The Twin-Slit Experiment

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Terrapin Station »

Atla wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 4:48 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 4:36 pm

Say that the way that photons work, at least with respect to the apparatuses we can build, is so that the apparatuses emit either:

(a) 1 photon or none
(b) 27 photons in a single wave pattern or none
(c) 282 photons in multiple waves or none

No matter how low we make the output, we either get (a), (b) or (c)--either an emission that's always the same, or nothing if we turn it any lower.

How would we know whether (a), (b) or (c) is the case?
Never heard that according to known physics, that's how photons work.
So the way we'd know that something is the case is by conforming to conventions?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:It's not a formal model. It's a possibility re what could be occurring, a possibility with a lot of unknowns in it. There are many different possibilities re what's really going on. The point is that we can't rule those possibilities out, and these possibilities avoid saying ridiculous things like "our consciousness determines the particle's value," or "the particles do not really have any value prior to observation," etc.
I'm not asking you to rule the possibilities of your model out. I'm asking you to show how they can be ruled in. Can't you say, in at least qualitative terms, how the model you're proposing results in the actual observed interference fringes? Can you use it to make a prediction of, for example, what would happen to those fringes if the gap between the slits was changed? Or if one of the slits was blocked?

You can propose any model you like, but if it's going to be something more than a vague "anything is possible" kind of statement, it has to be testable. It has to make testable predictions. Existing theories may be philosophically unsatisfying for all kinds of interesting reasons that (if we ever got onto the philosophy) could be discussed. But they are descriptively and predicatively accurate. Any competing model which we might regard as more philosophically appealing also has to pass that basic test of fitting the observable evidence. Physicists didn't choose the existing models just to be obtuse. They were forced into them, after numerous attempts at other possibilities. The objections to QM within the physics community, over decades, are well documented, with Einstein's objection obviously being the most famous.

Sorry if this is another question with an obvious answer, like the one about longitudinal waves, but I have to check: do you understand how those fringes are created in a system with classical waves, like ripples in a tank of water? Do you understand how the path length differences from each slit to a given point on the screen results in alternating maxima (maximally constructive interference) and minima (maximally destructive interference)? And do you understand why those path length differences work like that?

As I said in a previous post, I think it's important to understand this basic pre-QM high school physics stuff first. If you do already, ignore the question.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 5:16 pm I'm not asking you to rule the possibilities of your model out. I'm asking you to show how they can be ruled in.
Simply by the fact that it's not impossible for it to be the case. (At least not practically impossible due to it being falsified.)
Can't you say, in at least qualitative terms, how the model you're proposing results in the actual observed interference fringes?
I did this at least three or four times already.

This is why it's no good to write longer posts.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:Simply by the fact that it's not impossible for it to be the case. (At least not practically impossible due to it being falsified.)
So the test of a good theory is: "it's not impossible"? And that's it?
I did this at least three or four times already.
No. You didn't.

I've read your description carefully to check if I missed anything. Nothing in that description addresses the actual results of the experiment. Read up on Young's double slit experiment, without initially thinking about Quantum Mechanics at all.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Steve3007 »

Here are some simple high school level questions about those classical waves travelling through 2 slits:

Let the length of the path from slit 1 to the middle of the central maximum be n times the wavelength of the waves.

As a multiple of n, what is the length of the path from slit 2 minus the length of the path from slit 1 to:

1. the middle of the central maximum?
2. the middle of the next two maxima out on either side of the central one?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 5:26 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:Simply by the fact that it's not impossible for it to be the case. (At least not practically impossible due to it being falsified.)
So the test of a good theory is: "it's not impossible"? And that's it?
The point is that much more mundane suppositions could explain what's going on "behind" many qm experiments, rather than making outrageous ontological claims so assertively such as consciousness determining otherwise indeterminate states, etc.
I did this at least three or four times already.
No. You didn't.
Hence why I'm not detailing it again. I'm not about to spend a lot of time arguing about what we're even saying or having to type essentially the same things over and over.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 5:26 pm Nothing in that description addresses the actual results of the experiment. Read up on Young's double slit experiment, without initially thinking about Quantum Mechanics at all.
Look at it this way. As some possibilities, imagine that what we're really dealing with are:

