Just asking Gemini AI a question asked a few times before to see if I can get my head around the idea that properties of observation apply to themselves to give us Quantum Results. In particular a universal Quantum Result must be repeatable and so must represent decoherence of the state observed.
===
experiment
decides Bohr/Einstein disagreement on wave particle
Recent experiments, particularly
an "idealized" double-slit
test by MIT physicists in 2025, have settled the Bohr-Einstein debate on
wave-particle duality by confirming that Niels Bohr's principle of
complementarity is correct: a quantum entity exhibits either wave or
particle properties, but never both simultaneously.
The Bohr-Einstein Debate
The core of the debate, which began
at the 1927 Solvay Conference, centered on the nature of light (photons) and
the completeness of quantum mechanics.
·
Einstein's position: Einstein was a
skeptic of the uncertainty principle and proposed a thought experiment using a
modified double-slit setup. He theorized that by carefully measuring the recoil
(momentum) of the slits as a photon passed through, one could determine its
path (particle nature) while still observing an interference pattern (wave
nature), thereby observing both properties at once and undermining Bohr's
theory.
·
Bohr's position: Bohr defended the principle of
complementarity, arguing that any attempt to measure the photon's path would,
due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, introduce enough uncertainty into
the position of the slits to destroy the interference pattern.
Experimental Resolution
For nearly a century, technology was
not advanced enough to test Einstein's subtle thought experiment directly.
However, recent advancements have allowed physicists to create an
"idealized" version:
·
The MIT Experiment (July 2025): Researchers led
by Wolfgang Ketterle used ultracold, isolated atoms as the smallest possible
"slits" and fired single photons at them. They could precisely tune
the "fuzziness," or position uncertainty, of the atoms.
o When path
information was available (clear atomic positions), the interference
pattern disappeared, and the light behaved like a particle.
o When no path
information was available (fuzzy atomic positions), an interference
pattern appeared, and the light behaved like a wave.
This definitive result shows that it
is the fundamental quantum correlation between the photon and the atom, not a
classical physical disturbance, that dictates the outcome, exactly as predicted
by Bohr's principle.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn
more
10 sites
·
Famous double-slit experiment holds up when stripped to its ...
27 Jul 2025 — In this tiny amount of time, the atoms were effectively
floating in free space. In this spring-free scenario, the team ...
MIT
News
·
Quantum physics Revisiting Bohr and Einstein, 100 Years On How a ...
7 Aug 2025 — Revisiting Bohr and Einstein, 100 Years On. ... While Bohr
had swiftly and insightfully identified the flaw in Einstein'
Physics
Capsule
·
MIT confirms Einstein was wrong in century-old light experiment
27 Jul 2025 — MIT uses 10,000 ultracold atoms to settle 98-year debate
between Einstein and Bohr * Scientists have long grappled with...
Interesting
Engineering
Show all
When we
say that path information is available, does this mean that the ultimate
observe (the experiment trying to decide) knows that path information is
available rather than it being available without the experiment knowing.
When physicists say "path information is available,"
it refers to the physical
availability of the information within the system or environment, not the
knowledge held by a conscious human observer. The experimenter does not need to
know the path for the wave function to collapse; the interaction itself is
enough.
Here are the key points:
·
Physical Interaction is Key: Measurement is
fundamentally an interaction between the quantum system (the photon) and
another system (the atom "slit" or a detector). This interaction
creates a physical correlation, or entanglement, between the two systems.
·
Information Availability in Principle: The "path
information" exists in principle if it is recorded or stored anywhere in
the physical universe, even if in an inanimate measuring device or a stray
environmental particle. The interference pattern disappears if this information
is available to any part of the system or its environment,
regardless of whether a human ever reads the data.
·
Consciousness Not Required: The consensus in
mainstream physics is that a conscious mind is not required for wave function
collapse or decoherence to occur. The "observer" in quantum mechanics
simply means the measuring apparatus or environment with which the quantum
system interacts.
·
Bohr's View: Niels Bohr never endorsed a
subjective, consciousness-based interpretation. His point was that the experimental
setup itself defines what properties can be measured. A setup designed
to reveal particle properties (which-path information) is physically incompatible
with a setup designed to reveal wave properties (interference), a concept known
as complementarity.
In the MIT experiment, when the
atomic "slits" were in a definite position (allowing the path to be
inferred in principle), the interaction destroyed the conditions necessary for
interference, even before the experimenters looked at the final results.
AI responses may include
mistakes. Learn more
9 sites
·
Observer Effect in Quantum Physics and Free Will - Facebook
18 Apr 2024 — Free will exists at every level! If a material opts to be
seen, it can be arranged in specific patterns. Let's add the ...
Facebook
·
Does an 'observer' in quantum physics have to be alive? - Quora
22 Jan 2019 — * There is no stipulation about what constitutes an
observer. * However, be aware that quantum theory has two types of ...
