Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi TRoc and All,

I think your hydrogen atomic model is missing how the orbit of the electron
really is moving around the nucleus. It is likely a twisting torus orbit, not
a pure "spherical" or elliptical orbit. The electron should be spiraling around
the nucleus in the shape of a moving toroid, IMO. The orbit should not be
in any one "plane" of alignment. Why, or how, its directional orbital "plane"
changes is likely due to the spins of the nucleus and the electron and the
oscillations of the induced EM fields changing polaries, Changes in EM field
polarities would change the electron's angular "thrust" vector . Basically,,
there are dynamic moving EM fileds that are induced by the movement of the
electron that cause the energy fields of the atom to "vibrate".

Perhaps someone can clearly and briefly elaborate on the physics
of the mechanism.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 22 2006, 04:56 AM

C2,

The java applet that you posted has some very compelling "explanations"
for the interference mechanism, if all of the features of the applet are
utilized. There are some issues in the way it is presented though. If you
move the slit wall away from the screen, the wavelength increases. The
wavelength decreases as the slit wall and screen come closer together.

The frequency and wavelength will remain the same.

It also shows the angle of the "rays" changing, relative to the screen, when the
slit gap spacing is changed.

This model will only work if the photon waves are spherical wavefronts so
that they can maintain a phase angle relationship that is indifferent to
gap spacing. I think other applets convey this idea of spherical wavefronts
much better, like your wavetank and the dynamic multi-wave applet. Waves
always radiate from a source in a circular or spherical shape, depending upon
the media conducting the energy wavefront. In any case it has an "arc" to it.
In this model, the slit gap spacing provides the phase change to the waves
depending upon the gap distance of the slits.


There is still the issue of how a single photon (particle model... ) DSE could
work. A single photon wave model does not have that problem, if a portion
of the photon's total wave energy goes thru both slits. This would be problematic
as it would require a change to the conceptualization of the "mechanics"
(physics) of a single photon.

2 problems:

1. If a single photon is a "wavefront" that "seeks all paths" but at the same time
is discreet and "indivisible", how can the photon's energy equally "divide" to go
thru 2 separate slit paths and still maintain geometric symmetry and EM field
balance?

2. If a single photon is a single wavefront, an experimenter should be able
to fire a single photon at the wall, exactly between the 2 slits, or at any
area of the wall outside of the slits, and it should still go thru both slits and
interfere at the wall.

Discussion, comments welcome.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 22 2006, 05:04 AM

LL,


You are right about the "twisting" movement of the electron -- IN a circular orbit around the nucleus. I am talking about the apparent movement of the electron in relation to its' center, or radius. I could be helical, or even something else, but that is not what I was talking about.

I am talking about the progression of QM, with "Bohr orbits" matching the Balmer formula, etc. Using the circle as a starting point, and going through spherical harmonics.


The thing about pi, is that it is the ratio of the circumference to the 2 x radius, so the "pattern" must already be in the radius, and pi simply takes you to another model, and way of understanding. I am using a step lower in complexity, to describe this.


I also meant to reference this link, for further reading.

Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?


ciao,

T.Roc

Lisa, TRoc, and All,

Regarding the "flat" universe and the suspected "missing energy" component
that is required to maintain a flat shape. I have a wonderful analogy that
might easily explain the "missing energy".

Everything in the universe has an inherent natural spin. Atomic particles spin,
planets spin, stars spin, galaxies spin....it seems apparent that spin is
a requirement (or an artifact) of the "natural order" to maintain energy balance.

It seems logical to me that the UNIVERSE MUST SPIN (ROTATE), it is just that the
scale is so large and we are so localized with the spin that we cannot measure
or observe it because of the distances involved.

Consider the old pizza "throwers" in this analogy. You take a ball of dough
that represents some "fixed" amount of energy. After a bit of flattening it
is thrown into the air and is twirled to induce spin. As it rotates it expands
in size, along the rotational "plane" (axis) of spin. As the pizza dough expands,
the outer edges are accelerating rotationally. The edge is also moving away from
the center as it expands, so you have 2 acceleration components happening
at the same time. Rotational acceleration and linear acceleration.

The original energy of the mass of the "steady state" ball of dough has now
increased due to the centrifugal forces of acceleration and angular momentum.
There is more "apparent" energy in the dough disk due to the dynamics of motion
than was originally contained in the mass of the ball of dough.

Now, think what would be the observed effects if there were raisins in the original
dough ball. Initially they would be randomly "clustered" in the ball, but as
the disk flattens out they start moving away from each other at an increasing
acceleration that matches the "expansion" of the disk. The raisins that are
closest together, are not moving away from each other at the same rate as
those that are located further away. Those raisins on the opposite sides of the
disk are moving away at an accelerating rate, much faster than those in the
immediate vicinity of the "observer" raisin.