(1) single "waves" of photons as I suggested them above.

or alternately

(2) multiple "waves" of photons as I also suggested as a possibility above.

or alternately

(3) seemingly arbitrary "globular clusters" of photons a la:

Image

or alternately

(4) regular/symmetrical clusters of photos something like:

Image

or alternately

(5) bands of photons something like:

Image


Now, why couldn't any of those possibilities (or anything else imaginable) produce any possible pattern we detect?
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Papus79 »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 9:30 am You have far more faith than I do--and maybe quite different experience--that people don't just follow suit for a lot of this stuff, that they don't have an aversion to questioning some of the basic assumptions that have been passed on to them.
I'd think of it as more faith in game theory and human avarice, particularly when taking a big name or two down means you took their title by force which is a lot of fame, prestige, and destructive gloating to be had and that's hardly something I'd think most properly ambitious people would pass on for sentimental reasons.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:Look at it this way. As some possibilities, imagine that what we're really dealing with are:

(1) single "waves" of photons as I suggested them above.

or alternately

(2) multiple "waves" of photons as I also suggested as a possibility above.

or alternately

(3) seemingly arbitrary "globular clusters" of photons a la:
Great. I'm sure it's possible to think of an infinite number of other possibilities too. As a general rule, it always is. How do we sift through the infinitude of possibilities that our imaginations can generate? Use one of those theories to make a prediction, in this case about how the interference fringes would vary as the gap between the slits varies. Then test that prediction. i.e. Propose a testable theory. I don't suppose you're ever going to do that, and the pictures are very pretty but they're getting more disconnected from the subject matter. You might as well just post a video of a zoom of the Mandelbrot Set, skin up and enjoy the ride. (I do actually recommend that. Type "Mandelbrot Set Zoom" into YouTube.)

Your general point appears to boil down to: "Existing theories will somehow be replaced by something in the future, but I don't know what." Since all the laws of Nature are all provisional, I can't argue with the possibility that any of them might be replaced in the future. But I don't think that means we throw away all the Physics textbooks and replace them with some pictures and the single statement:

"Anything is Possible, Man."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Steve3007 »

Incidentally, my earlier high school physics question on interference in waves was badly worded. That almost certainly doesn't matter because it will be deemed irrelevant to the Philosophy of Science. If so, I think it is due to a lack of realization that in order to get to the more advanced philosophically interesting parts of any given subject we need to climb up through the boring parts first, in order to understand what the interesting parts are actually saying. But in case anyone's interested, I'll re-word it anyway:

---

Ripples on the surface of a tank of water either spread out from a single "dipper" and pass through two slits, or are generated by two dippers. The result is interference between the two ripple sources with bands of constructive and destructive interference. (i.e. an interference pattern.)

Image

As a multiple of the wavelength of those ripples, what is the expected difference between the path length from slit 1 (or dipper 1) and the path length from slit 2 (or dipper 2) to:

1. the middle of the central maximum?
2. the middle of the two minima on either side of the central maximum?
3. the middle of the next two maxima out on either side of the central one?

The answer to each is a small integer or half-integer number.

Based on our knowledge of the theory of how these ripples work, what can we predict will happen to the positions of those bands of constructive and destructive interference (maxima and minima) if:

4. the distance between the slits/dippers is changed?
5. the wavelength is changed?

Can we test that theory and its resulting prediction?


