Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc et al,

True for fermions but bosons are one state "loners". Some physical justification for the properties of bosons and fermions are needed. A bosonic wave can have a collective orbital angular momentum and this property is bestowed on individual photons by proxy because of the boson property, something fermions are not able to do. Therefore orbital angular momentum can be used to exert forces over distance such as quantum tweezer activity ("tractor beams"). They also possess simple integer spin that individual photons can have. Fermions can have half integer spin and if you "sum" two of these up together it make an integer spin "together" ... like Cooper Pairs in solids or like paired electrons in orbital shells ... now these "proxy bosons" occupy the one place in space through space quantization rules.

Each boson "drop of rain" is a separate "eye of its own little hurricane" but if they are all on the one wavefront they share that one common boson state (of course it appears to travel at the speed of light relative to us, they all have identical wave extents but the "eye" may move around a little, but remember its clock is stopped through relativity).

A heap of photon centers have no direct influence on each other (why... you need time to affect things in your midst and their clocks are all stopped, without any time passing there can be no mutual interactions such as electromagnetic attraction or repulsion so they can all occupy the one space freely... the bosons). Restating this the photons can all occupy the same volume of space or quantum state without actually electromagnetically noticing each other at all... so an individual photon can only interfere with itself but this is totally non-destructive almost by definition. Any "destructive interference" is an interaction and this causes the qubit of information to be changed, dropped, exchanged etc. Lets focus only on the remaining "coherent" photons which still travel in the quantum state.

So just what makes fermions different? Firstly they have half integer spin and connect to the background of our universe in such a way that they need to be rotated twice to bring them back into congruence with their original topology. This applies as much to a baseball as it does to a sub-atomic particle and you can demonstrate the effect with a ball, a box and a few strings (Dirac's Party Trick). Of course "the box" that matters in this case (the case of sub-atomic particles and in reality everything else too) is the D6 brane wall of our greater Universe which is "everywhere" in higher dimensions (the "strings" connecting stuff in the box to the Universe are the electromagnetic forces connecting via those "strings"... literally). The "Law" says if I take two particles with total spin 1/2 and bring them together so they entangle and their spins can add they can occupy the same space as one particle. We are able to create "liquids" of these particles and we call them Bose-Einstein Condensates. The next property that makes matter in our Universe "hard" to touch is the very strong electromagnetic forces we can feel when we try and violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Conventionally these involve "virtual photons".

The converse must also be true of "bosons" these photons trapped inside "D6 Branes" can merge with similar "particles" like electrons seem to be able to do. A Cooper Pair will have integer spin and now behaves "internally" like a true pair of photons confined to an interior "loop", where electrostatic repulsion is now "neutralized" due to the stopped clock effect of the circulating interior photons. If the centers should drift too far apart the boson state will fail. These are truly "stationary states" where energy is neither gained of lost to an external environment, they are "primary space-time mirrors", perfect in every way "frozen" to the brane walls. Everything else is a "lens" where the geometry of space is defined by the "refractive index of the spaces as seen by external observers". When you have no time passing there can be no forces between particles because F = Ma... Where acceleration is the second derivative wrt time of the mutual relative displacement... no time... no acceleration. . The shells and the nucleus can also "share" properties that allow boson fields to occur. Clocks are stopped all around in those stationary states. Repulsion between charged particles vanish.

It just so happens this "property" also defines the wall of the light cone and the limits of (reciprocal) dimensional space as we know it. Another phenomenon to notice is the stopped clocks and lack of forces allow the interior "stringy" photons to behave just like the uncharged photons again. Photons have no rest mass. The exterior of the particles with the correct topological wrapping "create" the permanent charge on the exterior of the brane and the mass is also associated with the external "matter waves" leaking out of the inner anti-de Sitter space.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
In this fashion all particles (as shown in this diagram) are composed of photons that have been boosted and spun on the D6 Brane wall to create all primary sub-atomic particles. You can create a complete Universe with this, even the empty space.

These effects Richard Feynman called "polarizations". Of course this is a "mystery" but it is also just the way things work and it is conforming to what the world should do with these physical properties.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 8 2006, 08:58 AM

Hi Laserlight, Troc, Good Elf et al,

Sorry about the delay .. ( I fell asleep at the keyboard. )

.. and other points raised about the equipment..
The basic experiment consists of nothing more than a monochromatic light source, two slits, a screen and a pair of eyes. Extras may be added as required to make the result more easily visible whilst still being portable .. but they don't affect the principle and if you get the 'wrong' result then the problem lies with the reliability of the equipment rather than the reliability of the phenemenon itself.