Sound familiar? The universe is expanding. Galaxies in our near vicinity are
moving away from us slowly*, but those that are further away on the disk
are moving away at an accelerating rate.
(*I know some are moving toward us, this may be a form of physical "parallax",
or a function of universal flattening bringing us together)

The pizza dough model of the universe would work to explain the observed
expansion, the acceleration of distant galaxies, the missing energy, and the
flat universe.

Comments, discussion welcome.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 22 2006, 06:59 AM

TRoc,

Regarding your elliptical sinusoid EM field:

If you consider how the helical twisting element, when added to the spin, would
affect the shape of the propagating EM fields, I think you might be able to
model your "elliptical" sinusoidal waveform shape more descriptively or
accurately. What would happen if the electron (and the photon) were both
spinning around their respective axes while simultaneously twisting in a helical
tumbling motion. Think of the "degrees of freedom" that a propagating waveform
might take. Also instead of prescribing a circle, you now have a moving
spherical waveform that prescribes a cylindrical shape as it
propagates over a distance. If you artificially accelerate the twisting rotational
component over a distance you wind up with a corkscrew cylindrical shape...a
circularly polarized photon.

Quick question. Does a photon maintain a constant EM polarization plane over
a long distance, or is there some twist component that is not observed when
it is measured by equipment over a short detection distance. What keeps
a photon's EM polarization reference plane from twisting over long
distances, like between stars? Perhaps it does, and we can't measure or
detect it due to the short detection distance in our equipment.

I know this goes against the expanding dipole spherical wavefront model, which
should cause a photon to maintain a constant plane (polarity) relationship
perpendicular to the centerline of the dipole. Maybe I answered my own
question.

Any thoughts, comments?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 22 2006, 06:58 AM

GE, and all


Another quote fro D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Good V‘s

I understand that, from the "outside", this looks like more "coincidences", or circumstantial. Hopefully, by the end, I will be able to convey the message.

Others are already "seeing the light", which is encouraging.

It would seem rather "Fundamental" that the "particle" that may be responsible for mass would have the same "pattern" as that of light and matter.

Food for thought.

Regards,

T.Roc

TRoc,

3, 6, 12....Hmmmmm packing circles and spheres. Jal will love that.

Funny how the conservation of energy is described in the geometry based
on the circle, and how the geometry of space is described in the geometry
of a sphere. Good ole' Pi, the radius, and the circumference as they
relate to motion and energy over time.

Tie them all together with how they harmonize and balance when combined.....

Just musing.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 22 2006, 07:17 AM

Hi all,


LL

I have forgotten that you are still "new" with us. We (C2, Good Elf) and others, have gone over the form that you are talking about before. It's not that I don't want to go there again, but (believe it or not) I try to keep my posts as short as possible!

Let me just add a few other ideas, and then, as I mentioned a few pages (many?) ago, let's talk about the form.


Potential Flow and d'Alembert's Paradox

Quantum Dots Glossary - Evident Technologies

http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/qu...rmoelectric.php

There are the "beat-frequencies" again, as "heat", and/or infra red photons.


http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/so...sible-light.php

More background for examining the relationship between light (energy) and matter (mass).


ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 22 2006, 07:33 AM

TRoc,


FWIW, except for the quantum dots (I've read about them), I am VERY intimate
with the other phenomena that you mentioned.

Thermocouples, peltier plates, semiconductor manufacturing, electron-hole
pairing in semiconductor devices, laminar flow, slip streams, drag, etc......brings back many fond
memories of some of the technologies that I have direct experience with. I
suspect that we will get to robotics and RF induced gaseous plasmas soon
enough.

I'm pleasantly amazed at how so many technologies are so different, but at the
same time so similar in underlying fundamental physics "mechanisms".



LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 22 2006, 08:08 AM

Hi all,


LL, I can't say enough how nice it is to have both your expertise, and your perspective, to be genuinely involved in this thread.




Two more here, and very good ones. Right to the heart of what you are saying, about the EM fields of the slit. We had no takers (yet) on the "standard" QM take of the photon absorption. We may have to just quote sources, as usual.


Spectral response of plasmon resonant nanoparticles with a non-regular shape

I am going to try to link a couple of movie clips, but you will probably want to see all of them, and there are many. (EDIT: it didn't work, you'll have to just go to the link, and watch them there. They are in Quicktime)

(sample) http://www.opticsexpress.org/oevideo/709.mov

Again this is VERY good to see. (edit #2: the link works, but I was trying to show a clip here. You will need to see 3 videos of energy hitting different shapes, because they compare 3 different vectors (orthogonal & 45 deg), and you'll want to read the captions too.)


