Beyond the Double-slit experiment.?

Question

1. If we use a light source in a double-slit experiment the output is an interference pattern.

2. Now instead of light source is a photon-gun is used which releases one photon at a time and we see the final output the final distribution "some how" produces pictures simliar to inteference pattern.

3. But now in the step-2 if an "intelligent observer" is introduced, the interference pattern does not occur and we just see the output as output seen with a normal gunshot shot from a gun.

Question: q1. what is the definition of "intelligent observer"?

q2. is cat/dog also considered "intelligent"?

q3.Is a 1 year old kid considered "intelligent"?

q4. In these experiment is the whole setup inside somekind of a closed box?

q5. what happens if a movie-camera is placed as an observer? is this considered an "intelligent observer" and what is the output?

Answer 1

Q1. An intelligent observer is an instrument not a person place or thing. We are dealing with extremely small dimensions. In order to properly answer this question you will have to to think very very small dimensions. Just as you cannot see an atom with your plain eye, you then yourself cannot be an "intelligent observer" in this scenerio. I

Q2. Intelligent is consideredd so for this experiment as an instrument that can accurately view the path of the electron.
Q3. I considere a 1 year old exceptionally intellingent, however, in this situation he/she is not only not able to discern a particular atom with their naked eye, but undoubtedly finds an empty box far more stimulating. So not in the scenario.
Q4. Yes, most of these experiments are set up in a closed environment to minimize the number of variables. Likely that you have the emitter the slits and the receptor plate in a vacuum.
Q5. Ok.. this is where the question probably gets into some more interesting facts. Can a movie camera be placed as an observer. Consider the question. A movie camera (or a camera of any sorts) operates on the idea that reflected light is sent through a lens and picked up on film or a receptor chip (digital cam).

I don't know if you've looked into the Heisenberg principle at all but it will be used to explain the phenomenon to the best of my ability. In short, the Heisenberg uncertanty principle states that you cannon know the location of the object without acting upon the object in such a maner that it would become less probably to know the actual location of the object once you've ascertained its original position.
Let's look at it in a small universe situation-> the electron microscope.
To use this device, a sample is bombard with electron to form a picture with those electrons that bounce off. In doing this, you've struck the atoms of the sample with this elementary particle. Although the electron has a very small mass compared to the atoms of the sample, some mass has acted upon the sample and perhaps moved it. As such, you have the measurement (location) of the atom at the point of strike, but if it has shifted due to impact you are now left with out the actual location.
Um.. where was I going with this..
Oh, yeah, so your intelligent observer needs to be able to interact with the environment and particles in some way to ascertain its location. Since the scale we are working on is so small. This interaction may be enough to throw off the interference pattern by somehow diminishing the wave pattern of the source particle and forcing it into the "shot gun" pattern.

The world of quantum physics is littered with things we cannot explain, the above is my best guess answer to a incredibly complex problem. I hope it helped.

Answer 2

First in double slit experiment there has to be more then one observer .
Relativity theory indicates that processes are real only if an observer is present and things are dependent on the frame of reference of the observer=One inteligent observer.
However in 2 slit experiment one Observer is needed to project the light particles(the input) thu the slit and another to view what is on the other side of the slit(the output).

This is required because one observer cannot determine two events at the same time.

This puts Relativity on a Different control system level.

An inteligent observer is one who receives the response In a system and instaneoulsly interprets the response.

The camera is an observer of the out put inteligence but does not interpret the output.
Though it gathers intelligence it does not interpret it.

Cat one one the most inteligent creature is an observer can gather data but can only respond according to the transfer function that he was inteligently programed into.

A human follows the same patern except he has a self cheking system to interpret observed data the self checking is a learned response.

An Idiot May perfectly Understand an Einstein Esperiment ;but on the other hand a scientist may not ether Understant the experiment nor Einstein.

So One observer Only may not be conclusive in determining a process.One is needed to observe the input and the other the output.So the observers must be able to interpret the input and the out puts..

Answer 3

As I understand part 3, the additional factor is not so much an intelligent observer as it is any way to determine which slit a photon passes through BEFORE it gets to the place where you are looking for the interference pattern. The idea is that to know which slit the photon passes through requires touching it or modifying it somehow. After all, the only way you can see a photon is if it is absorbed by your eye, or by film in a camera. You see objects like rocks and tables and people only when photons that have bounced off of those objects end their flight in your eyes. You would need some way to detect a photon in flight passing through a slit without absorbing it, such as bouncing another photon off of it, which would disturb it, and that disturbance alters the pattern. It is just too, too weird, isn't it?

Answer 4

In all that cases there was an intelligent observer present. Otherwise the fringe pattern could not have been observed. What the scientists were puzzled when a sensor is put on the slit itself to find the travel path it disappears. This phenomena could not be explained. In either case we should assume the light is a particle. The pattern is not an interference fringe. It is an bright and dark areas. The photos refuses to go to the dark areas.

Answer 5

Intelligent is someone who can see the results and make some kind of conclusion, so animals and ssmall children are off the list.

The camera is an impartial observer, as it records what happened with no preconceived notions and could allow for a more in-depth analysis as the film can be slowed down..

As to set-up, I have seen it both wways

Answer 6

This widely-studied question has defeated much better brains than mine, so I'll add no comment. It does seem to me, however, that 'answers' that add little more than confusion to the problem are perhaps better left alone.
Goring seems to have contributed a response of remarkable confusion! As I understand it, the double-slit experiment and its consequences have nothing whatever to do with relativity and little direct connection with Einstein.

Answer 7

all of them would be intelligent except perhaps the camera. why dont you try the experiment?

Answer 8

coming back later to answer this