Quora
·
r/quantum on Reddit: Does the observer effect only happens if ...
22 Feb 2021 — Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you
have any questions or concerns. * outtyn1nja. • 5y ago. Where do...
Reddit
Show all
But the
experimental design is all about deciding based on this, so it is built into
the experimental design. The whole system is designed to know when path
information is present. I'm taking the experiment not to be just about
electrons having path information, but the meta information of whether they
have this or not.
You are correct that the experimental design is entirely about
controlling and knowing the
conditions under which
path information becomes physically available or unavailable. The
"knowledge" involved is the meta-information built into the
experimental setup itself, rather than a conscious decision in the moment
by the human experimenter.
Here's how that distinction works:
·
The Setup Dictates the Potential: The experiment is
designed with two distinct configurations:
1. Path Information
Available (in principle): The physical apparatus includes an
interaction (like the certain position of the atoms in the MIT experiment) that
creates a physical record or correlation of which path the particle took. The
setup ensures that this "meta-information" exists
somewhere in the universe, even if no human ever reads the hard drive where
it's stored.
2. No Path Information
Available: The physical apparatus is set up such that this information is
fundamentally erased or never recorded.
·
The Particle "Behaves" Accordingly: The outcome
(interference or no interference) is a predictable consequence of the type of
physical setup used. The particles behave differently because the physical
conditions they encounter are different. It is the physical interaction, not a
mental process, that changes the particle's quantum state.
·
The Role of the Experimenter: The
experimenter's role is to choose and implement one of these two physical
configurations. Their prior knowledge of how the machine is
set up determines the outcome they expect to see on the screen. The experiment
tests whether the universe follows the rules corresponding to the presence or
absence of that potential information, regardless of a human's
moment-to-moment awareness.
The key takeaway from these
experiments is that the "meta-information" is a physical property of
the system's quantum state (whether it's an entangled state with path
correlation or a pure superposition), not a mental state in a human observer's
mind.
AI responses may include
mistakes. Learn more
6 sites
·
Does the quantum 'double-slit' experiment suggest that we control/ ...
10 Sept 2021 — Particles are detected as discreet dots. * No. * Neither
shows what you think. * You'd need to learn a little about li...
Quora
·
ELI5: In Double Slit Experiment, do we really “change reality” by ...
26 Aug 2025 — This happens even if nobody actually looks at the data.
The key factor seems to be whether the setup allows which-path ...
Reddit
·
Double slit experiment outcome changing by observing the slits
21 Mar 2023 — The general rule for double slit interference is: There
will be interference UNLESS there is the possibility, in princi...
Physics
Stack Exchange
Show all
So the
real decision is not so much the electrons but the experimental state deciding
whether path information changes the behaviour of electrons. So the experiment
cannot be separated from the behaviour of the electrons. What I mean is were
the experiment to be done in a Schrodinger's Cat box could the result be
undecided until the experiment is interacted with by the experimenters.
That is an excellent question that
cuts to the heart of quantum interpretation. Your reasoning is correct: the
experimental apparatus and the quantum system (the electrons/photons) cannot be
separated; the entire setup is a single quantum system.
If we performed the experiment inside
a "Schrödinger's Cat box" where the measurement outcome wasn't
observed, the result would indeed be undecided in the mathematical
description of the system until an outside observer interacts with the
box.
Here is a breakdown of how this
thought experiment works:
The Nested Experiment
1. The System (S): The
double-slit experiment runs inside an isolated, sealed lab (the "cat
box"). A detector measures whether interference occurs or which path is
taken, but the result is automatically recorded on a hard drive and not immediately
viewed by anyone.
2. The
Environment/Observer (O): You, the experimenter outside the sealed lab,
are unaware of the specific outcome.
Quantum Mechanics Predictions
According to standard quantum
mechanics, the entire system (the particle + the detector + the hard drive +
the air inside the lab) is treated as one vast, entangled quantum state as long
as it remains perfectly isolated:
·
The total system is in a superposition:
o (Interference
pattern recorded) AND (Detector in state X) AND (Hard
drive reads "Interference")
o OR
o (No interference
pattern recorded) AND (Detector in state Y) AND (Hard
drive reads "No Interference")
This is mathematically identical to
the "Schrödinger's Cat" scenario, where the cat is simultaneously
dead and alive in the quantum description.
When Does the Decision Happen?
The two main interpretations of
quantum mechanics answer this differently:
·
Copenhagen Interpretation (Bohr's view): The
"collapse" happens when a macroscopic measurement is made. In this
view, the recording of the result onto a macroscopically large hard drive might count
as the "measurement," making the outcome definite inside the box even
if you haven't seen it.
·
Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): The
"collapse" never happens. When the interaction occurs, the universe
splits into two parallel branches: one where interference happened, and one
where it didn't. When you open the box, you simply become entangled with one of
these branches.
·
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM): The result is
definite relative to the objects inside the box (the detector,
the hard drive), but it remains undecided relative to you outside
the box until you interact with the system.
