Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Whoa. Silence is NOT golden on this topic ! What happened?

Thought experiment: If a single electron generates exactly one wavelength of RF energy from an antenna, and this antenna is surrounded by multiple, exactly equidistant antennas, will all the other antennas see the wave / photon or will just one of them see it ? How? Why?

Hi Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

As for me... I was just taking a break. My view is that if we all hammer a single topic too hard we become too close to the problem and cannot see the solution anymore. A lot has been said already and to correctly develop a new approach sometimes you just got to step out of a set of circular questions and answers.

I was getting "tetchy"... it is entirely due to my impatience with myself and no fault of anyone else.

You may be right but what I think may be happening is a single excited photon produces a sync pulse (or this is what it is in the "far field"). This is a fundamental 1/2 a wavelength plus the higher frequency components due to truncation of the sinewave in time. Similar to this cylindrical Cavity Resonator only a spherical one...

Cavity Resonators

(Click to enlarge). What I must do is to remind everyone about is this "abstraction" of this function. This little "wiggly line" has a great deal of "character" and extends far beyond this one dimensional line and is a truly complex "three dimensional form".

Now a slight digresion... A hologram is depth encoded as a volumetric set of three dimensional interference fringes. In the case of photographic emulsions this depth is "imprinted" in the emulsion as light and dark fringing. Illuminating this interference pattern with a reference beam "restores" the original image (or their sources??). The third dimension is required to create the reconstructed image. In the same way the phased array is effectively a "synthetic hologram" substituting phased sources for the holographic pattern.

Creation of the 3D image and restoration. Click to enlarge...

What can this tell us about the phased array? If the phased array sources are accurately correlated they behave as a single large coherent source. Now if single photons can only interfere with themselves then this array effectively behaves like single photon far field sources by reconstructing the wavefront for far field "single photons". The interference pattern from a phased array's nodes and anti-nodes "construct" the far field wavefront of single photons even though they are "near field" sources.

The "reverse" of this phenomenon is where this far field interference pattern is established "inside a block of recording material" such as photo-emulsion or even DVD Medium. The light and dark exposures of the fringes volumetrically inside the material lead to a "negative" of real original wavefront sources interference pattern. A blackened area in the emulsion blocks the waves from a construction beam and the clear unexposed areas now become the new sources (the reverse), This is only a wave number away from the original dark area so we can't distinguish the difference between the original and constructed beam. We could "easily" replace the reconstruction beam with many individual sources driven in synchronization reproducing the original "light and dark" (anti-nodes and nodes) regions of the beam with synchronous phase-related single 1/2 wavelength dipole oscillators place at each anti-node (how to make these oscellators emit one phased photon at a time is still a big problem). These continuous distributed sources appear to be able to "construct" many "in-place" photons propagating in the original direction of the "hologram" and substituting for that original source providing it was "Continuous Wave", in general this is not the case.

In a "Gedanken Experiment" I could build this array right on through a pair of slits with a "rule" that stipulates that where the slits physically are placed the "signal" is passed only on the far side of that slit and blocked elsewhere. What we would find is "double slit interference". The main advantage of this process is "signal amplification" and beam steering. In "free space there is no "signal amplification" so the signal is composed of individual photons that have the ability to "propagate through two holes at once". This is very similar to the "rule" being observed by a series of "slave emitters" on the far side of the slits working in accordance with this "rule" except there is no signal gain. That is at the one frequency of "excitation" one photon approaches the array from the near side of the slit and is absorbed by a "gedanken repeater" and repeated without phase change by all the array "sources" knowing, almost in advance, that this photon is coming and synchronizing the array to retransmit this one photon with the temporal phase and frequency and the central berry phase "intact".

The array knows about the wavefront of this single photon extending a considerable distance from the center of the "disturbance" and repeats it and continues the wavefront forward. It comes to the slit and the "center" of the disturbance either passes through the slit or hits on the mask somewhere else and "dissipating it instantly". If its central point hits on an open slit it repeats the wavefront that this one lone photon had on the far side of the slit but masked by the inter-slit and surrounding slit masks. These are "simulated" by new resonant dipole 1/2 wavelength arrays on the far side creating the characteristic standing wave pattern.

Click to enlarge...
For "two single point source slits" this is the construction for two simple sources (horizontal slice). A and B producing "nodes" at C D E F. Remember these are standing waves not progressive waves... that means the pattern does not move with time as we see in some "water trough illustrations" but only oscellate at antinodes in amplitude... light is "quite different" in that respect.
Or in the case of a single wide slit this construction occurs for each of two slits in the DSE...

Or "something" that causes the same effect. Click to enlarge...

For this process to actually occur the gedanken transmitters at each anti-node must know "instantly" when the photon is coming and permit no delay in the "feed forward" signal and to replicate this standing wave instantly from the individual "sources". If there were any delay this would be seen in the wavefront and this is not possible to detect in experiments so obviously does not occur. The phenomenon is analogous to "LASEING" and in that respect is the "unpumped" equivalent of the same if you think carefully about it and must be an expression of "photon population inversion" in cavities.

Next question... what in nature... in deep intersteller space for instance... where no atoms are permanently stationed... is there to create these "Huygens Signal Repeaters"... the answer is there is no material substances there. All that exists is some kind of physical cavity that exists wherever there are anti-nodes and "non-cavity" in between... the nodes. I realize that zephir will say "the ether" but I reject that as a physical medium.

I think this answers the question you posed by a different analogy to those I have used in the past. Once again the answer is the ability of empty space to communicate "instantly" throughout the universe and to construct "holographically" these standing waves in the traversed medium (or non-medium... the vacuum). Are these cavities "repeating" the signal or are they resonant to the frequency of the incoming signal? Are they physically real and represent some volumetric element we are unable to detect in our three dimensional space? Certainly light takes the same time to cross them as it does all frequencies. Since a cavity needs to be a certain size for each resonant frequency of light, what this is telling us is this "space" is separate from the "space" between points as determined by optics. In empty space light is not dispersed being forced to travel a different path for each frequency. In one case "space" does not enclose cavities being a "3D flatspace" and in this other case it is resonant depending on the exciting frequency... yet light would take longer to travel through it if volumetric space was in the physical shape of a cavity and not "flat". so it would seem that space we view is not the one in which light is "moving" and this overall effect we see is like a shadow on our "spacetime". The question is how does space "know" to signal ahead and keep everything in step? We know it does this from the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment results. Is it because these cavities are really a reflection of the geometry of our "external " universe...

Good Elf (and all),

Thank you for your intriguing answer to my question. A variant to the original geometry posed above would be : any mix of randomly placed antennas in the far field. For a single pulse at any frequency from our lone transmitter, my problem is this: does the "wave" travel the "field" or does a single (random?) antenna collapse the wave function and produce the "dot on the screen," as it were? If the latter, is there any residual signal ?

Again, thanks. I'll be retiring thinking about your explanation ! ~Jim

Hi Aerohead (Jim), Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

Others who have viewed this thread understand my point of view (some disagree with it). Here is a solution of the space for the electromagnetic equivalent of Schrodinger's Equation.

Click to enlarge...
It is no calculation but a measurement of the system. You can see the scale and this is a "slice" through a waveguide which is being probed by a STEM providing a two dimensional psi squared value (not probability but electromagnetic field density). These taken from the solution of this equation (Shen's Paper above)...

and not this one (Schrodinger's Equation)...

Since no instrument can directly measure "probability". Click to enlarge images...

To emphasize the point here is the same cavity at a different frequency...

It is my view that these standing wave patterns exist in "empty" space for each and every frequency a photon can be and is the result of a cavity resonance on the membrane of our Universe (perhaps by that photon). It is also why photons one at a time, with great gaps between, can create a fully consistent standing wave pattern on the screen or in the "bulk" in the Double Slit Interference Experiment. Standard theory suggests that you need many photons to do this... experiment says "NO". They exist inside lasers, inside any confined space and between a "source" and "cavities" and are the result of "deBroglie Matter Waves". I also believe they represent "compact dimensional spaces" that can be excited into existence not by "power" but are the result of events which is actually information in the space. Each anti-node could be a potential source as well as a sink. Each node could be a point of reflection. I think much depends on where the photon's "still point" actually passes. The "still point" is the center around which the spin angular momentum and any orbital angular momentum are focussed.
RADIATION — Waves and Quanta: Note of Louis de Broglie, presented by Jean Perrin.
(Translated from Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510)
Now take notice of the comment...

This "fictitious" velocity is the phase velocity of the "photon wave" at the moment of being "absorbed" or "scattered". It is not "inconceivable that at this instant in the near field of the absorbing system that the "stopped clock" of the photon begins to "run" (this phenomenon also happens when the photon was created well within the evanescent field of the source or the sink) a phenomenon that does not occur when the photon is in the "far field" and still propagating.

Another interesting paper in regard to this discussion is this one that I have just discovered..

I am not suggesting that the Universe is only 5 dimensional but this approach is bearing "fruit".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 10 2007, 01:00 PM

Hi GE, all,

What happens if we put magnifying lenses in the slits? Is there still interference?

This post has been edited by bee on Jan 10 2007, 04:39 PM

Hi Bee,

The interference is there regardless. I assume that you mean inserting two small lenses in the slits? Just to clarify the "process" here, the slits can be replaced by two small apertures (tiny circular holes) which are effectively a "camera obscura" or pinhole camera. These "holes" behave like a lens... the central part of a lens. Clarifying... like putting any lens at all in front or behind the tiny hole (which acts like a spatial filter). In the central portion (at least a pinhole area of any lens) the lens always behaves just like a pane of glass since both surfaces of the lens are "almost" parallel and would still converge light to the focal length. If we replace this "lens" with just the hole this central region behaves like the "rays" are passing only through the central part of a lens and the focal length is "anywhere". It is not a perfect lens but it does work like one to a "convincing" extent. In the world of Optical and Radio Astronomy large "virtual lenses" are constructed from a series of smaller lenses or mirrors and combined "electronically". These are "arrays" and they need to meet the exacting requirements of path length addition and subtraction before they can be used to "construct" larger virtual "mirrors" or "apertures". In this sense a double slit is an "array" of two matched sources they behave the same regardless of the material they are constructed. A "slit" is simply a "sub-array" of a linear series of closely spaced "pinhole" elements. Two of these "sub-arrays" are used to construct the classic Young's Experiment of double slit interference. For this array to behave as one large single source signal the individual "sources" need to be combined using a suitable delay line between them. Then the "electronic sum" can be used to produce larger intensities than just a single source. The question is do we want to produce a single image or do we simply want to produce interference fringing due to the separation? This is a decision made by the experimenter and the application.

In the case of "telescopes" we do not want to produce a stack of interference lines from one isolated source, we want to produce a "polychromatic" or "monochromatic" image of the multiple sources (a star field or clusters of stars or galaxies) reconstructed by "adding" all the signals from all dedicated radio or optical receivers to produce a very large synthetic aperture image. We do this latter trick by adding a "delay" to all the signals equivalent to the individual delays between the separate receivers based on their different spatial positions (radio receivers of even optical lenses) producing an "effective" single array of two dimensional information that all lie in the one "effective optical plane" (adjusted for propagation times) within a tiny fraction of a wavelength of the observing frequency. It is far easier to build and to point and "sum" a large number of smaller diameter (aperture) receivers than to make a single large diameter (aperture) receiver and then finding a way to point it easily without the whole thing sagging under its own colossal weight. The biggest optical (and radio) telescopes in the world are nowadays "arrays".

Cheers

The interference is there regardless. I assume that you mean inserting two small lenses in the slits? Just to clarify the "process" here, the slits can be replaced by two small apertures (tiny circular holes) which are effectively a "camera obscura" or pinhole camera. These "holes" behave like a lens... the central part of a lens. Clarifying... like putting any lens at all in front or behind the tiny hole (which acts like a spatial filter). In the central portion (at least a pinhole area of any lens) the lens always behaves just like a pane of glass since both surfaces of the lens are "almost" parallel and would still converge light to the focal length. If we replace this "lens" with just the hole this central region behaves like the "rays" are passing only through the central part of a lens and the focal length is "anywhere". It is not a perfect lens but it does work like one to a "convincing" extent. In the world of Optical and Radio Astronomy large "virtual lenses" are constructed from a series of smaller lenses or mirrors and combined "electronically". These are "arrays" and they need to meet the exacting requirements of path length addition and subtraction before they can be used to "construct" larger virtual "mirrors" or "apertures". In this sense a double slit is an "array" of two matched sources they behave the same regardless of the material they are constructed. A "slit" is simply a "sub-array" of a linear series of closely spaced "pinhole" elements. Two of these "sub-arrays" are used to construct the classic Young's Experiment of double slit interference. For this array to behave as one large single source signal the individual "sources" need to be combined using a suitable delay line between them. Then the "electronic sum" can be used to produce larger intensities than just a single source. The question is do we want to produce a single image or do we simply want to produce interference fringing due to the separation? This is a decision made by the experimenter and the application.

In the case of "telescopes" we do not want to produce a stack of interference lines from one isolated source, we want to produce a "polychromatic" or "monochromatic" image of the multiple sources (a star field or clusters of stars or galaxies) reconstructed by "adding" all the signals from all dedicated radio or optical receivers to produce a very large synthetic aperture image. We do this latter trick by adding a "delay" to all the signals equivalent to the individual delays between the separate receivers based on their different spatial positions (radio receivers of even optical lenses) producing an "effective" single array of two dimensional information that all lie in the one "effective optical plane" (adjusted for propagation times) within a tiny fraction of a wavelength of the observing frequency. It is far easier to build and to point and "sum" a large number of smaller diameter (aperture) receivers than to make a single large diameter (aperture) receiver and then finding a way to point it easily without the whole thing sagging under its own colossal weight. The biggest optical (and radio) telescopes in the world are nowadays "arrays".

Cheers

Someone has found a nanostructured mirror that reverses the magnetic field component of a lightwave instead of the electric field component. If the the sides of the slits which have thickness of a a few microns are made to reflect light wave magnetic components it might affect the resulting diffraction patterns. Reducing the reflectivity of the sides of the slits to close to zero might affect the resulting diffraction patterns.

Hi GE and All!

GE we are in agreement....

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=158695

Regards,
LL

Hi Laserlight,

Yep... I am sure we are. The small "bone of contention" remains in the preservation of the qubit. It is my view that a photon cannot be interfered with without loss of the qubit. The "synthetic" process I outlined only mimics the real process in which a qubit cannot be lost for this to work. The single sources in the DSE are "simple" in that they are "amorphous" point sources. So in a way you can substitute another single amorphous point source for the original but I believe that the qubit is then lost. This qubit relates to the source information, right back to the "original source". In the case of a single pinhole source (a camera obscura) you can understand that the original source is all the distributed sources on the other side of the pinhole. There is a complex array of sources "out there" that combine to form the final image. You could simulate this distributed source using an optical slide of "outside" then doing a 2D transform of this source and passing it through this optical spatial filter to "converge" to the image on the screen.

Click to enlarge...
While this would at first sight provide a reasonable facsimile of the "outside world" using a transparency(input space signal) and substituting pinholes for some of the Fourier lenses... It is not a real perfect synthesis since it lacks the third dimension and source phase information. This substitution is at best imperfect and at worst is wrong. Individual sources must be constructed as by holographic technique on the Fourier plane of the holes or slits. In effect the Fourier Transform Plane of the pinholes are Holographic sources of the original sources (identical in all respects) encoded in the third dimension (standing waves providing those fringes in depth in that unseen space", one at each anti-node in that space.

Since these antinodes are "individually discrete" this means this holographic wave can "pass" through the barrier. Don't you agree?

Actually this reference shows these fringes and interferences a little better... encoded in the "empty space"...

This shows a recording medium but in actual fact in "free space" these are nodes and anti-nodes.

Cheers

PS: I would also like to correct a misconception as well about Holographic Recording and Re-construction. The reference beam is not necessary in general and you can make perfectly good holograms with a single beam (the original beam). This is because lasers produce instant standing waves in space without further interferences. Better illumination may be afforded with more than one beam but not necessary. I can show you references for that. You then use an illuminating beam to reconstruct from directly forward. This is where some misconceptions might arise. Thus "fringes" are the nodes and anti-nodes and their light sensitive boundaries. In an interferometer for instance the "fringes" occur between anti-nodes as dark lines but they actually are part of the combined surfaces around an optical cavity.

Look at this...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mo...n_of_bricks.jpg
Look at the badly down sampled image of them....
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mo...ricks_small.jpg


This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 11 2007, 05:06 AM

Hi Good Elf and All,

Hmmm, not sure that I agree with this. IMO, the DSE slits are "phased"
point sources. I say "phased" meaning that it is relative to distance and timing
of the signal, which provides 2 points of perspective for the same transmitted
information. They represent a phase separation of the "coincidence" of the signal.
The original qubit information that each slit transmits is the same but is phase
shifted in time and distance. This would have to be true if photons radiate/propagate
as expanding "dipole" waves from an originating point source.

Instant standing waves? IMO, only due to the fact that they are coherent from
a relative time perspective. In other words, the EM waves are time phase aligned,
relative to each other. They are progressing in perfectly ordered phase sequence.
due to their beam "confinement".
Perhaps this could be considered standing waves, but standing waves typically only
occur when there is coherence due to "reflection" from matter. Standing waves
are a timing over cavity dimension "coincidence" factor.

In the case of holographic interference, that only occurs when matter has been
displaced from its atomically "structured" matrix position in a
symmetrically "organized" lattice.
Amorphous materials shouldn't exhibit any signs of interference since their
atomic structure is randomized and no "phase" relationship exists between atoms.
If the atoms get displaced you couldn't detect it without establishing some
organized atomic pattern or using a reference beam to provide some relative
atomic or timing relationship symmetry.

Comments, discussion welcomed.

Regards,

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 11 2007, 07:06 AM

Hi Laserlight,

I agree that it is "phased" sources... I do not agree there are such things as "point sources". Considering that a single photon can carry Orbital Angular Momentum and that OAM can have an infinite number of quantum states, it is possible to think there is a single photon traveling toward us this instant from a distant interstellar source which has encoded on it the sum total of knowledge of that advanced civilization. It is irrelevant to know that our civilization can decode at best only the first few primary modes. It is well to know that there is much we do not know about "some" sources. You are saying this information is transferable using your "imperfect process"?

As to the existence of "matter waves" it is difficult to say what exists between two atoms existing at highly separated points in space. If a series of "coherent" nodes and anti-nodes "pre-exist" it is possible to understand an information transfer will be possible. You have concentrated on "energy", I prefer to say that the Universe is more about information and it would appear according to many theories there is a law of conservation of information (even inside "black holes"). If "events" are the defining "atom" in our Universe then this supercedes energy processes and these quantum states are the "messengers" of information connecting points through these "events". Where you see chaos and disorder I see an underlying order that is difficult to determine but may be the reason why we experience time itself.

Irreconcilable differences of opinion. Though I would have thought that the nature of the quantum is "stock standard".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 11 2007, 02:58 PM

Hi Good Elf, Laserlight ..

Nothing from me recently as my ideas come and go too quickly to be worth posting.

"Instant standing waves?"

One of the commonest aerials is the quarter wave whip .. this is a quarter wave ( ) length of wire standing vertically up from a conductive 'ground plane'. The thing is fed from the bottom ( 50 ohm impedance ). The E field meets the conductor at 90 degrees and forms an 'image' which is the 'other half' of the dipole. The image is 180 degrees out of phase with the 'real' pole. I don't know if this helps anyone else .. it certainly doesn't help me.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Good Elf, C2, and All,

Let me provide an example of a point source. I have lots of experience with
RF induced, low pressure, plasma's. In my example each individual gas molecule in a vacuum
chamber is irradiated with an applied RF energy field that exists between an
anode and a cathode. Each stimulated gas atom emits light of a specific wavelength (color).
The intensity of the light emitted is directly proportional to the power of the
energy applied and the number of atoms (pressure) available in the vacuum
chamber. Each stimulated atom emits a constant wavelength of photons, which
can be considered an information "bit". Together all these emitted photons
provide a continuous "movie" of the state of the energized plasma over a time
base. The only information being emitted is energy output, wavelength, and plasma position/condition at some period of time.

If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an
organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of
images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in
intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from
a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location
at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that
same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom
at that same moment.

My point being that an individual photon only provides a very limited amount
of information, which is location and point in time. An individual point source atom is being
stimulated and is radiating, or it isn't. In order to convey usable position and
atomic "state" information requires a constant stream of time relavant and detectable pattern information. Individual bits of information only provide a tiny
amount of information. It is emission "patterns", over time, that provide
decipherable and useful information.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

The release of energy is a function of time that an event occured. Energy IS information.
The reason black holes do not provide information is that they do not allow the
formation of photon patterns of information. Light is never emitted as a pattern
because atoms are so densely packed by gravity that electrons are locked
or "immobilized" in their orbits and cannot change energy levels to radiate
photons, but the core mass can radiate massive gravity and magnetic fields.

Comments, discussion, other opinions welcomed.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 11 2007, 06:18 PM

Hi Laserlight, Good Elf et al,

[quote=Laserlight] [.. of a hot plasma.. ] If you think about watching a recorded movie, we are seeing a record of an organized pattern of wavelengths that have produced a continuous stream of images in time. The image is a continuous dynamic occurance, since it varies in intensity, position, and information relative to time. A single photon, radiated from a single atomic location, represents an information "pixel" about that location at a specific point in time. All of the photon "pixels", that are recorded at that same exact point in time, represent a snapshot of the radiating state of each atom at that same moment.[quote]

If you look at your hot plasma you can't tell which atom emitted a photon .. you can't triangulate in on one atom because you've only got one photon to go on. You might stand a chance statistically but I get the impression fields are in and statistics are out. What you could do is put one atom in a known location and when it emitted a photon .. would you know more than you did before about where it was?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Nice to hear someone else say that!

Better yet, nice to see this thread going again. I missed you guys!!!!!!!

the only good thread around, really.