Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

C2,

That is the point. We have fully explored the limitations of the Fraunhofer method. It works fine as a "generalization", and "up to a point". Then, we must turn elsewhere.


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem The Huygens sources seem a bit dubious but make sense (to me) in the light of having to add something from the other side .. is that the problem?

Your answer to the 2 wavelength wide slit .. ?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi TRoc,

Check out Bragg Diffraction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_diffraction .

This 'works' for much the same reason .. I really think someone would have noticed by now if there was anything wrong with the analysis.

Best wishes,
-C2.

C2,


How many times do I, GE, and LL all have to say "There is no "problem" with the Fraunhofer or Fresnel/Huygens methods" (F,F/H), before you "hear" it?

It will not take us "all the way through" the experiment, and provide us with a Fundamental understanding. NOBODY is saying "it is wrong".

This (DSE) experiment is considered the START of QM, and there is NO QM explanation for it! "Your" way (F,F/H) is "classical", and the WORST thing is,

TREATING "SELF CREATED", ARBITRARY POINTS ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE SLIT IS "CREATING NEW PHOTONS FOR EACH NEW POINT. THESE NEW PHOTONS ARE LITERALLY CREATED "OUT OF THIN AIR" BETWEEN THE SIDES OF THE SLIT.

So, from a QM perspective, NO MATTER was involved in this "new emission". That is a big problem. Now you can see why they HAD TO say (out loud) that this is still "just one photon" interfering with itself. Adding arbitrary photons is not allowed, AFAIK. So, now the problem becomes, HOW did this "single photon" come to divide itself, by hitting "nothing" between the slit sides. This is what forced the "1-at-a-time" experiment, to "prove" which slit the PARTICLE was going through. WRONG again: NO particle. Then they imply "1-at-a-time" thinking, and determine that the WAVE is NOT interfering with "something else", so it must be interfering with "itself" (divided into parts). Not a very good story, not very good Science, IMO.

The thing that is missing from ALL of this is the WHY, and I have been offering "tidbits" along the way, concerning resonance, and the "interaction" of waves.


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

Thanks for the theoretical explanation of photon development across an
atomic energy level voltage drop. I think it has potentially spawned more
questions than answers.

The 1st issue has to do with the "instantaneous" transition from 1 orbital to either
a higher or lower orbital. Due to the orbital velocity of an electron in its orbital
"cloud" approaching the speed of light, it seems logical that there must be some
gradient "slope" (inclination-declination) or transition time latency as the
orbital "jump" or drop takes place. If so, this electron orbital transition should
prescribe an arc in both "directions", which may explain the photon's amplitude
pulse from zero to maximum crest and back to zero over a timebase. (wavelength)

I'm also wondering how this affects the other electron orbitals by changing the
localized atomic field charge distributions, especially other electrons in the same
energy orbital level? Do these shared orbital electrons also generate photons
by orbital displacement, or can only 1 electron per atom perform this photon
generation function at a time.?

No need to answer these theoretical questions, unless someone feels that they
have valid conceptual answers.

So many questions, so few answers.

I understand Bohr's hesitancy to "speculate" when he had no way to prove it
and any real answers might conflict with his "brainchild" theory. Measurables
provide accurate predictability of results, but don't explain the underlying physics.

Neutral is just a mean between extremes, an average. I agree with your
comment about theoreticals, these are the mysteries that hold the answers and
the truths that physics seeks to understand.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 16 2007, 11:42 PM

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

You are welcome Jal... anytime. I feel the acute problems of trying to carry on discussion like this too. One of the big (or is that small...) points of contention is the Planck Length. I believe in Planck's Constant for sure, but I cannot have any faith in a "Planck Length" as some defining point at which the Universe somehow breaks free from its former bounds to allow just about anything to happen (very conveniently for all those theories that need anything to happen at just about this point). One of the main objections is it is far too small to test for its existence experimentally. Small in this context means "real big" in energy (it is a "reciprocal"). More energy than our civilization will be able to harness for the next 10 million years if we last as long. The other main point is it doesn't fit my theory of reciprocal space. It is my belief that people who build theories (even me) based on untestable ideas (at this point in human development) are trying to out think "god". We all have enough problems without that.

