Timeline for What is the admissible range of sizes or scales for double slit experiments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2019 at 11:47 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | Thank you so much. If your statement is solid, there must be another (non-quantum) explanation for that (so-called) macroscopic quantum eraser. And we definitely need to know why that non-quantum explanation does not also stand at quantum level. Any clue ? | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 15:11 | comment | added | Dast | I believe that those polarised-glass popular science experiments can be explained adequately without resorting to quantum physics, and that therefore they cannot really be interpreted as good evidence/proof of quantum physics. However they are an excellent demo for teaching and they promote exactly the right mindset for thinking about quantum things. | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 12:07 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | Simply put, I would like to know whether or not I will really demonstrate "spooky" quantum phenomena by having a try at one of those macroscopic laser-and-polarized-glass popular science experiments that are hanging around in the Internet...? | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 12:01 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | Thanks for the useful precision. Now I can rephrase my question : given that quantum physics is required to explain both measurement-inducted decoherence and quantum eraser observations in the particle-scale double slit experiment, is quantum physics likewise required step in in order to explain what happens during a macroscopic-scale double slit experiment ?... | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 11:45 | comment | added | Dast | That said: modern quantum theory can be used to describe that experiment (polariser/double slit) in a way that is fairly clear. That makes it different from (say) describing an avalanche using quantum theory (which is technically possible, the avalanche is made of atoms that obey quantum theory) - which is impossibly difficult. | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 11:43 | comment | added | Dast | The problem is that "Is it quantum or not" doesn't really make sense as a physics question. Quantum physics describes the world we live in, so in a physics sense everything is quantum (ice skating is quantum). If you want to find something that could not have possibly been anticipated without quantum physics then the polariser/double-slit experiment is a bad bet, because it was discovered (and explainable) using the wave physics of light long before quantum physics was discovered. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 22:10 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | More simply put, can one tell me (as this site claims users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/polarize/POLAR-sup.pdf) whether the three polarizer experiment is a quantum effect or not? Thanks ! | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 22:07 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | "Quantic" was an error (abuse of English to mimic french "Quantique"). sorry about that. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 22:00 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | more seriously, what do you mean by "the connection between the polarisers and quantum wavefuntion collapse is not perfect" ? Would it be demonstrating quantic decoherence just a bit or not at all ? | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 21:58 | comment | added | Michelange Baudoux | "cutting edge" %^) | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 21:48 | history | answered | Dast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |