Comments on: Another Win for Quantum Mechanics: Passing the Triple-Slit Test

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:58:11 +0000

@nick: There is always wiggle room in science. So yes, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding their findings. As for your claim that the Standard Model predicted that neutrinos have mass, this is incorrect. It predicts no such thing. The neutrinos were given 0 mass by hand — it is no great stretch to imbue them with mass in the SM. Also, your assertion that physicists should have realized that neutrinos have mass via the celebrated high-school level equation E=mc^2 is, again, incorrect. This expression does not say that all particle with energy also have mass; that’s a gross misinterpretation. The same theory that gives us E=mc^2 is also perfectly consistent with massless photons (which have energy).

By: tricia

tricia — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:56:34 +0000

What about the observer in the experiment. One of the experiments previously done like this also used a vertical blind with 2 telescopes behind it which was closed and opened to see the photons action of predicting what it did. This kind of led to the theory of the photon going back in time because of the observer
What are your comments about this thanks. I am still learning so much it’s great

By: Tech STAC82

Tech STAC82 — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:40:50 +0000

My understanding of the DOUBLE slit experiment is that… Through a a series of tubes and mirrors a single quanta of energy (photon) is given the “choice” of two paths to follow. At the end of its journey(s) is a photo sensitive plate. Through thousands if not millions of such emissions a pattern of interference emerges. Being as the emission is a single quanta (photon), the pattern expected would be two bright “patches” not a wave like interference pattern.

The key in this is that it is a single photon being emitted. So its wave function should have little or no affect on its “choice” or its final location on the plate. What the evidence suggests is that the photon “chooses” to take BOTH PATHS AT THE SAME TIME causing the interference pattern, but is also negated by the fact that single points are measured on the plate that form this pattern.

I do not fully understand the whole of the implications, I only have a little high school physics. Nor do i really understand the reason to give a third “option” to the photon, but man, I love this stuff!

By: G-Max

G-Max — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:43:50 +0000

If this sort of thing is to be believed, it would imply that a person at the receiving end of those light waves could see light coming through said slits even when there is no line of sight from the eye to the light source… which is why I won’t believe it until I see it for myself. However, if the quantum psychos aren’t just making this all up, then it promises a whole new approach to holography and stealth technology.

By: NevTheTech

NevTheTech — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:54:15 +0000

Jeeze… All I said was “Could you switch the litghts on?”

By: Wilson

Wilson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:36:54 +0000

It’s not as simple as throwing a tennis ball at two holes in a wall.

At the atomic level there are really no “slits” as we think of them., The atoms in the “solid” material and the atoms in the air in the “slits” form a continum (all atoms are mostly empty space anyway) so there are no clearly defined “edges” to the “slits”

You’r firing waves at waves through waves. There could be a lot of other interactions going on there.

By: nick

nick — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:25:36 +0000

“more or less zero” sounds like the results could be experimental error.

Lets not forget the standard model was recently proved incorrect in its prediction that neutrinos didn’t have any mass (and anyone could have looked at E=MC² and made an assumption that yes, if they have energy they do indeed have mass). So… until the answer is “zero” and not “more or less zero” there is still wiggle room :D I suspect we’ll hear more on this when our measuring instruments improve further.