Good Elf seems to accept QED (ie Feynman .. Quantum Electrodynamics ) up to a point but rejects the suggestion that QED is 'as it is' .. hence the GE 'hurricanes' which are pure Elf rather than QED. The essence of the DSE is that the geometry of both slits is both required and sufficient ** for accurate predictions to be made.

With all due respect I think you may have to choose between the above and the experimental result from the DSE. Not only that but worse .. if the universe is defined by a fixed 'c' .. the speed of light .. then you will only see one maximum in the single photon DSE .. how many maxima do you see? If it were just a rogue result then we would all discard it .. but it isn't.
-C2.

** 'Sufficient' .. clearly poor shielding, unwanted reflections etc etc will have 'some' effect .. however .. IMHO .. the interference effect does not rely on the etceteras.

Interruption .. I'll post this before I lose it.

Troc,
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=140656

GE has certainly given many accounts of an 'Elf packet'. Let us imagine we have a very badly setup DSE, loads of reflective surfaces, a complete mess.. the only thing we make sure 'works' is the ability to detect interference. We use a humungous laser .. we want to do this badly. Let's say a ray of light bounces off, out through the window which reflects some of the light back into the room and some bounces back off a car outside.. back through the window and the two beams meet and destructively interfere on the screen while we watch.

First bit of empirical data..
An Elf packet can do all of that too .. a single photon 'Elf packet' can destructively interfere with itself as a result of available paths. (GE .. just sum over paths.. ok?). What makes a hurricane undetectable? Ask an Elf..?

You will need to show how a predictable result can look random ..

No problem with Huygens .. excellent grasp of the most probable path.
I would draw attention to the way Huygens writes of a 'ray' of light ..
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725...25-h.htm#Page_4
(pg21)

Wavelets.. we read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet .. looks OK.

Fraunhofer.. we read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction .. I admit I can't see the importance of spatial frequencies (yet).

Already it looks (to me) like you are trying to apply wavelet analysis to a 'ray' of light. I predict such analysis will fail unless carried out with extreme caution. The adoption of the Elf packet suggests extreme caution is not being applied.

Before continuing .. looking at the DSE with single photons .. how many maxima/minima do you predict and how many do you actually see?

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 8 2006, 02:15 PM

Hi Confused2,

Firstly I do not think of light "reflecting" back and forth around the room and into the Universe. It is like a "painting" on canvas. I have been concentrating on the Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics too much ... while "true"... I have been at pains to try and indicate that Wheeler and Feynman and the Emitter-Absorber Theory is very important to understanding the "event". Remember the clock is stopped on this single photon. It paints the Universe it can reach from the perspective of the outer brane of the Universe. This is a snapshot that executes once almost instantaneously but takes almost "eternity" to complete. With a little luck our event starts and ends over a very short interval but there is an aspect of it which reaches back in time and also forward in time too.
Emitter Absorber Theory
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory see link Fig.1.
The diagram shown here illustrates at best only one physical dimension but actually encompasses all three dimensions and all of time, just that we do not see it all. When the event is "painted" in time it is unique and unable to be dynamically changed. It has always "known" what the final state of this "picture" will be. Waves are dynamically "canceled" outside the area of interest but "actually" there is no such thing as true cancellation, there will be places and time where this wave will re-emerge as interference effects where the waves do not cancel exactly. This will result in forces as well as local phenomena unable to be predicted just using the close in data to the most "interesting" areas of interest.

Lets consider that all the sub-atomic particles in the Universe were little shiny reflective Christmas balls. They will all "image" the events that have occurred far away from the initial scene. Lets say a particle was created and then annihilated, this "event" will be mirrored in every little ball bearing in range and in a direct line of sight even possibly way out beyond the Milky Way and the light may take millions of years to reach there. Remember photons are not aging with time or decreasing in strength (clock is stopped... they cannot age) and waves can "replicate" anywhere "for free" as long as no particle interaction events occur there. Now zoom into that optical landscape "undisturbed"... lets look "inside" just one of these particles a billion light years away, a perfect replica of the original event will be played out within that micro-scape will now be played out as it was a billion years ago, courtesy of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Where does all that information come from... the original event... since the qubit is still as crisp and as sharp as it was the instant the photon was "born".

