Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

What should I have to imagine under "coupling energy to space by matter"? Until you'll explain it, I cannot decide about my final stance.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jan 2 2007, 07:13 AM

Hi Laserlight et al,

I will cop a bit of flack for this but I am going to tell it like it is...

We should always recognize that the concept of "polarons, plasmons and excitons... etc" are the study of "deficiencies" in Quantum Mechanics to understand the greater concept. These are all "quasiparticles"... "quasi" means "false"... these are the particles you are having when you are not having a particle. Without these pure inventions quantum mechanics could not survive since it could not answer the factual existence of any system resonant conditions. When you examine the concept (in general) they are all relate to "resonances". In electromagnetic terms it is like saying that a resonant circuit is a "pseudoparticle".

IMHO Resonances are a much simpler concept but because Quantum Mechanics only deals with quantum chaos and statistical behaviour it is "lame" when trying to explain coordinated sympathetic processes since they "refine" the chaos and replace it with self-order. Nobody can "isolate" these "quasiparticles" since they are non-existent and made to fill a gap in the theory. Sure... you can create resonant states and so forth but we really should not be "creating" particles to fill hte hole. Go check... you will not find them in any books on quantum mechanics... it is "back filling" by a deficient theory. When you think about it even the Higgs Mechanism is such a mechanism as well. Peter Higgs has based this mechanism on a solid state equivalent of this mechanism by analogy with Cooper Pairs propagating in a crystal structure. These sorts of models were also inspired by work in condensed matter theory, notably by Lev Landau and Vitaly Ginzburg. It is no wonder why this "solution" is so appealing since it holds hope of plugging a gap in the theory. Read this...

See what happens under "spontaneous symmetry breaking".
Now look into Wick Rotation...

Why do we need to invent new non-existent particles to explain a phenomenon that has been around for well over a century? I prefer not to view this as "imaginary time" but simply "imaginary extra space" with those "domain walls". This "space" is no more "imaginary" than it is in any other discipline such as electronics for instance and we see it displayed effectively in animations of the time dependent solutions of the Complex Schroinger Wave Equation. Personal preference I suppose but makes more sense to me.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 2 2007, 09:16 AM

Possibly some background might help. Looking up system analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_analysis we see "it is a subject often studied by electrical engineers" .. this might explain part of my approach to the DSE.
In my (ex) world we would spend quite a lot of time analysing complex systems with a view to working out the relationship between inputs and outputs. One of the most powerful tools is the 'black box' .. you neither know nor care what is inside the box but you do know the output it gives in response to a given set of inputs. A system may consist of many 'black boxes' and the object of the exercise is model the whole system as one single black box.
If you are a designer then you are told about the inputs and what the required outputs are and you set about implementing the required 'black box' using the cheapest possible components, in the design process each component is a black box in it's own right.

The things in square brackets are functions .. the letters are the signal after the box (specify your definition of 'signal').

A suggested black box DSE ..

Feel free to add in extra boxes .. (eg cavities etc) to suit your own ideas.

I'll fill in my version in the near future.

-C2.

An optical cavity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_cavity )

( Note the gain can be less than 1 )

You can (of course) just add in a [ cavity ] as a black box and assume we can work out the relationship between input and output when we feel strong enough.


This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jan 2 2007, 02:31 PM

Hi Confused2,

Sometimes when we disassemble things we really do not know how they should be put back in order to recreate the whole. For instance even a single living cell we can certainly disassemble but we do not yet possess the ability to put it back together into a completely working cell again. What I am saying is just knowing the parts does not allow us the authority to say we understand it completely. A "black box" approach to physics has some merit but in order for the box to really work you need to do more than just "simulate the outputs"....

The Universe has "emergent behavior" which can be appreciated but not necessarily able to be duplicated. I like the last line of your "model" of the DSE.... it says simply "OUTPUT".

Don't worry I am a "Bellman" too!
Optical "Dimensional" Cavity ==> Stationary States ==> "Extra Dimensions" I can't do it with a "soundbyte"! The story I am telling needs to be more than something a child can understand it has a "life of its own" and when you ask it to be described it is going to be very difficult since the "sum" is much more than the "parts". Maybe it will be possible for others at some later stage in their understanding of these matters to "summarize" but a word like "OUTPUT" meaning the sum total of the response of the Universe to those "INPUTS" even Feynman and Einstein could not explain. Do you really think that this approach can work? What we really need is a "Black Box" that simulates the Universe as a series of inputs and outputs but at the same time a subset of this "box" shows us how this DSE works too.... Not just for one slit or two but for any number of slits in whatever place you care to put them. Do you really think this description you are trying to make us accept as the "last word" on the DSE is the only approach?

