Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

TRoc,

Recall that I mentioned that I had experience with interferometers used to
detect process endpoint during thin film deposition and etching.....We used
interference patterns analyzed by a computer program that compared the
incident and reflected waves to yield an interference result. The phase
shifting between the incident and reflected laser beams was done by comparing
the reference beam to the reflected beam, that was changing "focal" length,
because of dimensional changes over time. Basically, it was a highly accurate
phase shift comparator...atmosphere had nothing to do with that result.

IMO, ambient atmospheric pressure only affects the speed of light travelling
thru it. Consider a lens where light travels thru that concentrating medium,
there is no interference observed in a good quality lens. The image concentrated
but inverted beyone the point of focus, but no interference is observed.


Regards,
LL

HI TRoc,

I guess some explanations are in order.

In a vacuum the distance between gas molecules is described as mean free path,
which is the likelihood of two gas particles colliding over some linear distance. The
lower the vacuum, the longer the mean free path. In a confined vacuum chamber
the linear distance is comparable to the time between collisions that would represent that distance.

I don't understand what you mean by this???? I don't know how to interpret that
to offer a response.

Regards,
LL

Hi all,


LL, first let me say that it is a pleasure to have this productive debate with you. I hope that the people following this agree.


I should say right up front, that I don't think that the "vacuum" is going to have the effect of making the medium "electron free", which seems to be what you want to say.

I'm glad that you are so experienced with this subject; it makes it a whole lot easier (because I can comfortably say that you know more than I do). You are aware then, that we are actually increasing pressure by creating the vacuum. I agree that what is physically happening to the molecules is that we are lessening their interactions (collisions). This is quite different than "removing" them.

I'm going to ask a "nonsense" question, to make a point. What do you think that the "collision rate" in the electrons in a crystal lattice is? It should be "null", correct? Yet, indeed, we can easily get refraction from this structure. So, the affect that I am suggesting may not change the results of the DSE. This is the part that I am not too confident on, and would love to see the results of an actual experiment. What I am saying, about the medium between the slit and the screen, may NOT change the DSE pattern. I have gotten a little sidetracked by my own conjecture (and the lone paper that I have found).

My argument then, need not change. The Anderson localization is a non-linear phenomenon. You have given the mean free path, which applies to linear effects. These are apples and oranges. I am saying that the presence of matter (electrons) is enough to produce the effect that I am suggesting. Again, we have different models to choose from; something working in one is not enough to disprove the other. I certainly would have a hard time believing that an electron would be prevented from absorbing/emitting a "photon" in vacuum.

What I am ultimately saying, is that a consistent set of node and anti-nodes is set up in the post-slit cavity, created by a the various energy ground states of the electrons that are present. (vacuum or not) These Nodes are conductive waveguides that, when many "photons" are sent through the slit (refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms), the diffraction pattern builds up immediately, but "1-at-a-time", follows the randomness of the medium. Again, because the thermal activation is weak, the transport of the EM wave (conductivity) would make a transition from the "precursor effect", to the strong effect. The entropy would not be complete (maximum) until the system was in thermal equilibrium (all bodies @ the same energy level).

The statement "refracted by the "knife edges", like 2 prisms" leaves room for further interpretation. I am not making an argument against your slit ideas here. As I said in the very beginning of this thread, I am more concerned with "overturning" the QM postulates, where things get "mystical".


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

I too am enjoying the discussion and feel that it is beneficial to the topic of the
DSE and the "mysteries" it presents.

FWIW, when you create the vacuum, you decrease the gaseous pressure density
in the vessel.

Can you explain your theoretical model? How or what initiates the nodes and
anti-nodes in the post slit cavity. Where do the electrons in the cavity originate
and what "sustains" them?

If air is your conductive medium that is providing the electrons, keep in mind that
the air is present before the slits also...IMO, in that regard air is just a refractive
medium...a constant medium that is present on both sides of the slits, for all
intents and purposes. Remember, vacuum also has permittivity and dielectric
properties and is a "medium" for the propagation of light.

I was hoping someone would analyze/disect the theoretical model that I proposed
regarding the plasmon dipoles and signal mixing on the slit output wall. I had
thought that when everyone read TD Visser's papers, after GE linked to them
in January, that the experimental results that he presented had given everyone
the same insight/answers that seemed apparent to me. Evidently, not everyone
interpreted his findings the same as me and my latest theoretical proposal
modifies and expands on the information provided by Visser.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 26 2007, 07:53 AM

Hi Laserlight,

You have to use your theory to predict results. If the results agree with your prediction then maybe you're on to something .. if they don't then that's the end of the story.