Note: In this experiment, a "dipper" is an object touching the surface of the water which is made to oscillate up and down, usually by being connected to an electric motor, so that it generates a continuous stream of concentric ripples all of the same wavelength.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve, not wishing to butt in on your experiment, but I came across this video about the double-slit experiment that I especially liked, especially how he explained the measurement problem (hint: you don't need a conscious observer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75DGO3GrF4
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: February 4th, 2020, 3:13 am Use one of those theories to make a prediction, in this case about how the interference fringes would vary as the gap between the slits varies.
That doesn't enable us to say what's really going on ontologically, because it would just be a fact of the instrumental utility of what we're imagining to be the case (beyond what we're observing--and necessarily a prediction isn't an observation). Insofar as we're observing any sort of regularity, so that anything would be predictable period, rather than random, we could imaginatively fashion anything we think of so that it results in the patterns we're observing, thus enabling predictions based on it.
Then test that prediction. i.e. Propose a testable theory. I don't suppose you're ever going to do that
Not in this thread, because it's not the right context for it. If we were in a lab setting where we were actually doing experiments, then sure, I could fashion testable theories for all sorts of different "noumenal possibilities" (re what's really going on ontologically). What I'd do is construct numerous theories that all make exactly the same predictions as the theory that you're going with, with respect to the observations we're making, but that have different noumenal realities behind them--thus emphasizing that the mere fact that we can make predictions doesn't tell us what's really going on ontologically (so we should probably stop talking about things as if that's the case).
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Terrapin Station »

After all, what we're primarily doing in making predictions for experiments like this is using mathematics, but mathematical objects are not real. They're simply (a) a way that we think about some basic relations we observe, and then the bulk of mathematics is (b) a construction extrapolated from (a), much in the way of building elaborate structures from an erector set. It's simply a language for talking about the way we think about relations.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Halc »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 4:36 pm Say that the way that photons work, at least with respect to the apparatuses we can build, is so that the apparatuses emit either:

(a) 1 photon or none
(b) 27 photons in a single wave pattern or none
(c) 282 photons in multiple waves or none

No matter how low we make the output, we either get (a), (b) or (c)--either an emission that's always the same, or nothing if we turn it any lower.

How would we know whether (a), (b) or (c) is the case?
In case (a), there would be one dot on the detector screen. A single data point. With the other cases, there would be 27 or 282 respectively.

Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to convey. For one, how does one send 27 photons "in a single wave pattern" as opposed to not sending them that way? It seems like case b is just case a done 27 times. You can do each of them in separate labs if you want. You get the same predicted results either way, per quantum theory.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:That doesn't enable us to say what's really going on ontologically, because it would just be a fact of the instrumental utility of what we're imagining to be the case (beyond what we're observing--and necessarily a prediction isn't an observation).
That is true, in the sense that there is no experiment or observation that could be used to distinguish between different propositions as to what is going on ontologically if all of those propositions stem from the same set of observations. That is where such metaphysical devices as Occam's razor are sometimes invoked. But if our theory doesn't make falsifiable predictions as to what will be observed then it hasn't even reached the first stage. The first stage is to lay out various theories that achieve that basic aim. Only then can we decide among them.
Insofar as we're observing any sort of regularity, so that anything would be predictable period, rather than random, we could imaginatively fashion anything we think of so that it results in the patterns we're observing, thus enabling predictions based on it.
First point: we are observing regularity. If we weren't, there would be no experiment and no predictions.

And, no, we couldn't "imaginatively fashion anything we think of so that it results in the patterns we're observing". That would not be a prediction. It would simply be a description. And a description of a regularity in an observation cannot be "anything we think of". It is a subset of the set "anything we think of", whereby every member of that subset successfully describes and predicts what is observed. The candidates that you've proposed so far as members of that subset do not yet meet that criterion.
If we were in a lab setting where we were actually doing experiments, then sure, I could fashion testable theories for all sorts of different "noumenal possibilities" (re what's really going on ontologically). What I'd do is construct numerous theories that all make exactly the same predictions as the theory that you're going with, with respect to the observations we're making, but that have different noumenal realities behind them--thus emphasizing that the mere fact that we can make predictions doesn't tell us what's really going on ontologically (so we should probably stop talking about things as if that's the case).
Various "noumenal possibilities" have, of course, already been considered. Consideration of such possibilities is one of the main subjects in discussions about the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. One such possibility (the "many worlds theory") is the subject discussed by the presenter of the lecture about about the Mach Zehnder Interferometer, which I referenced in a topic quite a long time ago and referred you to in an earlier conversation. There are various others. But again: those theories can't just be "anything we think of".
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021