Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

It expands as a cylinder! The box does too!
New support for the standard model. Neutrons emit photons when they decay,
and the top quark was found. I want to stick my tounge in a box. Who's excited? Lisa, laidback? Anyone else?

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Dec 24 2006, 02:04 AM

Happy new year everyone!

Hi Neil (and of course Yquantum) et al,

The walls of a cylinder is one mapping but do not be too literal about this. I am excited about the interior resonant structure of Neutrons and of course all particles. There has been a theory for many years that all particles have interior structures (even all fermions) which are just the "dual" of the atomic bosonic state of individual particles ... the electron shells. I have been a big advocate of the "supersymmetry" of this "boson - fermion" duality. So too has the electron been conjectured to have "inner structure". There are arguments I have given here to suggest the same such as the "evanescent dipole magnetic field" and its ability to absorb photons into its inner structure as well. They are not "mainstream" but at least it is a "stream" of sorts. The Standard Model can tack anything on and so a triumph can be claimed every time something new turns up... a test of "Truth" must be... did it unequivocally predict this eventuality before there was any evidence as this being the sole solution to it's internal consistency??

Cheers

Sometimes just gently rocking the cradle is all that is required.
Best wishes to all. C2.

Neil,

Lisa might be excited if you put your tongue in her box.

boys will be boys

Hi Jal and All,

Now you are revisiting the issue that I have with the explanation of the dipole
radiating model. The "Seeks All Paths" analogy seems contradictory.

I totally agree that a photon wave travels along a spherical wavefront (planar
over large distances). I am not so sure how the spread of the dipole
"beamwidth" of a photon comes into play over distance. It depends upon the axis
of its polarity, how it is radiated from the source.

Herein lies the problem. The real DSE's that we have read about were conducted
in a rectangular enclosed "box" but the photon(s) did not collapse anywhere
along the blocking wall of the two slits or the center post, they went right thru
the only open cavities (the slits) and were projected onto the screen beyond
the wall. The spherical photon wavefronts did not collapse at the slit wall or
center post.

Part of the wavefronts reflected back toward the source and part of them
went thru the slits and interfered as shown on the screen.

If a spherical wavefront energy seeks all paths, part of its contained energy must also be
divisible. An expanding spherical wavefront should have collapsed at the nearest contact with matter, yet part of it continued on thru to the screen.

Is this implying that the wavefront energy has properties like water, or pressure in a
confined vessel, and always seeks the path of least resistance until it can proceed
no further?

But then, this scenario presents another problem. If the slits were located
at the ends of the walls rather than in the center, would the light propagate
thru them or collapse on the wall where the center of the beam (cylinder) is
directed.

IMO, beamwidth of the applied energy is a controlling/limiting factor.
The focal point (centerline) of the energy determines locality and limits
the spread of the photon's energy to that of the beam.



LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 24 2006, 04:56 AM

Open cavities .... slits?.... could this be where Farbstein's tongue is at the mo'?

Good Elf and All,

I think it is an individuals "right" to question authority. I have often found that
"authoritarian" thinkers were locked into a self imposed closed box of rigid
inflexibility which limited their options..... Call me a rebel.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. How true!

There have literaly been tens of thousands of highly educated individuals that were
trained in "traditional" physics and were successful disciples in their chosen
career fields. Then there are a handful who theoretically delve deeper into the
abyss of the unknown, looking for solutions. Some theories move physics
ahead, incrementally, while others hinder progress because they offer
"theoretical detours" that lead in the wrong direction or to a dead end.

There have been many "solutions", most of them wrong. Very few got it right, to
some limited degree. Those few are Nobel laureates. There is still no unifying,
perfect theory or all encompassing model. There may never be, because of all
the potential variables that affect the possible solutions.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding! We must decide if the proposed theoretical
"solutions" are real or just time wasting detours.

Never underestimate the capability of the human mind, to propose the correct
solution, even if it comes from unconventional, non-traditional perspectives.

