Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hello Confused2, LL, et al.

The emission of a photons of energy from any source is usually a steady state function of finite duration. If the energy input into the source does not change and the configuration of the source does not change then the output or emission from the source will not change. The period between wavelet emission and frequency of the wavelet is based on the harmonic oscillator configuration of the source. This applies to the entire EM spectrum.

Spectrum filters and pinholes can generate nearly coherent monochromatic light that is suitable to use in experiments to measure coherence. Lasers just allow the experimental results to be measured better. By better I mean with faster and more accurate results.

The equation for the photon is E=hf. This gives no clue on is shape, how it move from one location to another or how it maintains it shape and intensity (energy per unit area). It only defines that the energy contained in the photon is related to its frequency. It is generally accepted that when the word "photon" is mentioned then we are talking about electromagnetic radiation. EM radiation is a wave phenomena and as such obeys wave mechanics for transverse waves. This explains how light moves from one location to another and how its intensity can change over time.

Given that photon relates to the energy of a wave that is sufficient to overcome some work function at emission and a wave can have energy density changes over time then at absorption (another work function here) there may not be enough energy (local intensity) contained at that point in the wave to be detected. This is where constructive wave interference can come into play as this will increase the total intensity available. It is also possible to concentrate the intensity by making the apparent local area larger with optics or by summing the intensity over time as in photograph emulsions. (Notice the correlation with spatial and temporal coherence.)

Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

A/ Let's assume a photon is emitted from somewhere on the bulb filament at t0, x0,y0.
B/ A narrow band filter is used as an attenuator .. I don't think it needs to have any other function.
C/ It gets through the green filter .. you can add in an extra step if you feel this might affect the result.
D/ Meets a single slit at t1,x1,y0
E/ Path diverges (Huygens)
F/ Photon now meets the pair of slits.. keeping it symmetrical for simplicity..
G/ Slit A at t2,x2,y2 and slit B at t2',x2,-y2
H/ We now look at a sample point on the screen .. say x3,y3
I/ The length of path from slit A (x2,y2) to (x3,y3) is given by
I1/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3-y2)^2 )
The length of path from slit B (x2',y2') to (x3,y3) is given by
I2/ sqrt( (x3-x2')^2 + (y3+y2')^2 )
What follows is just the derivation of the DSE equation using Pythagoras instead of angles
J/ Letting wavelength be λ and N is a positive or negative integer
We get bright bits where
J1/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3-y2)^2 ) - sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3+y2)^2 ) = N λ
and dark bits where
J2/ sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (Y-y2)^2 ) - sqrt( (x3-x2)^2 + (y3+y2)^2 ) = 1/2 N λ
If we say (x3-x2) = D (the distance to the screen) and y2 = t (HALF the distance between the slits) and y3=Y ... to make it prettier
sqrt(D^2 + (Y-t)^2) - sqrt(D^2 + (Y+t)^2) = λ
D(( sqrt(( 1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2) - sqrt(1 + ((Y+t)/D)^2) )) = λ
or
(( sqrt(1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2) - sqrt(1 + ((Y+t)/D)^2) )) = λ /D
Using the approximation sqrt(1+x)= 1 + x/2 + .. on the LHS
~ = 1 + ((Y-t)/D)^2)/2 - 1 - ((Y+t)/D)^2)/2)
= ((Y-t)/D)^2)/2 - ((Y+t)/D)^2)/2
= ((Y-t)^2 -(Y+t)^2)/(2D^2)
= (Y^2 - 2Y.t + t^2 - (Y^2 + 2Y.t + t^2))/(2D^2)
= -4Y.t/(2D^2) = λ/ D
hence - Y = 1/2 D λ/ t
if we substitute s =2t
we get
Y = D λ /s
Or
λ = s Y /(D )
Which is the DSE equation! http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
K/ We could rather tediously go further with our path length differences if anyone wants to but (to me) I'm happy with the result so far.
L/ We seem have bright bits where the path difference is N λ .
M/ If a photon traveled at 'c' then the difference between the two paths (in time) would be N λ / c . In the results here ( edit http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) we only have a few bright bits .. so the observed time difference between paths (assuming 'c' ) is only (say) 3 λ/c . In the Kennedy-Thorndike we guess (without paying for the paper) that the path difference is at least one metre .. this would seem to give us a time difference between paths of 1/c .. about 3ns. Given that the photon is only detected once this leaves us to wonder whether the speed of light is 'the result' + 3ns or -3ns or something else. On an astronomical scale it would seem the difference in time taken to travel the alternative paths at 'c' can be 'astronomical'. (Reference already given .. to busy to find it now)
N/ So far (hopefully) we are in agreement that a photon can be at least as wide as the slits in the example used (0.5mm) and spread over anything from 3ns to ?.
M/ If we had replaced the first slit with a hologram of the Taj Mahal I suspect the DSE would have produced an interference picture of an interference picture .. I suspect the first slit is required to turn the actual source into a point source as well as spreading the photon evenly over the area which includes the two slits.
O/ So far as I am aware .. Good Elf and Montec are the only two people who have ever suggested that a photon is detected with any energy other than that which it was emitted with. The QM equivalent of 'loss of intensity' seems to be 'loss of probability of detection' .. this seems to satisfy the inverse square law and everything else.
Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Feb 28 2007, 11:11 PM