You have an interesting idea Jal but it remains "philosophy" if it beyond testing. I agree with nodes and anti-nodes and "stuff" but I think we are at crossed purposes when we want to actually test it at the Planck Length. The nodes and anti-nodes I am speaking about I can map with an atomic force microscope and measure with genuine "measuring rods". Look at the scale on these "pictures"... it says "inches"...
Good Elf on nodes and anti-nodes
Rotating frames of reference distinguishes bosons from fermions very quickly and relative to us "solid" particles (fermions) are rotating frames of reference with "mass".
Good Elf on rotating frames of reference
We have QED at one level of our Universe then we have QCD at the next level of our Universe and I am sure we have QXD at the next level of the Universe where X is the unknown quantity. What I "hope" is the "X" is the same as the "E" seen from another (closer) frame of reference. That while you can go on like this "indefinitely" we are not learning any more since this is "Holographic Information" where a small bit of the whole can reconstruct the "whole" but with less information just as a fragment of a hologram can reconstruct the entire hologram but with less detail.. We are "stuck" in the lab frame of the Universe... photons are stuck in the atomic scale of the universe even though photons can be very large indeed. The other forces such as the Strong Force and the Weak Force are at a sub-nuclear range in the Universe but we observe then from an accelerated frame (our own). Warning: there is a "tiny experimental overlap" between these scales and the different levels of scale in the Universe can overlap (this has been noted experimentally). The quantum (atomic level) and our level... and the sub-nuclear QCD with QED (electron-electron "weak" interactions etc). What is the defining separation point??? It is mass... the more mass the less the systems overlap. Mass is intrinsic angular acceleration... or closely related to it. "Gravity" is extrinsic acceleration ... linear or angular... it does not matter. This is just an extension of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Does everyone agree??

Consider this comment on how to convert "bosons" into "fermions" and visa versa...

Consider this as a general process that converts bosons to fermions and there is another process that can convert fermions to bosons when you pair up Fermionic Quantum States (like Cooper Poirs) to make them even (experimentally known already). This is a "Holographic Process" converting from different (non inertial) rotational frames of reference. The property of "boson" and "fermion" are attributes not intrinsic features of systems and are depending on observations from different frames of reference. There is another process, as we have discussed, to convert uncharged photons into charges and this involves topology. Putting this another way "soft" particles such as bosons can be converted to "hard" particles... the fermions... using a simple change of frame of reference (boosts and spins).

P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach (Click to enlarge... )
So question is where do we go from here... Yquantum posed a question and he proposed that the answer must involve the Lorentz-CPT problem. I agree but it is going to get "sticky" and involves "Holographic Principles" and "anti-deSitter Universes".

I would like ANYONE to comment on this since it is very important to be on the same "page". It's the "Big Picture" folks and I am trying not to focus on the fine details now. Optics is an "aspect" of this so is "holograpy" etc... Just do not get lost "in the woods".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 17 2007, 12:29 AM

Confused2
Extract from
http://www.citycollegiate.com/interference_braggs.htm

Good Elf

You missed one of the key point.

You don’t need to go to “real big energy” or Planck Scale.

It is a “testable idea”. It even produces “quarks” from basic principle …. The speed of light being a constant.

You also missed where the "extra" ENERGY comes from.( ...separation point???)

The citrus crop of California has been 80% destroyed by freezing. Get your orange before the price goes up.
I wonder if “THEY2” would understand my explanation?
No insults intended with that comment. I just think that my explanation is soooo simple.
jal
I'm commenting

Hi Jal,

Not really Jal. If I am reading you correctly on this... Unsuitable measuring frames to determine energy. As discussed in an earlier post energy is not "absolute" and you need to choose a reference frame to compare it fairly. Rotating reference frames are a problem since they are undergoing space contraction and time dilation at the same time and energy comparisons need the same yardsticks to compare "like with like".

Being simple is not sufficient for a theory it must be so simple that you can quote experiments that indicate that it is true. For instance this statement is strange...

Using quotes from this reference...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=166952

This is a "non-sequitur" for me. What proof do you have for this arbitrary statement "out of the blue". I may have missed a vital point there but I think a lot of others might have gotten lost there too. After that statement everything else just "glazes over". The next point is your theory makes no attempt to be rest frame independent to coincide with Special Relativity. I believe that all theories to have any chance of being correct must be in accord with Special Relativity and with Electromagnetic Theory.

Nodes and anti-nodes are not like that... your M&M's are separated already by "nodes"... the spaces between. There is not just one way to do space packing and this does not explain interference fringes which are irregular and distributed.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 17 2007, 01:08 AM

Hi Good Elf!
The spacetime structure and the yet unmeasurable and undetermined dynamics would contribute the"remaining/other" energy.

So.... new grounds?? Did you mean yours or anybody?

You missed the "node" concept. It represents minimum distance, (l), that light can travel and still be ©
Sorry that you don't see it.
You even have a quote that can also explain the expansion/red shift.

Also, Any expansion would require the addition of more spacetime units that were the same size as the existing units.
Dammm, .... that case of beer would sure help.
jal

Hi GE,

Isn't "intrinsic angular acceleration" a property or consequence of a charged mass
that is interacting with an opposite charged mass via EM field "confinement". The
opposing polarized masses complement each other via their opposite charges
(ying-yang). EM fields link the opposing charges and provide the angular acceleration via the right hand rule.

The opposing charges do not collapse and annihilate each other, they establish
angular acceleration via their established interactive field(s) and "neutralize" each
other to establish a "steady" state. In that regard they could be
considered "entangled". The charge attraction keeps the particles locked together
while the fields are the mechanism to provide angular acceleration that keeps the
charges apart. Spin is a component of each particle's charge and mass.

