/measuring device is simply watching the electrons as they pass through. That is not true – the measuring device DID interfere with the electron and in so doing it collapsed the probability wave. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we cannot create a measuring device that will not collapse a probability wave so therefore we can only know the probability of the electrons position and speed.

  65. THIS IS SO INTERESTING!!!!!! If I could take a class of theoretical physics (without much math and crap) then I totally would because I love this kind of stuff!

  66. @JamiePolo1
    I actually came to this conclusion MYSELF BEFORE Stephen Hawking’s latest book was released, how about YOU do some research instead of telling people that they’re stealing other people’s work.

  67. Being horny, and watching this … != Relief. Weirdest porn ever. „Two slits.. Every body splitting up etc.. “ Lamest gangbang. Big GangBANG Theory… Oh, there’s another channel I should annoy.. lol

  68. @jkman10 Because it’s strong evidence that there may be things that we may never know… not because of the difficulty of the experiment but because it’s actually impossible to know. The double slit experiment takes the standard scientific method (theorize, gather evidence, experiment, observe, record results) and turns it on its head (as the act of observation determines the results on it’s own). Can it be understood, or is it truly unknowable? The implications are potentially disturbing.

  69. @Kpatable in it. its the bollocks of learning it that bothers me. i wanna find out how a proton can sense it being watched and acts normal as if its a theif in a shop trying to decieve. lol

  70. @jreaper5000000 It’s because the instruments we use to observe it disrupt how a proton acts normally. By being in a space that allows it to observe, the instrument does not allow the proton to act as if the instrument is not there. Or maybe it’s a little space ship and a tiny alien is like „Whoa, why is that thing all up in hur?“ We may never know :\

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top