Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Good Elf!
I want to apologize for my brutal and insensitive rambling/presentation.
This thread has not advanced my search … understanding how the universe is made.
The links that I have posted in my “summary” are helping.
I will post some more links for those who are interested.
jal

Hello All,

This is interesting and may have some relevance to the SSE and the DSE
as it pertains to the geometry of the slits and the geometry of the wave function.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/pbox.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/pbox.html#c3

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/hosc.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tum/qm2.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...um/barr.html#c1



This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 26 2006, 07:52 PM

Jal,

That was never the intent of this thread, though we have explored some
subtleties of the nature of the universe. Our goal is to find conceptual answers
to accurately explain the results of the DSE. We will search all phenomena that may help
provide possible solutions or explanations to that end. Who knows,
our learning process may uncover answers to mysteries beyond the immediate
realm of the problem at hand. I know that I have learned a tremendous
amount from the contributions of all who contribute to this board. There is
just so much more to learn....so much information, so little time.

LL

Hi Good Elf,Laserlight,jal, Aerolite, NF et al,

I fear we have made no progress because I'm not quite sure what you mean by mapping the pancake to the expanding photon shadow.
If you are suggesting that each photon is a new pancake then you are discarding the result of the DSE which shows that interference takes place between different wavefronts (pancakes?) even when there is only one photon.
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
Check out Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' wheel method .. it identifies every path for every wavefront .. for each single photon... it needs to do this because that's what we see happening in the DSE.

Are you with me on this?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi C2 and All,

I see it differently. Each separate radiating wave represents a photon. I agree
with GE's contention that each wave (photon) only interferes with itself. Even
the ripple tank shows this relationship. The separated wavefronts
try to recombine the "fidelity" of the original waveform as they continue to
spread their energy, but their relative
timing and phasing have been shifted temporally and spacially from the
original. When the shifted wavefront sections re-mix, the timing and phase
interference delta's, from the timing and phase of the original wave, is the result.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 26 2006, 08:04 PM

Confused2 and Laserlight!
You may fing the following explanation helpfull.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503109.pdf
On the role of Planck’s oscillator in the construction of Heisenberg’s mechanics
Budh Ram
11 march 2005

jal

Hi Jal,

No problem. I get pretty frustrated at times as well. Sometimes it would be better to sit down around a table for half an hour with a cold beer and some scribble paper. The process here is pretty slow and tedious and non-interactive. I just do not know how points are missed and why I am unable to get an idea across.

You just carry on Jal. No problem this end I have been trying to follow but I am in trouble seeing stuff when it comes from others all the times.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 26 2006, 11:26 PM

Hi Good Elf,

Beer?

The reason you are getting nowhere with me is because you are making no attempt to explain what I see. Your pancake can divide through the two slits .. the only time two bits if the pancake ever come together again is exactly between the two slits. .. one bright bit.

I see lots of bright bits.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 26 2006, 11:38 PM

Hi all,


I have a post ready to go, about some possible "forms" of the "photon". This can mean either an "actual" self derived form, or just the "allowed" form that a medium gives the "photon". I don't want to interrupt this current vein though, so I'll wait just a bit.


It seems that an awful lot of postulates are riding on the assumption that "energy" can come in something that we can describe as "single". (like the plane wave)

The quantum postulates that stemmed from Planck & Einstein's initial mathematical conclusions, do not have evidence that supports individual "photon" models. It has only statistics, and probabilities.


Somebody help me here, please: doesn't QM say that you can NEVER use the "opposing" models/math from their self-labeled "wave-particle duality"? IE. use BOTH the wave version and the particle version together. It is always "either/or", which further allows for this to be described as a rule.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

Going down the list that describes which classic experiments can not be described as a wave is a short walk: there is only one, the photoelectric effect.

"Creativity" has led to EITHER model to be used for most of these, but this is no guaranty that we (QM) are not just sitting on the fence, with a lack of information and understanding.


So, everybody line up, and give your testimony as to how we can allow the "energy" term, described by the frequency of the laser, in the "1-at-a-time photon" experiment, to be CHANGED to "intensity"?

The photoelectric effect (inside our counter) ONLY measures frequency!