We have a set of results included here .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml . The curve is the same regardless of whether you are counting photons or measuring intensity.. maybe this has something to do with there being at least one elephant hiding in the results, maybe it doesn't.

Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Feb 26 2007, 11:56 AM

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, "THEY", yquantum et al,

I would like to say just how much I appreciated the animations that TRoc had linked here...
TRoc and the DSE with Thickness
It indicated just how much the longitudinal modal transmission can be affected by the thickness of the slits (acting as a secondary source) as well as separation and width... not to mention the materials for the purposes of the surface plasmon influences. What I would like to mention is the theoretical "ideal" approaches that of treating the DSE as if it was simply two spatially correlated "impulses". These pulses formed "ideally" from almost parallel to the outer surface wavelets impinging on the outer wall of the experiment's cavity. The resultant is then "simply" the Fourier transform of the two slits from a spatial pair of impulses into a spatial dispersion into its component sinusoidal frequencies. The individual optical "packet" would then be considered as a series superposition of higher frequency "wavelets" impinging on this double slit pattern with that fixed spatial configuration which results in totally differing interference patterns all acting simultaneously in the space and adding/subtracting to the "fundamental" packet frequency pattern (due to the basic wavelength of the photon). The packet contains a number of superpositions of Fourier "fundamental" all integer multiples of the basic frequency, which "delineate" spatially the packet in its longitudinal modes. Each one of these individual frequencies has its own diffraction pattern at it's own unique frequency. What you then see is a vector sum.. point for point... over the entire space of the cavity as a standing wave not as a progressive wave.

This explains MOST of what is seen. As has been pointed out sub-wavelength phenomena in the evanescent zone is still a "mystery" and I think we are dealing with quantum Instantons in that region which "break" with conventional electromagnetism and is the "big" secret, they can be understood as "null" regions in which energy and time are held in stasis since for as long as they are stable they are phenomena in free space that are the quantum effect itself... the stationary states such as found in atoms and even in the sub-atomic particles themselves. Are these the prelude to higher dimensions? I think so and are non-local by their very nature.

These "underspecified sources" indicate something of an unknown nature in that region since EM sources must be introduced where there are those quantum "nodes" there which are stationary states. This study of "Singular Optics" is highly significant and is a very important feature pointed to by Dr. Taco Visser and others. This is the crucial element in the overall particle formation process and to bright matter solitons. You already know that I think we are dealing with regions in space where there is a standing light cone wall where energy processes cannot cross. These regions can be accounted for "classically" and are the missing ingredient in most quantum theories.

The principle of superposition is very very important in understanding the basic principle of double slits. I would also like to add that slits in time work as well as slits in space... two burst from a single correlated source separated by a very short propagation time produce double "slit" interference in the temporal sense. I have not mentioned specifically this phenomenon but it is also part of the symmetry and is in the literature. Once again this effect can only occur in wholly correlated phenomena.

I would like to apologize that I have not been as active recently but rest assured that I am trying to get a handle on the overall phenomena including the diffraction of electrons and how they differ from the photons. There is some significant differences but there are also some important similarities. This all goes back to the the way in which the photon is packaged as we have already seen with the "Topological Photon"...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
It is very clear that the electron is a "corkscrew spiral" whose spatial K number is inversely related to the "pitch" of the corkscrew and the "rotational frequency" is the temporal frequency (top formula).

These relate back to the de Broglie particle. This "spiral" hides the fact that it too is simply an electromagnetic wave in reciprocal space with a "twist", and is a presentation of the features I have already mentioned above and in previous posts. Since a pure electromagnetic "wave" is not a "corkscrew" but is ideally a plane polarized phenomenon, it is therefore a superposition of two "corkscrews" of opposite spatial and temporal phase. In turn this must relate to the odd spin of the electron and the even spin of the photon.

All these phenomena are related to each other and are telling a story about the real nature of the quantum... it is a largely untold story.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 26 2007, 03:20 PM

Hi GE,

If you watch the thin screen animation provided by TRoc, one obvious
consequence of the propagating wave is that the main power lobe of the
propagating pulse remains centered on the slit gap. If you compare this to the
results of the DSE, you will see that the brightest and widest energy band
shown on the screen is directly centered between the two slits. It remains
centered in this position regardless of the screen distance from the slit wall.
This does not correlate with your comment:

If the issue was merely superposition "signal overlap" occuring at the screen the
final pattern would shift to match the standing wave patterns in the cavity when
the screen was moved, but it doesn't. All that happens when the screen is moved
is the bands on the screen expand or contract according to the change in
distance, even when traversing across multiple standing wave nodes/antinodes in
your proposal. Your early discussion also doesn't transfer to the single photon
pulse interference pattern model as you have described it.