Analysis of optical-signal processing using an arrayed-waveguide grating

The figure that the above paragraph is referring to is a MUST see. It shows precisely the "shadow" (light/dark bands) effect that I talked about with the prism. It doesn't matter whether it's black and white, or color: same effect, same pattern. The "tooth" between the slits is creating this shadow.

The figure is on page 9 (of the PDF) of THIS LINK.


Pause for comments.


T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 22 2006, 09:13 AM

LL

The DSE does magnify, part of the magic of it (see DSE equation). In the one we've looked at .. by about 2000.. hence light with a wavelength of 500nm gives interference fringes about 1mm apart. Hence my attempts to explain that we are not looking at a wavelength of light .. but INTO it .

An undeclared motive for this thread is to try to find alternatives to QT. My own feeling is that we would all benefit from knowing more about QT but I also see the potential to lose part of the original plot.

My 'line' is that if anyone else can see what I see in the DSE then it becomes fair game for discussion .. at present I seem to be the only one* seeing photons and the possibility that an EM wave might be made out of them.

TRoc might be heading in the direction of quantizing his wave .. interesting.

Best wishes,

-C2.

* I have not counted the extremely honourable exception(s).

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, Duality, Jal, Fivedoughnut et al,

Here is what photons do when it is incoherent light...
Flash Animation of photons... not brilliant but close enough to start the ball rolling Their wave view of it is absurd when you consider this is not coherent light and that it shows circular polarization which is an ancillary phenomena. Nothing like "red herrings" when you want to teach something to ruin a good mind. I have not seen anything on the web that approaches a realistic attempt to describe this in any truly consistent way since Quantum Mechanics has "lobotomized" everyone into believing that it would be "futile". The main difference I would say is that light will spread and the photon will occupy the surface of a wavefront yet extend in time as shown in this animation... A large number of coherent photons will lead to these photons doing this...

and the way they do it is something like this...

click to enlarge...
If the photons are not doing this before they reach the slit (collimated in some way) most certainly after the slit they will be expanding on the surface of a sphere due to the secondary source.

The result is (allowing for the results of DSQE Experiment)...

There are a couple of minor problems with it since this is electron diffraction not photon diffraction, photons do not "bounce" too well against "black bodies"... First point is the photon undergoes "pancakeification" as in the blue animation. The energy of a "beam" will usually obey an inverse square relationship of energy and the energy will occupy an enlarging "patch"... even in the case of concentrated directed sources like lasers. Additional "optic elements and directors" do not change the basics only modify the "sidebands". Since the standing waves in space are always there even for the very first photon (see arguement for DSQE), the entire field is the result of standing waves and the progress of the photon is like simply "illuminating" successive parts of an existing picture already in place.

On an additional point

Which one is the electron packet and which one is the photon packet?... If you have been listening you will know the difference. Hint: It is not showing "spreading" or "pancakification" or exhibiting "standing waves" but it is showing one characteristic.

Let us make this quite clear I studied Quantum Theory a considerable number of years ago and nothing has changed since then. I didn't like it then and I still do not like it now. It is very clear that present day Quantum Theorists have no understanding of the simple optics in the system and will not accept that optics of waves contain a lot more information than precious particles. Quantum Theory offers no new insights and it has failed to resolve the clear inconsistencies in the theory despite being given ample opportunity... getting close to a Century now. String Theories are also incorrect. I can quickly demonstrate that 9 linear dimensions are not dynamically capable of answering any problems in physics, when you start adding linear dimensions to the current three plus time you suddenly end up breaking all kinds of conservation laws by "opening the box". Yet the mainstream string theorists seem to not be able to understand that this will be the case. All the pretty maths in the world will not save this "stupid" current sting theory with straight "compact dimensions". So any theory of everything must integrate dimensions in a consistent way that leads to conservative physics and the Lagrangian. Tell me how to introduce more dimensions to our real world without breaking any current physics? I have a experimentally consistent way to do this that will not lead to any "dynamic" problems. So it is a little more complicated but that is the price for any progress.

The single fact Quantum Electrodynamics gives good answers is almost irrelevant in the end since this theory has reached the limits of usefulness and can only answer a limited set of questions confined to three dimensions and time. Sure it will continue to be used even it we had a better theory but you do not get blood from stones by just squeezing a lot harder. I think the most important insight into Quantum Theory is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the insight that it gives into the dimension of time itself. Quantum Theory is incapable of any answers regarding single photon events... that is a bottom line. The best approach is a modified Feynman Many paths method plus Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. What I maintain is you all should come up with the answer based on your precious particle theory or otherwise start talking about individual events and how they can be described. The "Optics" theory does exist and it is definitely "not wrong" and is based on waves not particles. Photons are made of waves... truncated waves... but they also have unique collective properties and ordering effects when coming from coherent sources as is the case here. Alternatively show where the "dice throwing" comes into the real world when we are speaking about coherent radiation incident on a double slit.