Now I realize that the Universe is not filled with tiny little shiny reflective balls. What I think it is filled with is tiny little "reciprocal space" optical processors. These have the "astounding property" that makes all small features "processed" large and all big features small. This matter wave from the first event make its appearance within that realm as an "uncanceled event" composed of uncanceled retarded waves on the interior of the anti-de Sitter Space of that closed externally tiny Universe, distant in space and time from the original event.

Now consider a large number of similar such events occurring in different places and at different times. Viewed from within this de Sitter Universe, because each one is situated in a different position to all the other particles and events in the Universe, the delay time for each of these events playing out inside the Universe will all be different in the order and timing of the original event in the primary "event-scape". They must all still be causal and self consistent but lets say the order of their layering at any sub-Universe locality will differ depending upon their individual propagation delay due to the speed of light from the original event to the sub-Universe.... reordering the events slightly in time and also relative position.

As an example... This also alters events playing out even in a single room if we could see it happening. Positioned in the center of a room two events will "happen" at different times as witnessed by an observer there depending on the distance from each event to the observer. Even in the same room the sequence of events may be different depending on relative proximity of the event to another observer. As previously mentioned these events are "special snapshots" that never vary even though they take time to "paint", but the order of "snapshots" in a particular locality may indeed vary changing the local "History". These events may be accompanied by electromagnetic forces since they are signaling the arrival of photons so the physics at different localities, though causally consistent, will be very different. These separate Histories all being derived from events in the one Universe is the extrapolation of the Cramer Transactional Hypothesis (which is based on Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory). In the Anti-de Sitter Space no knowledge of the outer realm is known other than this telegraphed series of events playing out in the space. There is no way of knowing the order of events as they were in the outer Universe from which this Universe's events are "derivative"... we only know of the events themselves and possibly some vague "locality" linking them together. This is a Many Worlds Hypothesis.

Just a short comment about an "Elf Packet"... Orbital Angular momentum and angular spin momentum (about its own center) is always zero about some point and is a characteristic of the Berry Phase. Please distinguish this from p = h /λ (where p = linear momentum). This is a "still point" and will be "special" only if you need it to be. The flashes of light can be derived from an analysis of spatial and temporal energy density as noted before. Quantum Theory cannot tell us any more than what is already known of the whereabouts of one of these particular "nodes"... that is the statistics alone. What you can know from an analysis of the qubit of information transferred when an interaction occurs is only "source" information can be known (clock stopped when it was created), therefore no path information can be specifically known for the particular photon. Restating this we can know a lot of the source information from that photon and we know where its final destination was (in principle) but the path in between is not known by the particle. The next question is that path information is "unknowable" while the photon particle clock is stopped... so why there any interest in it? The flash of light cannot be predicted with any better accuracy with Quantum Mechanics either... it just does not explain it. Bohmian Mechanics can plot a path through some quantum realm using "Configuration Space" but it cannot specify any specific information in "Spacetime" where it was. Waves do help with this in the interpretation... we can know where all the waves need to be to construct the outcome can't we?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 8 2006, 03:24 PM

Hi All,

This is not a private discussion. If anyone wants to criticize (nicely) any proposition or statement here, please feel free to do so. Confused2 has also invited everyone to do so as well. The more searching the better and have an experiment or Gedanken experiment to propose or show how your points "play out" in the real world.

I would like to repeat the last couple of sentences of my last post to drive home the point about "reconstruction". Quantum Mechanics makes no specific predictions about the events happening in our Universe other than through a statistical process that cannot individually identify which of the specific events is happening. Events happen photon by photon and the information carried is common to all similar state bosons. The "event" is uniquely determined at the time of creation of the photon launching. Different wavelength photons carry different information and it is the sequence of these events at any place that determines a history as indicated by an observer. It only takes one photon to convey all final information of a state because waves "seek all paths" whereas the particle theory requires large numbers of photons to describe the intensity variations in a "landscape". The wave picture can determine from renormalization and using all information from a single photon, where all the photons in the one boson state end up "statistically". Where illumination levels are high (lots of similar bosons in the one state) you can waste quite a few photons and still have a quantum event proceeding "unseen". This is essentially similar information gleaned from particle processes, just that the phase information is sacrificed so you actually need to observe the events to see where all are finally heading. In the final analysis the wave interpretation contains more information about our Universe than the particle interpretation. Know one boson in a group of correlated bosons and you know them all.

