Physicists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have succeeded in proving that it is impossible to simultaneously observe the wave and particle nature of light – using individual atoms and quantum photons, thereby confirming Niels Bohr's predictions.
- Note: One commenter rightly noted that the debate was already decided a century ago in Bohr's favor, and this experiment provides further confirmation of this. This has nothing to do with Einstein's theory of relativity, which stands firm, but with quantum theory, about which Einstein had some misconceptions (God does not play dice).
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have performed one of the most precise and “cleanest” versions of the double-slit experiment—an iconic experiment in quantum physics that demonstrates the strange dual nature of light. Using single atoms and single quantum beams (photons), the researchers were able to examine in depth the great question that preoccupied the greatest physicists of the 20th century: Is light a wave or a particle?
The Two Cracks Experiment – 2025 Version
The classic version of the two-slit experiment was conducted as early as 1801, during which an interference pattern characteristic of waves was observed – which proved at the time that light behaves like a wave. However, with the rise of quantum theory, it turned out that when you try to measure which slit the photon passes through – the pattern disappears, and the light behaves like a particle.
In the new MIT experiment, published inPhysical Review Letters, using atoms cooled to ultra-low temperatures, arranged in a precise optical lattice. The researchers aimed a weak laser beam at the atoms, so that each atom acted as a single "slit", similar to the theoretical version proposed by Einstein almost a century ago.
Einstein vs. Bohr – Another Round
In 1927, Einstein proposed that if it were possible to measure the effect of a photon on one of the slits – for example, using a tiny spring – it would be possible to know which slit the photon had passed through, and at the same time see the interference pattern. Niels Bohr objected to this, arguing that the act of measurement itself would change the system – so that it would not be possible to see both aspects at the same time.
The MIT experiment showed that, indeed, the more information the system provides about the photon's trajectory (particle behavior), the sharper the interference pattern (wave behavior). The researchers were able to control the level of "opacity" of the atoms—that is, how much they "feel" the photon—by adjusting the trapping strength of a laser that allows the atom to be more or less "smeared."
"What we did is an idealized version of a thought experiment (Gedankenexperiment) – no springs, no mechanical components – just pure quantum", said Prof. Wolfgang Katerla, head of the research group.
Atoms as a substitute for cracks
The researchers used 10,000 identical atoms, arranged in a precise crystal lattice. Large distances between the atoms ensured that each one functioned as an independent unit. When a photon passed near two atoms, it was possible to see whether or not an interference pattern was formed, depending on the level of "phasicity" of the atoms.
The result: Even though Einstein's imaginary spring was removed from the equation, it was still not possible to simultaneously observe both interference (a wave) and passage through a particular slit (a particle). The precise explanation for this stems from deep quantum connections between the photon and the atom, rather than any mechanical components.
The Year of the Quantum – Closing a Historical Circle
The year 2025 has been designated by the United Nations as the “Year of Quantum Science and Technology,” marking the centennial of the birth of quantum theory. MIT’s achievement comes at a symbolic time: Almost a century after the Einstein-Bohr debate first arose, science provides a definitive answer – but also reminds us how much is still unclear.
"It's a scientific milestone, but also a reminder that the quantum world is still very mysterious.", one of the researchers concluded.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
9 תגובות
Sabina Hosenfelder has also already made a video commenting on the experiment.
There is another explanation that I am surprised no one has ever suggested – it is not the measurement itself that has an effect, but the way we measure it. It is possible that the photons from the measuring laser affect the atom that is being shot in a way that we do not yet understand and have no theory for. It is possible that our models that assume that the photon is neutral in all situations are wrong. Only if the results of the experiment were changed due to the presence or absence of a human being in the room, that is, as a result of human observation, could we indeed say that this is a spooky effect. What do you think?
I did consider adding a paragraph about that.
Friends, we live in a simulation. When you examine and look at a particle, you force the processing power to give it meaning. When you don't measure or look at it, it's free and can wander or be anywhere until it's needed. Like in programming today, you don't render an image and waste computing power on what a player doesn't see or "examine". The day will come when we'll realize that everything here is fake.
✅ MIT closes deal with Einstein —
A double-slit experiment using the Atomic-slits method proved that the duality of light cannot be observed simultaneously, as Bohr predicted but Einstein opposed.
Despite modern tools, quantum law is preserved –
The bottom line: The world is indifferent to the expectations of modern observation – it operates according to internal laws that are beyond human choice.
The title of the article is false. The discussions between Albert and Niels were settled long ago. All that was done was further confirmation of Niels Bohr's theory. From the title one might think that there is a revolution here regarding the theory of relativity.
Absolutely not. The results in an experiment are only true for the conditions of the experiment. And it does not require at all that the results represent the true reality under normal conditions.
Both are Jews. They will not give up the argument even after their death.
Experimental results are another face of the uncertainty principle