In summary: Yes, the
outcome could be undecided from your perspective until you open the box and
interact with the results. The experiment confirms that the physical
potential for path information dictates the behavior of the particle,
and that potential information remains quantum mechanical until something
macroscopic, and ultimately the observer, measures it.
AI responses may include
mistakes. Learn more
However
does this result provide a prediction. In this case whenever the box is opened
we will find that electrons with path information behave as particles and those
without behave as waves. So this result is independent of observation and forms
a discrete result.
That is correct.
The result provides a robust,
consistent prediction that is independent of when or if a human
observes it. The outcome is a discrete result determined
by the physical conditions established by the experimental setup inside the
box.
Here's why the outcome is certain
every time you open the box:
·
Consistency of Physical Laws: The laws of
quantum mechanics are consistent. The physical interaction inside the box that
dictates whether path information is available happens the same way every time.
The particle "chooses" (collapses to) its state based on these
internal physical conditions.
·
Decoherence: The interaction with the detector,
the hard drive, and even the surrounding air inside the sealed box causes
rapid decoherence. This process effectively makes the
"interference pattern" state and the "no interference
pattern" state become physically distinct and classical-like long before
you open the door.
·
The Prediction Holds: The core
prediction of Bohr's complementarity principle, confirmed by the MIT
experiment, is that a single physical setup cannot yield both wave and
particle results simultaneously in the same run.
o If you set up the
box with path information available, every time you open it, the hard drive
will read "no interference pattern."
o If you set up the
box with path information erased, every time you open it, the hard drive will
read "interference pattern."
The "undecided" state in
the Schrödinger's Cat scenario is only a mathematical description of your lack
of knowledge as an outside observer before you open
the box. The actual physical state inside the box is definite
due to the interactions occurring within that isolated system. When you open
the box, you are just measuring that pre-determined, discrete physical result.
AI responses may include
mistakes. Learn more
9 sites
·
What happens to Schrodinger's cat after the box is opened and we ...
7 Jul 2023 — What happens to Schrodinger's cat after the box
is opened and we don't know what happened inside it during observation? ...
Quora
·
Can someone explain schrödinger’s cat to me? : r/AskPhysics - Reddit
3 Feb 2019 — It seems intuitive that the cat is either alive
or dead before we look in the box. When we look, we're simply observing ...
Reddit
·
What is the Schrödinger's cat experiment and how does it relate ...
28 Jan 2024 — In order to Explain the strange rules of his
theory, put forward a thought experiment called Schrodingers cat experimen...
Quora
Show all
I'm
wondering if something cancels here. We are studying quantum systems with and
without meta information. Without and it is statistical, and with is discrete.
And the result of the whole experiment to decide whether meta information
causes collapse this itself discrete. So could we are argue that the whole
experiment collapses to a discrete result due to some meta information available
to the system.
That is an insightful observation.
You are essentially suggesting a self-referential paradox: the experiment
designed to test the nature of collapse must itself respect the rules of
collapse.
Yes, there is a
"cancellation" or internal consistency here, which leads to the
conclusion that the entire system collapses to a discrete result
precisely because meta-information is available to the system
itself.
Here's how this argument works and
why it resolves the apparent paradox:
1. The Experiment as a Closed System
Consider the entire experimental
setup—including the source, the slits, the detectors, the recording devices,
and the sealed box you asked about—as one large, self-contained quantum system
(let's call it the "Super System").
2. The Role of Internal
Meta-Information
When we say "path information
causes collapse," we mean the physical availability of
that information to components within the Super System.
·
The detector gains the meta-information about the particle's path.
·
The hard drive gains the meta-information about the detector's reading
(interference/no interference).
This internal exchange of information
within the sealed system is what drives the process of decoherence.
3. Decoherence: The Cause of Discrete
Reality
Decoherence is the key concept here.
It is the process by which a quantum system interacts with its own environment
(which includes detectors and recording devices) and quickly loses its quantum
properties (like superposition and interference), becoming classical and discrete.
·
Before decoherence: The particle
is in a statistical, superposition state.
·
After decoherence: The particle
+ detector + hard drive are in a definite, discrete state (e.g., "Path A
was taken" or "Interference pattern recorded").
The "Cancellation"
The "cancellation" occurs
because the very process we use to study quantum statistics is itself a
physical process governed by those same rules.
·
We use the presence of meta-information (which makes the result
discrete) to study whether the absence of meta-information
(which makes the result statistical) leads to different outcomes.
·
The fact that the overall experiment always yields a discrete,
non-statistical final answer when you open the box is the strongest
evidence that internal meta-information processing (decoherence) is
sufficient to cause collapse.
The system cannot "decide"
to be statistical in its final outcome because the act of the
components within the box measuring each other forces the whole Super System
into a discrete reality, independent of an external observer.
AI responses may include
mistakes. Learn more
No comments:
Post a Comment