Hi all,


I'm behind quite a bit, in trying to keep up with questions to me, which are now buried a few pages back.

LL -

Now, I'm not "the great mathematician" either, so I can not definitively answer the infinite solution set question. I can say (fairly sure) that an irrational number is not an infinite number, per se. Just the quantity to the left of the decimal is what qualifies that. I am not a fan of "infinity" being used to describe something physically real; it means "there is no end", so at least in terms of MEASURING something, we can't use it with certainty. Infinite does have special place in the "big picture". I still can not see WHY you brought it up?

The fact is, that in the "triangle" relationship of c , f , and w , one of them will ALWAYS be an irrational (and it's not c ). That plays heavily in my approach. They ( f & w ) do not have "mathematical symmetry", but since they do have the inverse relationship, I looked for (and found) a "new" kind of mathematical symmetry, using Pythagoras principles, and the irrational 12th root of 2 (of which Pythagoreans were "afraid of") to approximate the set of ratios that can produce resonance. In my model, c is an irrational too, still being 299,792,458. .., and is produced as a natural consequence of symmtrically measuring vibration.

You can go to this thread, if you want to see more of my "set" idea. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28953

It is not critical to the beat-frequency superposition/resonance ideas that I have been posting here, but does support it. The "matrix" is what really pushed the idea (for me) that there must be a mathematical equation, to make the musical chord, and define resonance better than has been done. I wasn't sure if I had said anything specific in this thread, but I know that C2 and GE have at least "heard" it (and probably don't want to hear it again! )


Two other points. (LL) Do you agree with me, in that we still have electrons present under "vacuum" conditions? This is a big deal, so I would like an answer, so it can be considered "dealt with".

The other thing is for everyone. NO ONE commented on the photos of glories. No screen, 2 very large slits (the curvature of the Earth, left and right of the "tooth", or shadow), light and dark bands (in color), a rainbow without green. A connection between Glories, Airy disks, and Arago spots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot), and don't forget Vissers' 3 slits in equilateral triangle, as well as "semi-coherent" light creating this pattern.


ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Feb 28 2007, 11:42 PM

Hi TRoc,

I didn't answer because your question was ambiguous.

If you mean electrons on the sidewalls of the slits and screen...absolutely.
If you mean electrons in the cavity open areas...No, I don't agree.

Which is it?

Regards,
LL

Hi LL,

Bingo!

Of course, if we include the walls, etc., we have electrons, but I am talking about the gases in the "box" of the DSE, from our atmosphere.

You talked about the mean free path being greatly increased, by compressing the molecules. That does not imply that the molecules (& electrons) were removed. Do you have additional information?


I will add this question: Is any container of gas considered to be "in vacuum"? I think that that is true, but I'm not positive. I realize that there is a big difference in the pressure, and the entropy of the system, but is that true in general?

ciao,

T.Roc

PS. I should also ask if the Maxwell velocity distribution method will significantly change because we have 10 different "particles" involved?