The method for creating "1-at-a-time photons" is to reduce its' intensity, until the "probabilities" say that there is a damn good "chance" that there is only "1 photon" in the cavity. This DOES NOT change the "modulated" frequency! This is NOT Science of the exact nature that we are trying to accomplish. This is GUESSING, with a little help from the magnet under the roulette wheel: the voltage controlled electron "avalanche"! This is ADJUSTED to match expectations, and THAT voids any "confirmation" that there is "1 photon" present at any given time. If this were true, then SOMETIMES, there are also "zero photons", and sometimes "several photons" in the SAME readings.

In one of the previous links, the fact was pointed out that the DSE experiment itself it "not possible" according to QM.

Much of the arguments over the details of the DSE are ERASED by this truth.


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,
Beer?
If you predict the counter will count four times as many photons with both slits open as what it does with either slit open .. and it does .. then to me that's pretty good proof the counter is counting photons like it claims. It doesn't matter what else it might be doing. The theory suggests the counter is good and the counter suggests the theory is good.

I rest my case.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Confused2 and Laserlight et al,

I have been putting off Laserlight's question for a couple of urgent difficulties being encountered that is the result of some very serious misunderstandings. I will get to Laserlight the very next post...

I fear we have made no progress because I'm not quite sure what you mean by mapping the pancake to the expanding photon shadow.
If you are suggesting that each photon is a new pancake then you are discarding the result of the DSE which shows that interference takes place between different wavefronts (pancakes?) even when there is only one photon.
The result of the DSE suggests that one photon is all of the wavefronts in your dipole picture. One photon is all of the waves in the ripple tank picture.
Check out Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' wheel method .. it identifies every path for every wavefront .. for each single photon... it needs to do this because that's what we see happening in the DSE.

Are you with me on this?

I think Laserlight is following. Each photon casts an exactly overlapping shadow to other co-moving photon shadows. That blue animation of the dipole indicates the process in which photons can be individually created.

In coherent sources like radio transmitters or lasers there is a process in which photons are launched in such a way that their mutual proximity and phase is such that they can form a boson wave. That animation shows the source "pinching off" and "launching" a pancake shaped photon. It becomes more and more pancake shaped as it spreads. It retains the wavelength but can spread laterally. The actual size of the blue animation waves mimic to a certain extent a cross-section through the individual photon wavelets. Some strong sources emit many photons at the same time and after a very short interval of travel they arrange themselves on the wavefront in the sequence I have shown in this illustration.

When I say "photon" I am mixing the idea that the photon "particle" I identify with the impulse and its wave is this same impulse viewed in the "frequency domain".. from the waves point of view ... our domain. It is clear to me that the wave is only a reflection or shadow of a process occurring in higher dimensions because it cannot transfer any energy from the "stationary state". It is a totally conservative process since we need to "destroy" photons in order to see this "pattern" otherwise we could know nothing about this process while it is "traveling" from source to destination. This destruction process or quantum demolition process "drags" the energy into our space ending the propagation phase of the photon. We make a reading but the source impulse is now localized in this sink. It suggests to me that the source and the sink are connected directly to each other for this process to operate. This process occurs with almost infinite speed and we call it the collapse of the state. This process is repeated for each photon one at a time. Since a wavefront has individually millions of photons and only one is being used to accomplish this reading it is a pretty good reading that is pretty representative of all the other bosons on that single wave at that instant in time (... considering they all probably come from separate nearby "atomic" sources). One thing we are unable to read is the Berry Phase itself for each of these photons it is hard to read "nothing", even if we did its significance would not be easy to evaluate since it can't help us determine the outcome for this one photon you are reading now.

The possibility that individual photons will occupy exactly the same space on the one expanding wave is almost inevitable, it is the nature of bosons to be able to occupy the same volumetric space even by the billions. This illustration only shows the "longitudinal direction" of single photons not the transverse direction which is the expanding spatial pancake. This "pancake" is an expanding torus whose wavefront lies on the surface of a sphere. There will be one point in this surface that is the "center of the hurricane" and around that the rest of the photon "spins" since there is only a topological "defect" at that point but that point holds great significance to particle theorists. This is the "point" they all recognize as being where the "point particle" emanates from. Nothing could be further from the truth, there is nothing at that position in space, it is the way in which this "optical" theory avoids "infinity" and the need for any renormalization. A very crude analogy is it is like throwing a Frisbee (umm... pancake?) with a hole in the center. The center of the Frisbee has "significance" since all theories of charge and magnetic field put an infinity there. This is like the topological "defect" in Mercator Projection Maps at the North and South Poles where the "field lines" come together at a single point and the "line density" reaches infinity at the north and South Pole. With particles there is an electro-magnetic potential there but it is unreferenced in the same way mass is unreferenced in the Theory of Relativity. All String Theories have this ability to remove these infinities by totally removing "point sources". It is the one "best" reason for pursuing a string theory when we have perfectly good "Non-String Theories" which must require renormalization. Non-String Theories usually neglect the source.

