Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Aerohead,

That is the intention. We already know what will happen at the screen, it is the
cavity between the slits and screen that we seem to be questioning. A movie
of this experiment might clear up some of the mystery of what happens in the
cavity region.......or not.

LL

Laserlight, Aerohead,, Good Elf, C2, NF, T. Roc, et al,

Smoke [it would need to be defined] because it is made of molecules which in turn would destroy the experiment due to the fact of interference.

http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/dantu...ications/76.pdf

Duality/Lisa please take over on this if you have the time, thanks.

ciao_
yquantum

Hi Laserlight, Aerohead, Yquantum, Duality et al,

That is the intention. We already know what will happen at the screen, it is the cavity between the slits and screen that we seem to be questioning. A movie of this experiment might clear up some of the mystery of what happens in the cavity region.......or not.

Save you some time Laserlight, Aerohead and Yquantum are right. The smoke become detectors and you will see the cavities. This tells you nothing more than what you already know. a teeny bit of smoke would show the standing waves. Smoke particles are bigger than the wavelength of visible light so they will influence optical experiments.

There are cases where you can calculate or determine this directly as I have already indicated. What it doesn't tell you is what happens when we are "not looking". I am still digesting and reading around Yquantum's reference.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf
It is subtlety more inscrutable than the idea that I have been pursuing. Yet it is one step further. It is in total denial about the unobserved or uncollapsed "reality". I prefer to think of our "reality" being an emergent phenomena created from an unseen potential... a gestalt.

As a first point I am finding difficulty with is the non-existence of "matter waves" I see that Yquantum really believes in waves of "nothing"... It is a very "sparse" theory but I feel that it tells us even less than Quantum Mechanics does about "what lies beneath". It is a Quantum Zen Theory... Personally I am as concerned with the unobserved reality as much as Yquantum is concerned with only observed particles interactions and their interconnectedness as the only reality. It solves the measurement problem at a very high price.

I will get back to it soon and finish the paper... pretty scary though!

I feel it comes down to making a claim... I claim that an Optical Theory of Everything has priority to Quantum Mechanics since it was there before Quantum Mechanics even existed. The fact that Optical Theory of the 18 and 1900's was unable to explain "quantum processes" is an "historical artifact", an accident of history created by the excess attention QM was afforded. A revised Optics Theory explains as much and perhaps even more than Quantum Theory. So without really knowing the consequences I will make a blind conjecture that an Optical Theory revised with modern insight can explain all Quantum Processes, claim priority all without resorting to this "extremity".

I think that Yquantum's Relational Quantum Mechanics can actually do better in explaining the double slit experiment and maybe cleanly explain entanglement, "evades" the measurement problem (I think that point is good) but in doing so sacrifices the last remaining meaning that Quantum Mechanics actually held. It seems to do this without extra dimensions and without time itself. I am unsure if there are even "dimensions" as we know them at all... Is a theory without any human meaning "useful"?... I really do not know yet. I will finish reading this paper first. I would like to know if this revised particle theory can remove the artifice of Renormalization that Quantum Mechanics can't do but an Optical Theory can. I believe that the meaning of events described by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is "viable" without this more extreme view of events. I agree that quantum systems are relative to the frame of the observer and some of this may be applicable but to go the whole nine yards is very scary. Must have a "little thinky" about all this and suck on my tassel a bit....

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 28 2006, 01:59 PM

Good Day Everyone!
I'm still here ...reading and making a pest of myself.
Yquantum is not going to like me after this post.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0602/0602060.pdf
Relational interpretation of the wave function and a possible way around Bell’s theorem
Thomas Filk

Now let’s take a look at what kind of universe that the above scenario implies.
Something that I spent a lot of time doing a few years ago and rejecting for lack of evidence.
Short version
All particles are embedded into a fixed position in the “bulk”. Spacetime is a void in the “bulk” that was created by the expansion of spacetime. All “communications between particles (those that we observe … EMF) are via/through that void/our spacetime. The particles are only in direct communication at the Planck Scale.
Rephrasing, ….. we are on the inside of a solid sphere that contains our spacetime. All around us is the bulk.
There is no need to stop the speculation at this stage. Continuing …. We are observing 10^80 manifestations of the ONE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL UNIT.
Conclusion
The “MATRIX” movie has a better plot.
My 4S Model is a good tool to use to be able to figure out how the universe works so that I can make some manifestations of my own.
jal

Hi GE, Aerohead, YQ, and All,

That is the reason that I want to modify the experiment, to gain additional
factual information. Whether the results of an experiment is successful, or not, it
is an opportunity to gather additional data, which is what science is all about.