When considering the Java Applet you are using...
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
it is not realistic and shows no angular fading from the slit. In the real situation there is an envelope that contains this result such that the brightness falls off as the angle from the slits increases. It once again shows the incorrect aspect that "only direct rays count" when in fact there is always considerable inter-cavity interference that is not shown there. Width of slit and thickness of slit are not important in this model and also does not concede that more than one ray will penetrate the slits (slit width effect) with dramatically different effect depending on proximity to the slit edge which leads to phase phenomena that are not able to be shown. It is vastly oversimplified to the point of being a child's toy not a helpful scientific tool.

One slit mode results in the entire field being illuminated with field of uniform and equally bright lines. In reality this should show the Fraunhofer diffraction limit with a central peak or "spot" and a rapidly attenuated series of Airy Disks very close in. I know you have been pushing this "toy" model Confused2 a couple of times but you and I both know this is nothing like a realistic model of twin slits. What is your point in persisting with this simplistic approach? You can't learn anything from this. You complain about my approach and give no reason why it may be wrong just that these models are all the answers you seem to need.

http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
This other animation is a little better with it's dipole "targets" that you can move around to show the effect of the size of the source... but still it shows progressive waves unless you edit walls to create standing waves. The "dipole" is made up of same phase sources creating plane waves at the slit... this is non-physical, electromagnetic waves cannot be created with such sources. How does your "one photon at a time" create the standing wave pattern? I think it is unable to demonstrate near field vs far field effects with the over simplistic model.

None of these models indicate single photons, you claim that only you can see individual photons here... where? Remember I just want you to explain why you are using this "toy" approach and is there any payoff for dumbing it this far down? No criticism, but I just want to know am I having a discussion or am I talking with a closed set of premises?

On a more general issue I can't see where this is taking us on this thread. There appears to be no structure to any of your approaches. I may have to find another thread to provide some framework to this discussion or some other more productive area of investigation. Writing more words does not help if they do not tell a "story". This is the holiday syndrome and you have all lost me by burying this thread in a lot of detail that is not related to the double slit in the ultimate analysis and I am certain that nobody is following any of my arguments here either.

I have presented the wave approach to this problem and the particle approach will not answer any of the larger questions and nobody here has any argument to place before any of us to convince me or anyone else of a compelling argument other than you all read it all in a book somewhere or got it off the Internet.

I want to see relevance and I want to see critical scientific analysis not people flaying around in verbose discussion that seems to have no point. I may be verbose but I retain relevance.

Laserlight... I fail to see what relevance waveguide signal filtering will be to this discussion. With all due respect to our Japanese friends this paper is one of those "publish or perish" papers seen in the literature. Never mind the quality just try and lift a bound copy of all the papers the guys have published in the last year. I would prefer to see this extracted to give your interpretation. Of course this may be related to a private discussion with TRoc but I am unsure. Waveguides will naturally suppress certain signals that can propagate through them. This discussion is best confined to discrete signal processing using fast Fourier transforms. This is the basis of all these discussions.

Jal's sphere packing exercise you mentioned nay have some relevance to the "spatial vacuoles". People seem to be unable to cope with this issue and want it to go away.

All those who thing "god" made hard little charged particles and forgot to make the same in magnetic monopoles as a necessary complement... put up their hands... Then you need to explain why.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 22 2006, 04:34 PM

TRoc,

That was a GREAT find! We have discussed the EM effects of plasmons
around small orifices in the past. According to the applets they definitely
affect the energy coupling, and phasing of EM signals near sharp corners and
edges, which provides some validity to my previous post. Very interesting!

The AWG info is very interesting also since it affects wave shape, bandpass,
EM wavefunction timing, phase delays, etc.

Good Stuff! I think we are finally associating micro affects occuring in the
vicinity of the cavities that have been "overlooked" by science in the
analysis of the intricacies of the DSE.


LL

Hi C2,

Chicken or the egg?? Is a photon made up of EM fields, or are EM fields made
up of photons?

YES! ROTFLMAO!

Best Regards,
LL

if the light is brighter on one wavelength wouldn't the photon gain more energy (more than the light) then move at a quicker pace?

Also, I'm not sure I know enough about wavelenth frequency so this may be a crazy question is there any possibility that it could be the same and cancel out? Forgive my ignorance. Just trying to learn.