When one thinks he knows everything, he will soon be humbled, once he
finds out just what he doesn't know. Like I said before it only takes one
spark, one idea, one comment, that might ignite a new spontaneous
way of solving a complicated problem. The trick is knowing how to identify,
develop, and use that spark. The other approach is to stamp it out, and limit
the possibilites and opportunities that it presents.



Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 24 2006, 05:44 AM

Hi Laserlight et al,

The one "sure" thing about Physics is you can always test it because it is grounded in "natural" processes. That is the real meaning of Physics as aside from "Pure Mathematics". You can find a bogus Theory every time when you can't test the underlying Process, there are many Theories that can fall for this error. The best theory always wins ... it is the one that answers the most questions while still still remaining testable. No exceptions and no excuses. The criterion is not how accurate the Theory is but how many questions it can answer.

There is one other small thing I would add (and this is personal)... it must be humanly relevant. This is because humans must stay within the process to retain meaning for humankind. The moment this evolving process ceases to be progressed by mankind is the moment mankind ceases to be of any further use to the Universe that created it. If in the next moment we have no answers and our species "blinked out of existence" nothing and nobody would care. It is actually down to mankind itself to choose the relevance and meaning, that is actually our own individual purpose, all the rest is already there waiting for us.

Cheers

GE,

Can you imagine the wonder and amazement that Einstein, Bohr, Faraday,
Newton, and a host of other physics pioneers would have, seeing what their original
ideas, concepts, and proofs have wrought? They had no frame of reference
just curiosity about the fine details of how the natural world works.

In the historical scheme of things, from original theory to the point of useful
adaptation, to create a "product" from the idea, has taken 40-50 years until the
1950's. Now, from theoretical proof til commercial adaptation takes 10-15
years. With the advent of complex computer systems and manufacturing prowess,
that should drop to 5 years in the not too distant future.

To put things in perspective, my grandparents grew up with the horse as the
main mode of transportation. The airplane had not yet been invented, nor
the radio, there were no paved roads and cars were just curiosities....just think of the "progress" that has occured in 3 generations. Now think of how much
technological progress will occur in 3 more generations.

My point being, that in reality, the human race has not been at this game for
very long, and look how far we have come technologically. Socially, as
a species, we are not much more "civilized" than we were 2000 years ago.
We just have different values. Now, if our "humanity" could just catch up with
our technical prowess.....

LL

Hi All,

When an electron shifts to a lower energy level in an atom (Laser, whatever) we expect a photon to be emitted. You could call it a dipole if you really really insisted ..no point in arguing.

We know E = pc . Momentum must have a direction .. there must be a recoil in the opposite direction. Or has it already gone wrong long before we even start to look at what happens after the slits?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum et al,

I am not arguing. What I am saying is when an electron "jumps" from one "orbit" (state) to another it is "similar" to you "jumping" from the top of a table down to the floor. What happens is an impulse. It is no coincidence that in truly natural units the units of Planck's Constant h are in units of impulse (Joule X seconds). This impulse is universally describable as this...

These are the time and frequency domain of the same process (in fact every process in which an impulse is the cause). It just so happens this is the same function we see with photons.

In dipole radiation we are simply emitting copious quantities of photons using "stimulated emission" but "atomically" each photon emission "mechanism" is this simple "jump". I have shown with my construction how these separate "impulses" are "stitched together to form a Coherent Continuous Wave Emission... a Boson Wave.

This is modeled on the sync function, and it can only be a sync function of sorts. The only material difference is this impulse has "electromagnetic" consequences. My simplified diagrams do not show this electric and coupled magnetic influences for the benefit of pure simplicity. The impulse response of the "membrane of our Universe" is this "electromagnetism". Everything else follows.... This includes all quantization since all photons and all quantum processes involve this "temporal truncation".