There are a number of ways my suggestion could be carried out that might
provide insight into what is going on in the cavity region. I am well aware that
the smoke will interfere with the results, that is not important.

Don't be so quick to poo poo original ideas. When you do that it means that
you are making assumptions about things rather than seeking true answers.

The DSE is real, the results are real, the mechanism that creates the results is
real. As I see it, we are arguing over the details of how the mechanism functions
to provide the results. So far we have lots of speculation and theory, with little
"factual" information to support either, other than the results. I am proposing
an easy method to perhaps provide that proof.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 28 2006, 04:22 PM

H Laserlight,
I can't see any problem with your smoke experiment.
As long as the source is bright and the smoke is weak I'd expect to see a gostly image of the ripple tank .. except you wouldn't (obviously) see individual waves .. there'd just be bright and dark 'channels'

Checking with the
Ripple Tank
The effect is fairly 'robust' .. adding a few dots doesn't make much difference .. it's a shame we can't put little absorbers in .. but I suspect it would survive them quite happily.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Before anyone complains that the effect is really 3D .. we all have immensely powerful software behind our eyes which would probably enable us to 'see' what is going on in the plane we normally (as a matter of convenience) choose to display.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 28 2006, 05:11 PM

Hi all,

A good round of posting. I (for 1) am a little less "stressed" now that the holiday rush is past.

LL's idea to "see" the field interactions by filling the medium with some low visibility smoke is good. Of course, we all know that it will interfere with the light, and THAT is what we want to see. It could resolve the "on the way" question." C2 is right as well, the CW laser is strong enough to "push" through the smoke.

I think that GE and YQ are trying to point out that any "1-at-a-time photon" experiments would not make it to the screen. But then, we wouldn't try to assume "1-at-a-time photons" could be produced by a continuous, coherent beam of light, would we?

What happens when you "chop, squeeze, and strain" a laser beam can NEVER be considered as Fundamental, especially for theorists. The same goes for smashing them together. This does NOT mean that these experiments are not very important, and good tools for learning about the phenomenon, because they ARE. Just the way that they are interpreted, is a little "off" these days.


Guess where I am going to suggest that we turn to for a "real world", visible reference to vibrating fields?

Everybody who answered "sound waves" gets a cookie.

There is an old experiment (I'm not sure exactly HOW old) where you use a "Chladni Plate", and some sand (or salt, etc), and a violin bow. The Chladni Plate is a small sheet of thin metal, and by arrangement of a center bolt, vibrates at specific frequencies when the bow is moved across it, just like a string. The sand will also move in a very specific pattern, for these specific frequencies.

This is the beginning (visually) where we can see FORM of RESONANCE. Finding a geometric pattern that arises from the interactions of waves is extremely Fundamental. This is the Path that I want to take you on.

Chladni Plate - Video


regards,

T.Roc

Hi all,


I need to answer C2's question

Very good question. I said in the very beginning, that we can't replace correct theories, but we can add to them, even if just for better understanding. If you want to know certain details of the DSE, like "how far apart ", etc. then USE the Young, or Fresnel/Huygens methods. I have also said that since the INVERSE relationship between wavelength and frequency is SO well understood, that ANY method that uses WAVELENGTH (the previously mentioned methods) has an "inverse method". So, there is a method for frequency, too; they are EQUIVALENT.

Why improve what we have? Well, for starters, the wavelength (slit distance arbitrarily divided) method DOES NOT follow energy conservation laws. That is HUGE. Where does the energy go? They have absolutely NO IDEA "why" this is happening. Just "saying" the words "constructive or destructive" does NOT cut it. They have NO MATH to describe this phenomenon. Energy can not be destroyed.. PERIOD. There is energy hitting the dark area, unless "ON THE WAY" it is somehow "transferred" to another part of the system. The overly simplistic "constructive or destructive" explanation does NOT explain it with ANY detail; this is just "belief".