Quite frankly we have the Ptolemaic Model (Quantum Mechanics) of the Universe that is not concerned with mechanism and with a heap of "smaller black boxes" (Quantum Postulates) we can simulate a lot of the outputs. But what happens when we discover some outputs missing I fear you will just pencil them in... but I want something more. Your "model" must come to "life" like Pinocchio and behave not like a collection of articulated lumber attached to strings you can pull... but as a real "child". Do that and I will listen attentively.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 2 2007, 02:44 PM

Good Elf..

Assuming a slit just 'coheres and spreads' the input waveform .. without delays or phase changes in the network it would appear that whatever function is applied to the input simply rips through and appears in attenuated form at the output. We could (for example) excite the network with a function F( a,b ) and add something at any point (or many points) that is a function of b , and so on .. I don't understand your model well enough to guess how to approach this.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jan 2 2007, 02:49 PM

Hi Good Elf,

Sorry, I missed your quick response ..

I may be stupid but I'm not THAT stupid! No, this is just another instrument to prod the beast with. Define, refine etc.

Best wishes,

C2.

Hi Confused2,

I may be stupid but I'm not THAT stupid! No, this is just another instrument to prod the beast with. Define, refine etc.

Best wishes,

C2.

No disrespect intended... What I am saying is your answer that you continually refer back to is not offering any advance on a purely unenlightened view of this problem. You can come up with a number but not the meaning of that number. The analogy of marching Russian Soldiers would be a 19th Century view of this problem. We understand that other than the "creation" and "annihilation" events the photons personal clock is not progressing... All that is progressing is a "spreading" relative to our time. Take for instance the Special Theory of Relativity did not just answer a rather "trivial" problem in the interpretation of the interference fringes seen in the Michelson-Morley Experiment... no... it still answers novel problems to this day without any additions or amendments. It expresses a very "sublime" concept that is very near to the real nature of the meaning of this entire Universe. We know it does not answer it all but we know that there must be more sublime information to be had "out there". That is what Einstein searched for and I think that his search failed but it was a noble search.

Quantum Mechanics does express some very important points about our Universe and this is not something I am trying to "gloss over". What I am saying is that Quantum Mechanics is part of a much larger theory of everything. This theory must actually explain these stationary states that exist beyond our "time" as we seem to know.

As long as the photon carries the qubit it has not suffered any tampering and is still pristine. Phase change is possible and so is the change in wavelength but some operations in "condensed matter" are not reversible. Seen from the point of view of the photon the edge of the slit is "transparent" to the photons and they will pass them as if they were not there but they may undergo an apparent velocity change relative to observers ... of course there can be no actual observers for this quantum process to really work. A similar situation will occur in any photon conservative state where the photon retains the qubit. There is a class of "interactions" where the photon "interacts" through a photon to particle interaction and the photon is scattered. In this situation the qubit will be lost. This particular photon cannot partake in any ordered process such as the coherent interference on the screen. It may still strike the screen, but it will not contain a matching qubit of information and thus will not add any coherent signal to the outcome of this event. It ends up as pure noise.

From a Special Relativity point of view, all "coherent" photons are always traveling at the speed of light. I "assume" even when it travels inside perfectly transparent matter, some photons are interacting along the way but many remain "invisible" and unscattered. These unscattered photons retain their qubit and react to the medium as if it was the vacuum of space (time is still suspended for them) but external observers see nothing of them but of those photons that do pass through it (such as a block of glass) this affects the internal dimensions of the apparent space and also the apparent velocity relative to external observers. The clear block of glass is also a kind of cavity as well. The process is one photon at a time and that individual photon carrying a qubit from the source is the basis of the interference pattern.
Three Experiments in One

The coherence from the source is simply for each photon at each frequency... and there is not an infinite number of these frequencies... a "cavity" exists from source to final sink with appropriate nodes and anti-nodes. This is a standing wave cavity not a progressive wave as might be suspected. This is idealized since in the real Universe things are moving around but for each event (emission of a single photon at a single frequency) this "cavity" is uniquely established as a standing wave phenomenon that links source to sink that despite the period of propagation that light is forced to take, actually is "atemporal" and completely fixed at that moment and it effectively "predicts" the standing wave pattern for all time and all places "accessed" in the space. Our Universe is therefore a series of overlapping events echoing through a series of dimensional cavities which define the total geometry and the electromagnetic forces that are exchanged within it. The theory that currently most closely predicts this is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

Here is a follow up on an earlier idea...
UC San Diego Physicists Observe New Property of Matter November 1, 2006
Notice how "excitons" are referred to as "particles" in their own right. I suggest that the reference...

The "pearl necklace" is actually "ringing" and standing waves are nothing more as the coherence length spreads through the Bose-Einstein Matter Wave System. The matter waves are related to the same matter waves mentioned by deBroglie and is the "low velocity" end of Special Relativity...


Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 2 2007, 04:12 PM

Hi Good Elf,

Sorry GE .. I see you've posted but I had this prepared so I'll post it and then respond to your last post shortly.

Define,refine. Going through all signals as marked (still original drawing)
Note position and time MAY be synonymous ???? (define,refine)
Let's zap it with an impulse..
a. - signal position./momentum not well defined (waves hands)
b. - signal position defined .. momentum (direction) ill-defined.(waves hands)
c,d,e,f. - signal 'b' is divided .. position still well defined.. momentum (direction) ill-defined (waves hands)
g,h - position well defined , momentum ill-defined (waves hands)
i,j - signals are delayed by path (looks aggressively round for contradiction)
They arrive at the sum box at the wrong time .. simulation fail... this is why I discard the GE suggestion.

If we gave a continuous sinewave excitation we'd get the 'right answer'
output = f (Path1,Path2) .. as for the ripple tank.
If we reduce the initial signal amplitude to photon (wave hands) level we have the problem that the output from any of the slits isn't organised so we can get the right answer (easily?) and the propagation rate problem emerges as with the impulse excitation.

The only way (to me) looks like a wavefunction excitation .. after the 'sum' we have a magic button marked 'decohere' .. if anyone at a point presses the magic button they get the photon. Since there is nobody there to press the button .. who..what.. how .. when... why.. ????

Pretty convincing? Not. A glimpse into my world .. I hope it wasn't too painful.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Good Elf,

I suspect our metaphors might be merging. It seems increasingly as though my wavefunction-psi has to remain suspended until someone presses the button .. do you not have the same problem with your standing wave?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Zephir,

"Space" and matter share "proximity", they have an interactive energy
interface. That interface is where energy is mututally coupled between them.
Mass couples EM fields (energy) and gravity into space. Conversely, free energy in
the form of radiation and gravity that is propagating thru space couples that free
form energy to matter across that interface.

I'm talking about how the energy is tranferred between them via the atomic
dipoles residing on the surface of matter. Those dipoles are constantly vibrating
and generating energy by virtue of their movement. That is the energy coupling
point at tbe surface interface. Any external energy applied to that interface
will cause some energy-matter reaction to occur either in the form of reflection,
absorption, scattering, or refraction.

Do you have a different opinion or mechanism to explain the energy interface?

Comments, discussion welcomed.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 2 2007, 07:52 PM

Hi GE and All,

GE, I agree with your assessment of faux particles to fill in the gaps of QM. I
think it is natural for humans to give something a name, like Zephir says,
if we don't understand the mechanism we give it a name. These faux particles
are merely titles that represent some form of energy conversion or transfer
process that is understood to occur between energy systems, but is difficult to
explain simply.

There is notoriety and fame for assigning a name to some new theoretical
process or explanation. It makes for "headlines" and justification for seeking
experimental grant money.

I actually agreed with Zephir's earlier comment and baited him to join the
conversation rather than just make an off the wall comment and leave us hanging.
Sorry Zephir...it was a dirty trick.

Regards,
LL

C2,

Someone must design the black box to meet a set of specialized requirements.
Not just any ole black box will do. It must be engineered to meet the specifications.
This requires a detailed understanding of how the internal system operates.

We know the inputs and the outputs, we are reverse engineering the black box
so that we can understand how it really operates.
Physics is the understanding of the details of the black box.

I have a computer, consider it a black box, I instruct it to do something and it
does it (most of the time). This was not enough for me, I had to know how a
computer works internally, so I used my electronics background, learned a lot
about internal computer systems and built numerous computers of my own.
Of course each of the components internal to the computer are individual black
boxes similar to your analogy.
Now as for software...to complicated...I don't care as long as it works, the
ultimate black box.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 2 2007, 08:50 PM

Hello All,

If we really want to get to the minutia of how matter and photons interact at the
slits we need to understand some details about the underlying nature of matter.

Link to Lattice Vibrations and Crystal Lattice:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...lattice.html#c2

Link to the magnetic properties of solids. ferromagnetic, diamagnetic,
paramagnetic:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...s/magpr.html#c2

Nuclear Spin:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...r/nspin.html#c2

Electric Dipoles:

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

Comments, discussion welcomed.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 2 2007, 11:11 PM

Hi Good Elf, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,



Just making the point that, as far as I know (could be wrong) everything only goes bananas in region D.

We can have a 'nice' theory for most of B and C .. which must predict the craziness in region D.

Feynman-Wheeler ..
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...an-lecture.html

The advance 'probe' with two paths .. forwards and backwards .. ????

If we go with 'cavities' .. I suspect you might need two sitting on top of each other.

Comments, thoughts welcome.

Best wishes,

-C2.