The next question is turn your attention to the electric field lines and physically their extent around a dipole source of radiation. They expand on the surface of a sphere. This is not theoretical, it is a practical consequence of dipole emission be they from the electronic shells of individual atoms or the 100 ft masts of Long-wave Audio Broadcast. Now arrays of emitters may modify the directionality of this "multiple source" but the atomic source remains as the primary means of emission and is the basis of all the other treatments. You can have passive or active arrays of emitters which "direct" and select or even steer the "beam" but each primary receptor or transmitter is still a dipole radiator/absorber. This goes also from Laser sources too.

This is the "Big Picture". Everyone is focusing on the "Little Pictures" and not seeing the woods for the trees.

Laserlight is right we have "launched electromagnetic waves" inside "cavities". A little "expedition" in to coherent phased arrays would reveal all. Thus we can have "Synthetic Aperture" sources which can "scan" a landscape producing millimeter resolution imagery using a vastly more complex type of "Fraunhofer multiple phased array". These are all "details".

Check out Sandia Labs and see just how fine a detailed image can be "constructed" with these complex sources but at the bottom of all this is a simple dipole. These images can resolve phase and dimensional data in three dimensions in a reverse holographic process.

All external "collapsed" photons pay no part in the final screen image. In actual fact if you used not slits but two single tiny circular apertures you would see the camera obscura effect and that would show the original sources far far away not just "at the slit", the real meaning of this for you is to still be grasped. The photons can tunnel through a lot of a "system" and will not "collapse" just because there is an obstacle in the way like the center bar of the two slit experiment. In fact it must be significantly thick in order to interfere with the wave. In fact in specifically constructed experiments in theory a thick bar of steel can be made "transparent" to a particular frequency of incident light and the bar or wall would appear "transparent" at the window frequency allowing the light through without any "interference". In that special circumstance you would not have any DSE. This is called Electromagnetically Induced Transparency. It will not happen by simply waiting for it, you must invoke a special set of circumstances to "force" nature to behave "atypically".
Wikipedia: Electromagnetically induced transparency
You could theoretically tunnel clean though any barrier ... even space itself... and it has been demonstrated using the new meta-materials. Look up Optical anti-matter. This is similar to the tunneling you have already seen on this thread.
Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
This same trick can and has been done with Negative Refractive Index Materials. Forget all the technical details there are simple explanations for all this. Alright the light partially goes backwards but the result is it "jumps" the "block of negative refractive material" as if two points are joined across space by a very short path. This is because there really is no such thing as "matter" just electromagnetism and the virtual photons as the "forces". Every force and all phenomena can be brought within a single description... this is "for want of a better word"... optics.

Even solid matter is just "optics", like "quantum mirages". All this has been proposed as an alternative to "conventional" particle teleportation by Pendry, without the need for particle duplication, and can be shown already in existing optical systems. Look up my references on the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. You can see from the "movie" the speed of transport is "very high"... he he he! What photons can do so can particles (mostly) - the main obstacle is the particle's mass. Nothing I am saying here is new or novel... What is "new" is I am saying this is the basis of a Non-Classical Optical Theory of Everything.

This is the error. Photons interfere with themselves and no others.. they are not splittable... causality prevents this. Photons cannot be usually split up or divide except in special "scattering" situations such as in BBO Crystals... there are always exceptions but never make the exception the rule.. think of the "exceptions" like "loopholes" in Civil Law... they are there for those who know they are there to use to their advantage. "Loopholes" are not "accidents" and they exist as part of a whole that most people usually are not able to harness. In our "practical" society Criminal Law sometimes frees the guilty and incarcerates the innocent, if used badly (and it often is). It all hinges on "The Knowledge" and using it in the way it was originally intended. With Science it is the same thing... everyone knows "Science" but to most it incarcerates them and to those who know where the "loopholes" are it sets them free. I believe this has a "moral" dimension. We build our own Jails and then we slam the doors behind us. This is as it should be otherwise Scientific Knowledge would enable unworthy groups to harness great power against the innocent. As Stan Lee once said ... "With great power comes great responsibility"... there are also penalties for ignoring this aphorism.

Believe me ... he sure "knows" about "trouble"....

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 25 2006, 04:10 AM