I think that your discussion of the evanescent zone is moving in the right direction
and I agee that this zone has some significant influence on the optical
characteristics observed in the DSE.

I think we have some agreement here. Unfortunately, unless I can find a paper
that records the slit spacing vs. the number of bands projected onto the screen
so that I can correlate the number of null points between the slits, I will be
unable to "predict" the results as C2 has required. This is unfortunate, since the
evidence is very compelling that there is a very high correlation between slit
spacing and the number of interference bands.

It seems that perhaps we are thinking similarly about a helical torroidal topology
of a photon wave pulse as I alluded to TRoc with my helical push mower blade
description to account for photon "spin". Perhaps this helicity of the EM waves
would be measurable across several spatially separated sampling wave imaging
detectors, looking at the same source, as slightly progressive time delays of the
pulse amplitude over time. Perhaps this has not been detected because we
typically only look at/measure at a single sample detection point. Of course there
would have to be exact positioning of the equipment to compensate for timing
variance caused by the arc radius of the spherical wavefront.

Your thoughts?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 26 2007, 05:36 PM

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 27 2007, 05:42 AM

Hi Laserlight,
Sorry .. this goes back a bit..

In the past on this thread there's been a lot of talk about photons only interfering with themselves. While there is often smoke without an actual fire it might be interesting to consider the possibility that a single photon does meet your requirement of being the result of the same causal event.

Because I'm looking at the results of the DSE .
Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Feb 27 2007, 10:46 AM

Hi TRoc,

With one path (no slits) we get no interference at the screen. With two paths (the slits) we get interference at the screen. To make the DSE work 'nicely' we need an extra slit before the 'real' pair of slits to ensure that both slits can see the source as though from the same distance.

The conventional approach to single slit diffraction is to (simply) look at the difference in path length from either side of the slit to the screen or (better) across the whole width of the slit. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions of the result.

The conventional approach to the DSE is consider the path differences between the two slits .. ignoring the additional path difference due to the width of the slits themselves simply because it makes the maths very difficult and (making reasonable assumptions) has little effect on the final result. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.

The conventional approach to the Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments is to consider the difference in length between the two paths that the beam splitter has created. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.
Looking at diffraction gratings in general we find the conventional approach is to look at the difference between the paths to the screen. This 'path difference' approach gives good predictions.

There isn't a great deal in common between the ways the different paths are created .. only that once more than one path has been created we see interference effects.

Is it possible that the reason for the interference effect doesn't lie in how a path is created? Could it be that two (or more) paths between source and screen might be enough to cause the interference effect regardless of how the paths are created?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc, "THEY", yquantum et al,

Umm... Sorry ... totally different subjects. The "Fourier Transform" only relates to DSE and ideal slits. Some knowledgeable people believe that this decomposition is all that the DSE is about.

The case that TRoc has demonstrated from Rochester U. is not an ideal case but it does demonstrate clearly, earlier statements about longitudinal "spreading" within a single wavepacket. What started out as an almost impulsive function has been spread over the longitudinal mode. I made no statement about transverse modes there anyway. In the ideal case of "perfect" slits or pinholes, whatever, the slits transform the spatial impulses into a series of spatial frequencies through the reciprocal transform. As soon as you add wall thickness of those other factors the experiment becomes "slightly" non-ideal. There are ways to deal with all those cases but the "thick slits" is by far the least ideal situation and one in which a lot of influences can come to bear. Each set of fundamental packet frequencies has a different DSE which produces a different set of interference fringes. Obviously these are a much lower overall energy than at the primary frequency. That adds that interesting fine detail to the interference effect that is not present in constructions using a protractor.

In the ideal case (I stress "ideal"), a wavepacket is a superposition of wavelets truncating the wavefunction. In the case of light these higher frequency phase components are frozen relative to the fundamental frequency of the packet .... the equation that says E = hf ... the f is the fundamental frequency. Note that the value of E depends on a number that is still a bit of a mystery to me but is fixed for all wavepackets of light. There is a difference when we deal with electrons where the phase components are traveling "within the packet" at a relatively different velocity.

I am still thinking about it so I can't be sure about any comparisons at this stage but I welcome any input LL.