JMHO!
Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL

Hi Laserlight,

Angular acceleration is like linear acceleration in the sense that it not force. Ma is a linear force and mV²/r is a centripetal force that "presumes" a mass. What if mass is the influence of electromagnetic retardation in rotating systems due to the Sagnac Effect. In other words the toroidal analog of Lenz's Law. Consider a simpler but analogous system, a "light" magnet in uniform motion inside a very long "linear" DC electric solenoid. As long as motion internal to the solenoid is constant (constant velocity or "zero" velocity) the magnet will feel no force due to the solenoid. "Accelerate" the magnet (negative or positive) relative to the solenoid and a "restoring force" will exist depending on the acceleration and it will be equal and opposite. Even if the magnet was "massless" it would behave along that linear dimension just like a hunk of mass. This is due to EM retardation. This is "like" a person co-moving with the "light" magnet giving it a sudden push and noting an equal but opposite force in accordance with Newtons Laws... What do you think? Note that Electromagnetism is perfectly in accord with Special Relativity.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 17 2007, 02:08 AM

Hi GE and Jal,

Jal, I was scratching my head trying to understand what this meant, I see that
I was not alone. I tried to reason it to mean how far light travels over a specific
precise time interval. If the speed of light in vacuum is constant, then the time that
it travels, regardless of wavelength, will equal the same distance. But I fail to
see the nuance of the point that you were trying to make.

GE, packing only works for lowest energy "unentangled" spherical systems, I don't
think it works for systems with entangled fields or shared electrons where the
symmetry of the atomic structure has covalent characteristics. The packing in a
non-linear or non-symmetrical atomic arrangement should be denser as in a high
gravity environment like a neutron star core or a black hole. Now that represents energy efficiency, where packing density is maximized. IMO, the mass is basically
fused into a single crystal solid core.

JMHO.
LL

Hi Good Elf, and all !

Well, GE put the open question to comment about "where to go from here." So, as a reader - but relative non-contributor - to this topic, here's something from "the for-what-it's-worth-department" of your devoted fans :

In college, I stood up in class and asked my physics professor: "How big is a photon?" (We did that back "then" - standing up, that is!). You could hear a pin drop in the classroom. After one of the most puzzled looks I've ever seen from a scientist, he stuttered an answer I shall never forget: "You can't ask that question."

For the last 35 years, I've been trying to figure out WHY? Did he mean that it couldn't even be "characterized?" Not even "estimated?" Can't even venture a best guess? (His answer seems to imply that you can't even imply a shape!)

When the DSE was first presented in college physics, we just looked at it and said, "Ok, fine. It makes sense that a 'wave' would do that." But they're not JUST waves, they're also "particles" (seeming to imply, once again, that things are so weird in physics that questions of mere size alone are "out of the question!"). Once again, QM was saying to us, "Don't ask questions!" And now, "delayed choice" and "quantum erasure." These seem to make my simple question even more insignificant.

I'm still asking questions (but in life as a curious engineer), and I really would like to understand the behavior - the mechanism - the coupling - between the electron and the photon. After all, it really comes down to an electro-mechanical phenomenon, it seems to me. This is why I asked the multiple, single electron antenna question. If you shake a single electron at RF frequencies, will only a single electron antenna "out there" pick it up (as in the single dot on the screen) ? That would, indeed confirm in my mind that the photon is indeed BOTH wave AND particle. Should not the mechanism of RF antennas be the same basic phenomenon as the electron orbital when it comes to the emission and absorption of the single photon ? I've never really been confident enough to say YES ! The spectrum of photons emitted by bound electrons indicates a finite number of permitted frequencies. But we prove otherwise everyday with radios, wireless networks, etc., by shaking zillions of covalent electrons in copper to produce zillions of individual photons of RF energy.

I'll wager, there are literally MILLIONS of people out there with the same dilemma that I have. So, where to go, Good Elf ? ANY plausible direction that explores the real mechanism. And YOU ALL ARE UP TO BAT !! I'll go back to reading ! ~Jim

my furnace tube devitrified! apparently the copper powder i put into it reacted with the quartz wall and it cracked when i exposed it to air. The neutron star has untold numbers of neutrons packed into a small dense space. What are the quantum dynamics of quarks confined to their "quark bags" inside a neutron star?
Can the quarks tunnel from one "bag"" to another? Will there be a bag? Will the interior look like neutonium or quarkonium? If the universe abhored physics "geeks" as much as the average person, would all of them be compacted into a single mass of nerd-tronium?

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Jan 17 2007, 02:32 AM

Nerdtronium- nerd-tro-nee-um: A pun of astronomical proportions!

I was drawing an analogy; between the crystal structure of a neutron star and
vitrified quartz process tube that crcked on exposure to air. Can a neutron star devitrify? Where does all the wierdness go when the quark bags all merge and all the barriers come down?

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Jan 17 2007, 02:54 AM