Two slits and one hell of a quantum conundrum

#1

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05892-6?utm_source=twt_nr&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=NNPnature

(Ashwin S) #2

@Patrick
What’s your take on this?
I have always been fascinated by the double slit experiment…

(Jon Garvey) #3

Heisenberg points out how in the “Baconian Revolution” one of the geatest shifts, boith for science and the common man, was to see things in the world from the point of view of theoir mechanical structure, rather than their meaning. It’s such a huge shift that it’s near-impossible to get some sense of the older mindset.

You could crudely express than in terms of a shift from the promacy of mind, to that of the promacy of matter.

But Heisenberg also points out how the paradoxes in quantum theory are largely products of that shift on worldview. For example, suppose that we had no trouble in assuming that our minds affected the world by observing it (eg the old idea that your eyes create an image “out there” where the object is, ratyer than at the back of your eye), then it doesn’t really seem so queer that very tiny objects could be noticeably determined by how you were thinking about them.

I’m not suggesting a reasoned alternative there, but merely showing how an intractable paradox may be more to do with a false way of seeing the world. Heisenberg (again - forgive me as I’ve just finished his book) strongly believed that quantum theory had sounded the death knell for materialism, yet we still lack a replacement.

#4

Yes, I have always been amazed by the results from the double slit experiment. I have always spent my time studying the results and accepting them as provisionally true until new data came around. I was always more interested in how we can use the results to build better quantum products like quantum computers and entangled communications systems. Never pondered much about “metaphysical” implications, if there are any.

1 Like
(Jon Garvey) #5

“incuriouser and incuriouser,” said Alice.

It’s fortunate the original pioneers lihe Heisenberg, Schodinger and Bohr were more metaphysically curious, or there’d have been nothing but equations to ponder. They also succeeded in laying a solid (if probabilistic and unreal) foundation demonstrating that new data contradicting quantum theory ain’t going to be coming round.

2 Likes
(Ashwin S) #6

Do you actually think there could be no metaphysical implications? Or is it just force of habit to add a note of skepticism ? :slight_smile:
It’s definitely worth a think through… the current scientific curiosity about consciousness is definitely an interesting impact on research focus.
And also the focus on “information”… Whatever that is.