GE

Well, the latter part of your statement is very telling. "the dark current will still flow". This is the background ENERGY that is NOT accounted for in current theory. It is "tossed out" at Hamiltonian St., because "it doesn't matter" and "it can't be measured". That, I disagree with. This IS still ENERGY, and according to QM postulate, comes in "discreet quanta" of nhf . ("photons")

And, C2 provided you (& all) with a link that EVERYONE needs to "remember". The "status quo" wishes this one would be forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury-Brown_and_Twiss_effect

There is EXCELLENT info about this "alternate" way of looking at this here:
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

I don't have time to quote from it right now, but I will later. Too many important things are "uncovered" (again).


ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 28 2006, 07:43 PM

TRoc (mostly)

A photon can only interfere with itself - Take Two.

We start off in a dark room (it's sunny outside BTW). We make a leetle slit to let the sunshine in and put a good narrow band (say green) filter in the beam. Then we put our (previously prepared) DSE in the blast of (green filtered) light from the sun. We look at the screen the DSE is projecting the result onto.
BECAUSE the photons are not arriving in phase or correlated (unless the surface of the sun is somehow phase locked) AND we still get dark bits we say each photon can only interfere with itself . If any old bit of one photon could interfere with any old bit of any other photon then there would be no dark bits .. the dark bits REQUIRE phase matching at the slits. (See DSE equation, Lisa's applet or any description of the DSE except any that have so far appeared in this thread). The only photon a photon is likely to be phase matched to is itself. In fairness this result does not prove that a photon that is precisely in phase with another photon cannot interfere .. something slightly odd has to happen in that case .. to me the result of interference between (identical) photon A and B looks like it might have to generate a second result .. that of photon B with A. Not important at this stage.
Best wishes,
-C2.

If a photon can only interfere with itself then all we ever see is single photon interference .. just repeated many times .

Edit .. please ask if you do not see why phase matching is important

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 28 2006, 07:54 PM

TRoc (again!)

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

The immensity of the propensity
For intensity to correlate
Is surprisingly great
This isn't an interference effect. Interference is when A + B = 0.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi all,

OK, my "test run" linking video worked. Just FYI, I now have a "right clicker" on my new mouse! I have been "limping along" for so long without this, that I didn't even know what I was missing! No wonder I could never post pictures & such. Watch out now!


Hopefully, the Chladni Plate video was a good place to begin, especially if you have never seen that before.

Now, I'm going to "kick it up a notch" or 2.

Dr, Hans Jenny did a lot of work in this area. Yes, there were many "esoteric" applications of what he was doing, but let's not throw the baby out here. He video taped experiments of "matter" such as sand, being vibrated a specific frequencies, and taking on specific, active FORM -- IN 3D . This "seeing is believing" effect of video can not be matched with any amount of words, or math.

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 1

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 2

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 3

Dr. Hans Jenny in his study of Cymatics 4

This is seeing the Dynamics of Resonance in action. You can see properties, such as "duality", "spin", "dimension", "energy flow" happen in real time. Geometry forms from this Fundamental property.

Now, I know that this is not EM fields, but it IS waves of energy causing matter to take geometrical form. These notions of "standing waves", "superposition", and nodes/anti-nodes" all have roots in simple Vibrational Resonance.

GE's often shown picture of the microwave cavity Nodes is a glimpse into this "unseen" world.

Take a look at the SIMILARITY in this "grand-daddy" tunable sound wave resonance experiment:

rice resonance


Finally, stemming from the great experimentalist, Faraday, this sound wave experiment, in a LIQUID (instead of particulate) medium. You won't believe your eyes at the end: slow motion "rogue waves" mimicking "fingers" (or worms, IMO).

What Sound Looks Like


I think, in the end, we must face this question: if we insist that "matter" is present to "see" the interaction-dynamics, AND that EM waves do not need a "medium" (matter) to propagate in, then where does that leave us?

If the "proof" says there is no ether, or at least that it can not be measured, then we are acting on "faith" that the EM wave "propagates" at constant velocity through the "properties" of space set forth by Maxwell. Does not this same faith compel us to see the "fields" as a medium for their opposite (dualistic) selves? Waves of E and B fields superimposed onto waves of "nothing", as it were. This means the waves of "nothing" ARE the medium, and that the INTERACTIONS can take place there. Bunching and anti-bunching ? Push (repel) and pull (attract) ? Resonant jumps in geometry, from 1 form to the next, changing the "distance" parameter.


