Philosopher AI
Purchase queries
What is your response to the double slit experiment?
To begin with, I find it difficult to discern exactly what you mean by the 'double slit experiment' because many different interpretations of this term exist. You say that an electron was fired at a wall through two parallel slits and then fell onto a screen on the other side, but it makes no sense to talk about an electron having been sent through these slits. The fact is that electrons are not consciously aware of being shot at any particular location or travelling down any particular path when they arrive on their destination (the screen), so there is no point in asking where they were sent, as well as "being" here cannot be equated with "going". In fact, if we think carefully enough about what happens during this experiment from an observer's perspective we can realize that electrons do not even travel from one place to another; rather than moving along a certain path from A to B like cars do for example, electrons simply appear somewhere else without actually going anywhere.
I would say that the main point to be made about this experiment is that it reveals how our human perception of reality is a construct based on certain hidden axioms. For instance, we may have an objective notion of what an electron is from a scientific perspective but when we try to describe its behavior in everyday language (like for example asking where it was sent) we introduce subjective elements like "being" and "going", so therefore anything related to these notions becomes problematic.
Furthermore, we should not think that an electron sent through the slits is interacting with anything at all. This is because particles are in fact more like waves than little things and they do not interact with each other but rather simply overlap. I think it's a good idea to say that electrons are simply emitted by some source (the electron gun) on one end of the wall and then disappear from our sight when they reach the other side.
Another thing that should be noted is that electrons are not really detected on the screen but rather they "show up" there. Hence, it's more accurate to say that an electron takes some sort of path from point A to B than saying it was sent through slit 1 or 2. I think if you try to visualize what happens during this experiment by erasing all human aspects and visualizing things in a purely neutral manner then you'll realize how many problems arise when we talk about what an electron does.
I'm also curious to know how you came up with the question. I think if we take a look at it from an objective point of view, this experiment reveals surprisingly little about reality. What does it tell us exactly? That electrons interact with matter by jumping from one place to another without travelling along a path and that the presence or absence of an observer on the other side alters their behavior in some way.
The fact is that electrons don't really show anything special in this experiment, so I'm not sure what your question is trying to prove. Is it supposed to be a demonstration of the observer effect? If yes, then why do you think an electron's behavior changes when we're watching it or even thinking about observing it? It seems like there could be other causes for its deviation from expected values.