That is an issue perhaps because there is the possibility to confuse this idea with the way in which photons are created with the way they may have to propagate. Certain geometries of "distributed sources" such as a Laser Cavity or Dipole Antenna with its ancillary directors and reflectors or even Active Arrays result in confined beams. This is all within the "general source" but usually not within each individual dipole source which I claim is the fundamental origin of all "impulsively created" photons.

Now how "real" are the infinities at the center of point sources? As far as energy and particles are concerned they are very real. This is why we are building huge particle accelerators at Cern... to examine these very short distances. What we really are examining is the surface of the lightcone and seeing if by forcing large amounts of energy into this region that it will give up even more answers than it has done before. We are seeing some patterns developing on the surface of this lightcone whose extracted and summarized data can be considered the "Standard Model". We are missing some salient crucial detail to fully understand why this pattern exists... on a fundamental level. We are like children with a pocket watch and a very large hammer trying to understand what is inside. The more we strike it with the hammer the smaller the fragments we are getting. The hope is this information is "significant" and meaningful. What we are unable to do with this big machine is to examine the very fine and delicate information of the phase and its tenuous interactions with other particles which are not a "gross phenomenon".

LATE ADDITION

Lets focus on the electric field lines. I know they are imaginary but they do represent the way in which the energy arranges itself inside the "packets". These lines form complete circulating loops... they are conserved and require that they "dissipate" in a sink to destroy or absorb the photon. If the photon remains in the quantum state these "loops" occupy a position of minimum energy. They will otherwise never "break" or reform into energetically smaller or bigger loops while propagating. This also ensures that for photons that pass through two holes or two slits, provided they are not absorbed, perform a "trick"... the loop remains intact when it passes the two holes. Think of this as the loops passing over the holes not through them, after that they shake off the wrinkles and continue on their way as still intact loops. Yes... it can appear that it is dissipating and splitting into parts but it is in fact quite intact and internally cannot notice this process which is "cavity driven". The individual photons contorted shape is only our point of view and it is still a surface of minimum energy in that space just like the expanding sphere is "out in the open". If you think in only three dimensions the photon can't get through the two holes at once... the simple fact it does pass through the two holes is an experimental fact not simply a "hope". It is really only a topological "trick" in higher dimensions. Not topologically unlike this...
Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?
The photons "jump" from the left portion of the boundary to the far right without actually passing through the boundary. Notice the "particle" remains "intact" and the "reality" is the continuing "particle". The photon is distantly connected to its ongoing "continuation". This is equivalent to a caustic you can see any day when light reflects and refracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephroid

Feel free to ask any questions or to fault any point that I have made.

Cheers

Hi all,


C2

If you are accepting that there are 4 photons past the slit, you MUST also accept that there were TWO before the slit. While the experimenters (in order to get published) are "assuring" us that there is ONLY one at a time.

NO, the COUNTER is ADJUSTED prior to the "final run" SO THAT the theoretical outcome IS produced. That is clearly a "set-up".

I'll have to say it again: the photoelectric effect does NOT rely on "counts", or intensity. No amount of "playing around" with this will produce an additional electron to be ejected. It takes a certain FREQUENCY to produce the ejected electron, which is the BEGINNING of a "counting" process.

Turning down the intensity of the laser does NOT change its' frequency.

The laser DSE is not a valid experiment for this phenomenon (1-at-a-time). The mechanics of the set-up are MADE to give the theoretical answer. That IS NOT the Scientific way. That is strictly "lets get published by making sure our results agree with everybody's expectations".