This post has been edited by TRoc on Mar 1 2007, 03:40 AM

Hi TRoc,

You have this confused....when a chamber goes under vacuum the gas molecules
spread apart, increasing the distance between them according to the level of vacuum attained. The further apart the gas molecules, the greater the mean
free path (the less the chance of gas molcules colliding). The extremely low
vacuum results are typically read on an ion gauge which is basically a heated
filament in close proximity to a detection wire. They are close to "space like"
vacuum levels. For all intents and purposes there are no free electrons inside
the chamber.

We relate vacuum as compared to sea level atmospheric conditions at 14.7 psi
(1013.25 millibarr) pressure or 760 Torr. Any pressure lower than this is under some vacuum level and represents a decreased energy level within the
container since reduced pressure decreases molecular collisions.

Can you further explain what you mean by this question?

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 1 2007, 04:50 AM

Hi LL,


My mistake in terminology.. "compressing"; should have said "decrease the gaseous pressure density", as you told me earlier.

Bear with me, this is like the child who learns there is no Santa Claus. Questions will inevitably follow, like "where do the presents come from", or "why does the guy at the mall dress up like this "make-believe" saint?

Again, what I've read, and what I'm hearing you say is, that "in time" between collisions, the equivalent is 5km, or whatever it is. We know that this is not "physically" true; the electrons are not removed, and transported away by truck.

Reducing the # of collisions between gas molecules is not the same as taking the molecules "out of the picture". When all the textbooks say "there is no such thing as a real vacuum", this (to me) is a "red flag". Something must give here. We have no way of knowing (by this method) of how many molecules are in the box.

1859: Maxwell develops the kinetic theory of gases. In a mole of gas, we've got 6 x 10^23 molecules, far too many to "measure" independent velocities. When Boltzmann put the finishing touch on the statistical method, he added the "theorem of equipartition of energy". So, to Maxwell's' measurements of probable velocity distribution, or "range of deviation from the average", Boltzmann added that the energy of the system will be distributed equally among all the degrees of freedom, at thermal equilibrium. As far as I know, these methods were used with like collections of gas. Again, I'm not positive, but I think that "statistical averages" need to be "of like entities".

This really is not too important, but you had asked why I asked about the velocity distribution. I wasn't sure about how that played into the way you measure (or verify) IF there are less molecules in the chamber, or just "less collisions" between the molecules that are still there.

These varied molecules have different masses/energies, so there is entropy going on, until equilibrium. The equipartition then, while being divided equally among the degrees of freedom, would NOT be divided equally among the 10 molecules likely present (en masse) in the chamber.

N2, O2, H2O, Ar, CO2, Ne, He, CH4, Kr, H2


But really, this just boils down to one easy question:

Does "vacuum" mean "nothing" is in there, or just that the usual process is not able to trigger our measuring device ("a heated filament in close proximity to a detection wire")?

You did say in your last post that there were no free electrons. Again, I am talking about bound electrons; more specifically the molecules of gas.

Just one more "go around", and if no direct answer is given, and no DSE in vacuum is referenced, I am going to drop this topic, because I feel it will detract from the progress of this thread.



regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

For all intents and purposes, consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber.
Herein is the rub, there is vacuum potential energy in the chamber relative
to the atmosphere outside the chamber, and the vacuum is a good insulator.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 1 2007, 09:28 AM

Hi Laserlight,

Charge is a quality/quantitative relative measurement, not a substance.

I think I said that.

Magnetic dipole? A point cannot be a dipole?

Not a debatable question... I am quoting an experimental fact, I said that in the post, electrons do have magnetic dipoles and up to the highest accelerator energies, has no "charge core" or "measurable size". You should be "getting it" by now. You should be asking the right questions and not ignoring my statements

There are no measurable charge "gradients" in electrons, only "field gradients". I have never seen electric charges "neutralize" other than in matter anti-matter reactions then "everything" is "neutralized".

