Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!pbhyc!djo From: djo@pbhyc.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Aspect Experiment and Meaning of QM Message-ID: <652@pbhyc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-May-87 16:47:57 EDT Article-I.D.: pbhyc.652 Posted: Tue May 26 16:47:57 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 27-May-87 05:07:11 EDT References: <1275@cci632.UUCP> <766@klipper.cs.vu.nl> <650@pbhyc.UUCP> <1828@sphinx.uchicago.edu> Reply-To: djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes) Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 25 Keywords: aspect light faster In article <1828@sphinx.uchicago.edu> ogil@sphinx.UUCP (Lord Julius) writes: >Now put two detectors in the holes, so you know which hole the photon went >through on its way to the detector. Now the probability that the original >detector detects the photon is _independent of its position_! Yes, just >placing those two detectors in the holes changed the results, demonstrating >that the universe does conform to the state of man's knowledge, at least >in one sense. > >To make things even worse, if the two detectors in the holes are unreliable -- >they don't always detect a photon -- the interference pattern is a combination >of the original, no detectors pattern and the unvarying, perfectly reliable >detectors pattern. This one never fails to amaze and confuse me. It just >goes to demonstrate that our normal intuition is quite often (perhaps mostly) >wrong when it comes to the realm of subatomic physics. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I do believe that a modified version of Heisenberg's Principle is applicable here -- it is not our knowledge of "which hole the photon went through," but the presence and activity of the detectors themselves -- and no bull about "passive detectors," please; there's no such thing when dealing with a photon-sized mass -- which changes the behavior of the photons as observed by the "original" detector. And I second the nomination of Feynman's excellent book. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes