Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Good Day everyone!
Duality I was preparing a post while you were posting.
This is really ....really weird Are we entangled?

An experiment suggestion for DSE (if it has not already been done).
TRoc has been maintaining that there are other waves that could influence the outcome of the DSE.
Why has no one brought up the Casimir effect?
The two slits are only two casmir experiments. Letting a visible photon go between the slits is no different then having two plates (SLE) and then having another parrallel two plates (DSE) to observe what is happening. The Casimir effect is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects.

Has anyone combined and studied the two experiments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Casimir effect
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/itamp/casimirabstracts.html
Casimir Forces: Recent Developments in Experiment and Theory

http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens...mir/casimir.htm
The Casimir Force – Neutral or Electrostatic?
jal

Hi Good Elf.

Sorry all was not clear in my last post.

Normally you have a light source and you look at the screen .. the 'wrong way round' would be to illuminate the screen and look at it from where the light source would normally be.

Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif we have six bright bits
.. write 'a'..'f' at the location of each peak. using white letters on a black background.. illuminate the screen. .. peer at it from where the laser would normally have been .. some sort of magnification might be useful.

Can we tease any sort of information about the nature of the forward path by looking at the reverse path(s)?

For example .. if we illuminated just the bit of the screen with the letter 'a' on it we'd (I think) see a bright bit and we'd 'know' it came from the 'a' peak. With all peaks uniformly illuminated by a very distant point source (insignificant path difference over the screen) what would we see?

Can we get extra information (eg about paths) by looking at the DSE backwards?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Duality,

All images Click to enlarge...
The idea of "pilot waves" does not appeal to me since I cannot think of anything like a "particle" confined to move as a wave.

As I see it... it must be a metaphor since a wave is certainly not a particle "bobbing up and down" or "pushed along"as it moves. My view of "particles" is a packet that has two separate descriptions according to Fourier Theory... The time domain (impulse) and the frequency domain (the wave) both descriptions describe the one phenomena and the truncation in time is the quantization. My theory is purely geometrodynamic... it has waves and "particles" are nothing other than "bright solitons".

Here is the particle description as proposed by David Bohm...

where different "particles" are "bobbing along" after they have passed through one slit or the other "guided" by the waves as seen in the illustration above. This is very graphic where the actual position of the particle is shown by the lines (obviously extrapolated into three dimensional space). My view is there are really two cases the most important is the photon. It is not a tiny little spherical particle like a billiard ball but it is the waves themselves are spreading as in this illustration below and the space they are traveling in (if the geometry is fixed) is a series of fixed cavities formed by standing waves of resonance at each and every frequency defined by the source and the sink for each photon.

This is a "seek all paths" answer since each and every photon occupies the same volumetric space (this does not coincide with the nodes and antinodes).

I will cut and paste some ideas from James Taylor's Home Page on Bhomian Mechanics... I will also modify them a bit to emphasize certain things I see are very important...

I would add that Schrodinger's Wave Equation can be interpreted in purely electromagnetic terms like this...
This is the traditional Schrodinger Equation...

This is an Electromagnetic Version of the same equation in which you may associate the same terms directly with each other
... and they are taken from page three of this paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory Jian Qi Shen
A particle can then be considered as an electromagnetic soliton created and held in place by CPT. Just purely electromagnetic in origin.

Unfortunately the "space" of Quantum Physics does not map into the "real space" of the electromagnetic theory above. Bohmian Mechanics uses an intermediate space called "configuration space" to do the mapping.

As mentioned above the "hidden variables" simply represent a position in on our three dimensional space projected from a quantum space. Now the particle description is not really necessary if we consider the matter waves being related to a "wave function" being confined within cavities... some as big as our Universe. It is a non-local theory and so the main cavity is the Universe itself and what we have is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/gat_80/
Consider what I have said about Special Relativity being a theory of low velocity particles as well ... the low velocity limit is deBroglie's Theory.

And that these particles exist on the outer "membrane" of our Universe ... on the lightcone which exists "everywhere" locally yet represents only a compact surface "globally"... a tiny pebble universe connecting "everywhere" to its hyper-surface.

So my theory is not actually David Bohm's idea but an extension into a particle free description based on pure optics. Within this "Universe" an uncollapsed reality exists by virtue of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory based on a "classical" theory of holographic higher dimensional "flatspace" surfaces, the boundaries exist on the edge of our known Universe and on embedded sub-atomic particles which are also higher dimensional objects. Gravity becomes a geometric effect due to percieved curvature... a pseudo-force. The confinement of our Universe and other particles is on the surface of the light-cone. An optical analog of this might be this instrument...

This is only two dimensional but illustrates the general "optics". This leads to reciprocal spaces and reciprocal times (frequency) for the dual complex fourier domains.

Cheers

Hi Good Elf!
I think that you have identified the differences between our two approaches.

I see it as a particle-like that IS PUSHED ALONG BY THE STRUCTURE OF SPACETIME. It is not a metaphor.

My views are that the above mentioned "waves" are the dynamic movements of spacetime which has not been identified ... YET.
When we find it ... it will no longer be a "hidden variable".

Not quite right.
The particle-like photons are guided by the dynamics of the configuration space.
I willing to wait for the CERN results to give us the evidence of who has the right interpretation.
(for images go to my thread)
jal

Hi all,

It seems this conversation is back in the same rut.


C2

This is the problem with CURRENT theory. They will NOT get any closer to understanding with these "definition" problems, and neither will anyone who blindly follows the admittedly blind. (Copenhagen)


GE

Are we supposed to take a statement, ending in "perhaps", as definitive? You did the same thing as C2, read part of this until you find something vague enough to support your cause, and then quote out of context.

The picture is even wrong, you have NOT included a schematic of the device we are talking about. That is why I am so bold as to say you haven't read enough of this paper to make a statement like the one you did.

If we are to EXCLUDE all experiments that "convert signals to electron currents", where will that leave us, GE? If you were listening to me at all, you would realize that this conversion process is susceptible to superposition, and that "counts" are not accurate. If the remainder of the process REQUIRES "counts" to PROVE a theory, IT HASN"T. The picture you posted IS showing THAT fact. They superimposed the signal, at the cathode, and THAT is what I pointed out about the so-called "counting" going on INSIDE the apparatus of the so-called "1-at-a-time photon" experiment.

From the paper:

Let me introduce some more of the paper to the flow (?) of this thread. At least there will be enough info to perhaps make a conclusion. I am putting emphasis in bold throughout.

No theory of "the movement of vibrating strings" (our CURRENT model), that DID NOT even cover the INTERACTIONS of said strings, can be described as "complete", or "whole"; it is LAME. This "system" for describing a LONE, isolated vibration is INCOMPLETE. There is no isolation in our Universe.

"Something else", like "dark current", CMB, ZPE, is always there, and unaccounted for currently.

You should note here, that what I did (and Goethe), is to COMBINE the Young "slit" (wire), and the Newton prism versions of diffraction experiments. If you look directly at the "Young" picture, through a prism, you get the REST OF THE STORY. I don't need conjecture to explain what can be clearly seen. This is not biological, or an effect of our eye, ANY MORE than the actual BANDS of light and dark, WHICH are "colored" to EVERYTHING else in the Universe.

They go in to some equations, which don't copy over, so I'll leave them out. If you want the math, go to the link: http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm

Then they go on to discuss the photoelectric effect, which is where GE quoted from (diagram). This is just talking about superposition at the collector.

The bottom line: this method produces the same results as MM method, as far as stellar measurements.


regards,

T.Roc

C2,

First of all, why are you using "wave functions", when your argument centers around the "DSE equation" that you keep bringing up? These are totally different models. Fresnel/Huygens (F/H) does not need "probabilities".

Second, saying that "..photons being 'shifted' by the opening of the second slit..", is erroneous. The correct way to explain this is, you get one "picture" of interference with 1 slit, and another with 2 slits. The "opening" of the 2nd slit starts a process of BOTH "new" sources interfering with each other on the way to, OR at the screen. Both of these slits are new and EQUIVALENT sources; you can not give "shifting power" to just one of them.

Also, DON'T FORGET, we get a THIRD result when we BLOCK the second slit; just one spot on the wall. This is where F/H, and QM falls apart; they have no reasonable explanation.

OK, so now explain where the LOSS of "photons" comes from? (the dark bands). The "textbook" explanation, "destructive interference", says the dark bands are where "photons" canceled each other out. This should result in a "lower count".