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 28 2006, 08:33 PM

C2,

We just are not seeing eye to eye here.


I am the one arguing for interference; at least we are making progress in that direction.

I believe that the "photon" propagates via self-interference, so I don't need any convincing of it being able to self-interfere.

If you're saying that, then you TOTALLY agree with me! These "photons" are indistinguishable from each other, there is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell "which ones" are interacting.

This quote you gave:

is entirely out of context of the paper. Saying "This isn't an interference effect. Interference is when A + B = 0" disregards the 1+1=4 math of the interaction, that is also present.

Let me include just a little ahead of your quote, and a little past it to convey the truth.

..

My method give a much more detailed explanation of "visibility" (resonance), by expanding the "range from zero to one" method. Music (chords) would be IMPOSSIBLE if this were the "only results" of interactions. So would our "extra-dimensional" existence.


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 28 2006, 09:11 PM

Perfect timing Troc, I was able to watch your movies on my lunch break.

Two comments..... on this movie Cynematics 1 towards the end the bubble "spirals". Could that be a good example of the circular polarization of light?

2nd comment on last movie (What Sound looks like first off it looks like C2's ripple tank, but the end part (your "fingers") reminds me of "they"2's favorite movie Brian Greene's Elegant Universe when they are talking about the quantum weirdness. Has a computer generated thingy with those jumpy fingers.

Now lunch is over and I sadly will probably not have any more time to read until next week..... I know I have missed a ton of awesome viewpoints over the last week and will only miss more. But oh well.

Happy New Year to all!

TRoc,

I will make a "blanket" statement again. This will be controversial, but I am not
one to shy away from controversy. It stimulates thought and generates
answers or alternative perspectives. (cognitive sparks)

Energy "mixing" only takes place when different discrete photon waveforms
are mixed across some fixed physical atomic structure (medium).

Free form energy cannot spontaneously displace other free form energy but they
both can react by displacing matter that contains potential energy, by adding
to the available potential energy of the "system" being affected.
Potential energy only exists when matter is present, otherwise it is free form
energy.

The affected atom's normal potential energy "ground state" is altered by
the different photon energy levels that are interacting with it.

The total energy applied, by the arriving photon energies, is added to the already
existing potential energy of the electron in its stable orbit. The electron can be
boosted into any available higher orbital shell according to the total energy being
applied by the arriving photons.

The energy gap (distance) "drop" of the electron will determine the amplitude
and frequency of the new photon that it emits. This is where the energy mixing
transformation takes place, depending upon what higher energy shell the electron
is displaced to.

Definitions:

* "form" means frequency and wavelength, which represents the quantum energy
level radiating from the electron as it changes from a higher energy orbital back
to its ground state around its host atom.

Freeform energy is propagating waveform energy.


Comments, disagreements, other opinions and discussion welcomed.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 28 2006, 09:33 PM

Hi TRoc,

I agree the article doesn't make it entirely clear ..
( http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm )

Of interference - I think he/she is talking combining a beam that has been split from the same laser - the suggestion is that the same photon is in both beams .. just as in the DSE .. a bit of a pig (flying?) .. but there it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynami...slit_experiment

"Some time before the discovery of quantum mechanics people realized that the connexion between light waves and photons must be of a statistical character. What they did not clearly realize, however, was that the wave function gives information about the probability of one photon being in a particular place and not the probable number of photons in that place. The importance of the distinction can be made clear in the following way. Suppose we have a beam of light consisting of a large number of photons split up into two components of equal intensity. On the assumption that the beam is connected with the probable number of photons in it, we should have half the total number going into each component. If the two components are now made to interfere, we should require a photon in one component to be able to interfere with one in the other. Sometimes these two photons would have to annihilate one another and other times they would have to produce four photons. This would contradict the conservation of energy. The new theory, which connects the wave function with probabilities for one photon gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly into each of the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs." Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition, Chapter 1

There seems to be some evidence that entangled photons may interfere .. possibly even two lasers.. so I don't dismiss such interference as 'impossible' .. but in the general case that we observe I am fairly sure that a photon only interferes with itself.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Edit .. I'm not sure this result actually 'matters' except that it gives a greater insight into the nature of the beast we are looking at.. which is the object of the game at present.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 28 2006, 09:43 PM