[Abishek_Muthian]

>Consider the double slit experiment: throw a bunch of basketballs at a wall and see what pattern of hits they leave by looking at where they hit the wall. If the wall is being looked at (observed), we see one pattern.

If the basketball was of energy 1 quantum, if the energy used to observe is 1 quantum or more the (shining light to see the result in realtime) then the pattern is different due to interference. If we don't use any energy to see the result in realtime, then result is different due to non-interference.

Did what I say hold up?

[dave_sullivan]

I could be wrong, but I have a different understanding on how all of that works. You keep talking about basketballs instead of waves or probability fields and I guess this is where we diverge.

[chriswarbo]

> Did what I say hold up?

No ;)

> If the basketball was of energy 1 quantum, if the energy used to observe is 1 quantum or more the (shining light to see the result in realtime)

How would we observe the light that bounced off the basket ball? Would we need to hit it with another light in order to detect where that light is? How would we detect that second particle of light; would we hit it with a third? And so on.

The answer is that we don't need to shine light to see the basketball. We can detect the basketball itself; for example, if the basketball were representing a photon of light, we could cover the wall with photomultiplier tubes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier_tube )

As sibling comments have pointed out, the parent is wrong in saying that observing the wall will change the pattern. Rather, it's observing the slits that will change the pattern.

If we don't observe the slits, but we do mark the point on the wall where the basketball hits, and we do this over and over again, then the marks on the wall will show an interference pattern. Note that we're not throwing anything at the basketball: we're just waiting for it to hit the wall on its own. Also note that the marks themselves don't change anything; we could note them down on some paper instead, or type them into a spreadsheet, or whatever.

What if we do observe the slits, e.g. by putting a baseball in one and a cricket ball in the other? In this case, we'll detect the basketball hitting the wall and either a baseball or cricket ball. After many goes, the pattern on the wall made by the basketball will have two peaks (one in front of each slit), not an interference pattern. This seems analogous to your 'bounce a photon off it' explanation.

However, what if we got rid of the cricket ball? Half the time we would detect the baseball hitting the wall too, the other half we wouldn't (when the basketball went through the other slit). Yet the basketball will still make the two-peak-no-interference pattern, even though we didn't interact with it half of the time!

In fact, we could randomise which slit we put the baseball in, and mark only those goes that the basketball didn't hit the baseball, and we would still see two peaks without an interference pattern, even though those basketballs didn't hit anything (they always went through empty slits)!

This hopefully shows that your explanation (known as the observer effect) doesn't explain the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment.

[Abishek_Muthian]

Well written answer, thank you.