Cheers

Hi C2,

The interference results on the screen have timing changes/delays, from the center
outward, because the screen is flat....2 dimensional, while the wave fronts
are spherical. If the screen was spherically curved to match the curvature of the
wave fronts then the interference bars would be equally spaced.

Regards,
LL

C2,

You raise an interesting question?

It makes me wonder what we would see on the screen if we used a laser
aimed at a beam spitter whose beams hit two separated mirrors that were
equidistant apart. Would the beams reflected off the two mirrors interfere at the
screen? This satisfies your two path lengths question. IMO, there will not be
any interference unless there is a difference in phasing/timing between the two
beams which would be observed if the reflecting mirrors had different path
lengths to create the phasing change. In this case, the phase change would
exist between the two mirrors but would be detected at the screen where
the phase signal differences are superposed.

Regards,
LL

Hi GE,

An electron has a "charge distribution envelope" that concentrically surrounds
the electron's centerpoint as a "voltage potential" sphere, if it were at
rest/immobilized. However, if you observe an electron you should find
contained within this "charge-potential envelope" that effectively there is an
electrical field component that is not electrically neutral and that forms a charge
field component to the electron. By its nature, charge has to be the result
of some inequality, some difference between two points of reference. Perhaps
the difference is between the electron and its relation to the permittivity of "space".
If space is at some relative dielectric value and an electron represents a pure
"short" to that dielectric constant, then the fields that separate them represent
charge displacement. This conceivably could be an interaction with the "space
charge" between the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the field charge of
the electron.

If you subject the electron to an electrical field it will unbalance the CMB field
phase alignment and the electron will deviate from a linear path. Similarly,
if you subject the electron to a magnetic field the electron will also deviate
according to the field strength. So it appears that localized E and B fields
change the CMB background dielectric constant which changes the normal
charge relationship that exists between the electron and the CMB.

Of course you realize what the implications of my proposal are....I know that
you will cringe when I mention the word................... Aether!
I still consider the dielectric constant of space as the lowest level background
baseline energy plateau that all other higher energy states relate to and are scaled
from.

Any comments, discussion, welcomed!
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 27 2007, 06:19 PM

Hi all,


C2, your questioning the speed of light (being constant) of late, is valid. I have talked about this before, but ??

The ORDERING of frequencies is enough to require that our concept of velocity gives different answers, for different frequencies, from a single "event".

The logic is this: frequency & wavelength are symmetric measurements. They are "wave" properties; they will start at the same "point" of a cycle, and they will all COMPLETE the last cycle, at the point of measurement.

If they leave from slightly different points, as in from a prism, or other refraction, then they will arrive at slightly different times, as measured from a common point.

This is enough to cause the phase difference that LL speaks of.

Everyone insists (because of the results of the measurement) that the frequency remains the same in these transactions. I say that it just ends up the same.

C is a constant; f and w produce that constant. If f is constant, and we adjust the wavelength to compensate, then our previous "constant" can not remain "constant". c must change, slightly, in this perspective.

I also have mathematical reason to believe that there is a very small velocity difference, base on frequency. I won't go into it here, because it is "off topic". But I will say this, for you to ponder. The square root of c is an irrational number.

sq.rt. c = 17314.515817660047983788339758548

If we put this number in for "wavelength", and calculate for frequency ( c / w ), we get:

c /
17314.515817660047983788339758548 =
17314.515817660047983788339758556

which is the same order of difference that I get from calculating a fundamental frequency, wavelength, and velocity, from first principles. This shows the simple reason why a traveling wave can not be "perfectly symmetrical", as is indicated by the "ideal model" that Fourier produces.

Now, this is only out to 27 digits, so maybe, if we calculate this way, out to 34 digits, we would end up with an h .

FYI, the derivation of h relied on Boltzmann's S = k Log W , the "statistical" version of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The equation that Planck started with was

"...........C_1 f^5..............."
E = ---------------------------
"......exp (-C_2 f / T) -1...."

where C_1 and C_2 were "chosen" by Planck to "fit the experiments". IMO, this whole procedure is nothing more than "reducing" (by division) a quantity down to a number so small, that it "escapes" our ability to calculate "accurately", as my above sq.rt. c similarly shows. Certainly, it leaves me with "a bad taste in my mouth", when they tell me then, that we are going to get "even numbers" (whole integers) from this exceedingly small irrational number. It just doesn't physically interpret to something "tasty" to me.


ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Feb 27 2007, 06:29 PM