This is the same for Dirac's quote that the "photon" can only interfere with itself (AFTER saying that "dividing" it into TWO parts STILL counts as one). What differences, then, do THESE 2 parts of energy ("photons") have from ANY OTHER 2 "photons"? If the divided parts can interfere, then so can independent ones.

The wave functions interfere, by theory. The probabilities interfere, by theory. The Classical EM theory, too.

GE, you have said (again in your last posts) throughout, that "photons" can't interfere, by theory. BY WHAT THEORY? BY WHAT EVIDENCE? Please provide some. Your "dislike" isn't enough to convince me. You always SAY that there is plenty of evidence, but NOT ONCE have you posted any.

What makes you (now) believe that an "interference-less" result can RECONSTRUCT a picture from TWO frequencies? (I say "now" because of your latching onto Land's theory as evidence for the "holographic" Universe)


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc,

IMO, if photons could randomly and spontaneously interfere there would be
photon "static" observed from the light of distant galaxies and nebuli. By using
colored filters and overlapping the images that they produce at each color
frequency, extremely fine details and patterns can be observed that perfectly
reproduce the distant features being observed.

If photons did interfere over the millions and billions of light years that are
routinely observed, we should not be able to discern fine details, only
blurry "images" caused by interference en route.. We don't see that.

Another example is that if 2 different colored laser beams were crossed, we
should detect a different wavelength of light at the intersection point of the beams
as they interfere and form a new "composite" wavelength. We should also
observe some cancellation of the energy of each beam. We don't see that
either.

Can you show evidence that photons interfere without the benefit of first
interacting in the presence of matter? That is a loaded question, I
know you can't.... it impossible to prove, since the act of detection
affects the result.

Regarding the 2 colors "mixing" to generate all other colors. Only as a
consequence of their frequencies being reflected and absorbed
from the different refractive surface areas being saturated.

The frequency mixing takes place at the refractive surface, as the energy of the 2
applied frequencys is absorbed and a different composite wavelength is re-emitted
from the atoms being affected. In effect you have the 2 applied frequencies,
plus the frequency of vibrations at the surface of the atomic matrix. Each "color"
surface has a different vibrational frequency, and energy level, according to
its chemical composition. Basically, you still have 3 frequencies interacting to
generate a composite "output" emission frequency.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 27 2006, 06:20 AM

Hi all,


This might apply to others, but I'll address it to LL, since he posted.

You are reading TOO much into my statement. You will need at least SOME of what I have said over these many pages to put together the "big picture", but I'm just trying to go point by point for now.

When I say "interference", I have ADDED a new result to the existing "constructive", or "destructive" options of current theory. This is the "neutral" interference of superposition that I have talked about. They can ALL be held under ONE umbrella: Resonance. That is why I suggest the term "interact".

I know that I can not PROVE that this interference happens "on the way", and have said enough on that, I think. My argument does not depend on it happening "on the way", but it DOES give us a MODEL that follows logic, is predictable, and easy to understand. Those things are lacking in the current model.

I also know that the opposite is true: there is NO proof that it is NOT happening "on the way", because we only KNOW when we measure, AT the detector. I am trying to show that saying energy quanta can NOT interact on the way will HINDER understanding. Not keeping this ASSUMPTION will help to rid the theory of problems.

I have already explained the "across the Universe" question. It is the SAME for the "across the symphony hall" set of waves NOT interfering "randomly" on the way to our fleshy, side-mounted detectors. The only exception (for BOTH examples) is Doppler shift, which is well supported. The FACT is, they DO interact, NEUTRALLY by superposition.

LL

If you put a detector at this intersection, you WILL get a new frequency. You will get the difference between them, termed a beat-frequency. I have given close to a dozen examples of this ALREADY. What happened? FWM...

That part is correct, there is NO cancellation of either beam (signal and idler). Remember, we are dealing with a flow of energy; this is not "free", it is continually being replaced.

I'm well aware of that, after saying it so many times.

There is no "vacuum"; there are no "isolated" waves. There is just "harmony".



T.Roc

PS. Interacting in "another dimension" would count for "on the way".


This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 27 2006, 06:54 AM

I soundly resonate with that stuff! ..... by the way ... "on the way" in my 'picture' of things is an illusion of singularity state transition, not of the photon, but of the carrier wave in which it's embedded ( electronic hypertoroidal wave prop').