In order to answer the WHOLE question, you need a "mechanism". Your DSE equation says nothing about "counts", so it is missed there. Now, with advances in technology, you are "counting" "photons" ( ) .

The simple "constructive/destructive" analogy DOES NOT account for the EXTRA photons. 1 + 1 = 4 has been talked about bt LL as well. Higher intensity is from MORE "photons"; IF there was just "one photon" in the chamber, where did the extra energy come from?

Also, from Dirac's quote (and theory): they say that PART of the original "photon" goes through EACH slit. What happens to the OTHER part? What makes up for the "rest of the photon" that comes through each slit. This is so stupid it is hilarious. It is handwaving at its' finest. The fact is, by the model/method used, WHOLE "photons" exit each slit. You can't have it both ways! (remember, this is their justification for "one photon" only interfering with itself, because dividing it in TWO still leaves you with ONE) I guess it's safe to say then, that 1/2 "photons" can interfere with each other? There is your holy "monopole" quest again. Call me when they find one!


ciao,

T.Roc

TRoc!
Your info concerning astronomy .... DSE .... and "The Casimir Force – Neutral or Electrostatic?" seems to indicate that we are about to illiminate some of the "weirdness" associated from both.
Comments ... analysis.
jal

All,

I think this chart will be useful for those interested in The Standard Model of
Fundamental Particles and Their Interactions.

http://particleadventure.org/particleadven...hart_frame.html



LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 29 2006, 11:16 PM

What would it mean if the axion was discovered? What ramifications would it have if the standard model were discovered to be not dead.

there's is obviously a long distance effect from opening a second slit. Discover Magazine
showed an Iranian physicist that says he has observed new properties of two slit experiments- he made certain claims about the distribution of photons and the photos they showed in the magazine seemed to show something different than what he was claiming. I fogot his exact claims, but he seemed to be interpreting the data wrong.

Hi Neil,

How about not quoting the whole post of the person that you are replying to....it
churns pages too fast.

Thanks,
LL

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, Duality, Jal, Yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

TRoc is right about my lack of attention to the detail when I made a comment about Stellar Interferometry. Just shows how sloppy elves get around Xmas. Temporal Coherence is a very important concept and I missed some points in trying to read this page intelligently... I blew it there. I have even been to the Narrabri Interferometer and I must not have been listening that day either.

C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for.
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

I still disagree about the photoelectric dark current being due to invisible photons... or have I got that wrong as well? The dark curent is something that happens with all vacuum tube photomultiplers and photodiodes, this base current just keeps growing as the tubes age.

Laserlight where is the chart of "Fundamental Particles and Their non-Interactions"... I am not joking about this. That is the quantum behavior of "particles".

Consider that "non-interactions" can exchange information without an exchange of energy.... experimentally proven. It is also happening during the "secret quantum life" of "particles" or should we call them waves that have particle-like behavour?

I will return to these points later... thanks for keeping me "honest" TRoc...

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 30 2006, 05:42 AM

C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for.
"Dark current" is code-word for other "photons".

I still disagree about the photoelectric dark current being due to invisible photons... or have I got that wrong as well? The dark curent is something that happens with all vacuum tube photomultiplers and photodiodes, this base current just keeps growing as the tubes age.

Laserlight where is the chart of "Fundamental Particles and Their non-Interactions"... I am not joking about this. That is the quantum behavior of "particles".

Consider that "non-interactions" can exchange information without an exchange of energy.... experimentally proven. It is also happening during the "secret quantum life" of "particles" or should we call them waves that have particle-like behavour?

I will return to these points later... thanks for keeping me "honest" TRoc...

Cheers

3/5th of a photon

3/5 of a photon. Dark matter

The material the slits are made of might make a difference. So might the color and the absorbance and reflectivity of those slits. Photons coming near the slits are surely causing infinitesimal surface plasmon resonances and maybe even bigger surface plasmon resonances, that might affect the trajectory of photons moving through the slits. The slits themselves are not two dimensional objects, there is a certain depth to them that should affect the field equations. The photons that are absorbed by the material comprising the structure that the slits are cut into (on either or both sides or between the slits) will be absorbing some of the photons that miss the slits changing the temperature of the slits and causing infrared photons to be emitted that should interfere with the light source photons to some degree. All of those variables are usually assumed to be negligible yet neglecting them might result in a deterioration of our theoretical understanding of those phenomena.