You are having a "logical even bet both ways" when you compare it with your other statement in your post. Either charges have "gradients" as you have stated and is some amorphous blob of "charged something" or they are not. We know that photons exhibit fluctuations in field gradients of the electric and magnetic field which in other circumstances are the result of charges or "displacement charges". I don't believe in truly "fundamental" point charges or displacement charges. Displacement charges are simply the displacement of a fictitious charge center from a position of neutral equilibrium in otherwise electrically neutral "material". Electrical neutrality means that there are equal numbers of oppositely charged centers or particles which are in a dynamic equilibrium. For instance an "electrically neutral" atom does not mean there are no charges there, it just means that there are equal numbers of opposite charges and that the nett charge is zero. You must have missed a complete science along the way that refers to electrical neutrality. I would admit that it is possible to "displace" centers of so called charge but it is the "primitive notion" of charge itself that I disagree with.

What you said was that it formed a kind of inertial frame of reference. Remember you said...

By the original definition of the Aether it was an inertial frame that could exist in space or be dragged along by the gravity field of a planet that light would require to propagate through. It is a "universal frame of reference". That is why I "cringed". It may be that you really harbor some of these heresies and this will mean that without a common experimental basis we are unable to proceed.

I doubt if I could at this rate. We need to use the same language first. It seems that I can't communicate a single concept to you at the moment. I appear to be "pitching way over your head". I apologize for that but maybe we are both becoming a bit "overwrought" and losing patience again. I am not making any headway here.

Cheers

Good Elf
One of these links/papers should help explain your point of view.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getd...c-pub-12327.pdf
Signatures of Spherical Compactification at the LHC
Abstract
TeV-scale extra dimensions may play an important role in electroweak or supersymmetry breaking.
We examine the phenomenology of such dimensions, compactified on a sphere Sn, n ≥ 2, and show that they possess distinct features and signatures.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES
" The material Universe is purely made out of Aether "
jal

Hi all,


I guess LL and I will have to agree to disagree. For his intents and purposes, "consider almost nothing "physical" in the chamber"; not for mine, though. It does not directly affect the issue at hand anyway.

Motion detectors placed in various locations in a parking garage, according to the "vacuum" logic, will GUARANTEE that there are no cars in the garage, as long as the motion detectors give a "null" signal.


I'll just stick to the topic of "photon interference".

A light bulb, having a tungsten filament, and being in "VACUUM" (never mind that its' back-filled with argon gas) gives off "WHITE LIGHT". This is the MANTRA of Science.

Here is the constant emission spectrum of Tungsten:

click here for larger image

Depending on which contradicting mantra of Science you choose, we need either "all colors" (which is 7, according to Newton), or at least, "a combination of the 3 primaries", according to high school Physics texts, to get this "white light".


I'll leave it at that for now, and say, this riddle is solvable.

For the creative thinkers out there, I'll also add, don't confuse the temperature of the filament, and its' apparent "color" with the "color" of the light reflected off the walls in the room. Even the "near field" anomaly of appearing "yellow" is not backed up by the spectrum of Tungsten. If this simple version were true, all light bulbs could produce ANY color, simply by having their temperature regulated. We do not see "photons" in flight.



ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Mar 1 2007, 04:58 PM

I found this article on two slit experiments and real world complications.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=Yes&type=ALERT

Hi Jal,

That is an absolutely excellent site and animations. THANK YOU! Perhaps it will
change some thought processes here.

Glad to see that you are still around.

Regards,
LL

Hi TRoc,

I prefer to think of it as a weight scale balanced under the floor of the parking
garage will tell you when there are no cars present.

Regards,
LL

Hello all

I have been thinking about why the width of the slit defines the amount of refraction/diffraction as a function of frequency. A EM wave has no size. just a frequency. The energy is contained it the fields which are at right angles to the direction of propagation. The fields are also symmetrical about this direction. My thinking is if you can change this symmetry then you can change the direction of propagation.

In a transparent material it is generally believed that light is slowed down. The frequency remains the same so the period between peaks (wavelength) gets shorter. However the energy contained in the light must stay the same. For sine waves if you reduce the period and want to keep the area under the wave (energy) the same you have to increase the amplitude. With a slit width close to the wavelength of the incident light you now have a condition in which the EM fields of the wave are no longer symmetrical. This unbalanced symmetry causes the direction of propagation to change.

Of course this brings up why the bands. Is the amount of energy that can be contained in a EM field quantified?

Just an idea.