. Emphasis included. This construction would be done in a similar fashion to the Feynman process knowing as much of the event as is possible and collating the information afterward.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 8 2006, 11:02 PM

I must disagree with this.

The wavefunction is a compressed, but imprecise, representation of the information and most definitely cannot contain more information than the photons comprising it.

Information is discarded by using a wave representation in order to permit easier statistical analysis on larger scales, but information is still discarded and the wave representation provides less information than the individual photons did.

If you look at a tree, you can easily recognize the general characteristics of it, and even draw another similar tree as a symbolic representation of the original, that still includes the primary features of the original, but this approximation compresses out many details in the process.

Yes, the wavefunction represents knowledge that has been gained about the properties of photon in space, and if it ends up that no additional correlations are found to individual photons other than the wave function, then the wave function description would most likely be an optimal description of them but if it's believed that the wavefunction contains all the available information, then it's a self fulfilling prophecy that this will be true, whether or not it's truly a physical limit as it will be a mental one.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Nov 9 2006, 05:27 AM

Here is an applet of great beauty (IMO) .. it took a while to find so I'll post it before I lose it again. The PC I'm (now) posting from won't display it so I can't say anything about. Maybe someone else would like to comment?
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html
-C2.

Hi Confused2, StevenA, Laserlight, yquantum, TRoc et al,

Here we go again C2, I wish I could "fix" your computer. It appears you are unable to see really nice things on your computer, yet you seem to know they are there! Your Java seems a problem for you.

Thanks for the very pretty Java Applet. What you see there is an electron which is a fermion not a boson, the particle's velocity is way way below the speed of light... must be for significant interference effects. Even so the slits are much smaller than those used for most photon experiments. If you halve the electrons velocity you will double its physical extent because of de Broglie's Hypothesis. Actually it will be a three dimensional effect so doubling the wavelength is like increasing the diameter of a sphere by a factor of 2 so the effective volume increases by approximately a factor of 8. It the electron was sitting quietly in the center of a very large box it would "fill that box" with its wave. The applet shows only a two dimensional picture of the electron, and also it has all those other additional limitations such as no phase information shown there too.

This gif animation which you should be able to see Confused2, illustrates this point (imprecisely). This electron is now limited to a single two dimensional "strip", but does show complex phase. This "box" is a "circular orbital shell" around an atom.

Pretty colors represent phase... 30 Kepler Periods of an electron in a "circular orbit".
You can well imagine if this "electron" was confined to "orbit" within its own space it would then be capable of "accepting" a further photon inside that space and thus "promote" that photon plus electron combination to the next "cavity" that will accept this "enlarged bloated electron". The electron-photon "combo" can only lose the additional photon since the bare energy of the electron is tied up in CPT processes and is engaged in interior bosonic activities at the speed of light running around in ever decreasing circles until it runs up its own fundamental orifice... he he he. Even though this electron may contain "at least two photons", its primary photon (... or is that two quarks?) plus an absorbed former "external" photon, it can only lose the external photon that is additional to the electron. Why is that? The "twist" in the electron's electromagnetic fields which is internal to the primary photon, causes it to circulate according to this scheme indicated in the paper by Williamson and Van der Mark...
Twisted Strip Model
The additional absorbed photon does not have this "twist" which almost always must be produced in electrons in electron-positron pairs on creation. I say "almost" since elves don't know "everything"! he he he! Both photons (bosons) cannot interact with each other inside that electron envelope (internal particle horizon - light cone wall) since they are "interior bosons". The additional photon can eventually "tunnel" out through "resonance". The "electron" probes the nucleus with its "virtual photon" as mentioned before and this depends an exchange of momentum over short periods of time as mentioned in a previous post regarding "virtual photons" (quote now duplicated below). This is internal orbital angular momentum which is a boson property and exerts strong electromagnetic forces which are the "virtual photon". Now which part of the electron is probing the nucleus and where is its virtual photon? What if they are one and the same? Momentum is shuttled back and forth between the two photons since the electric and magnetic fields "cross each other". What they both have is different topologies and one can escape and the other must always remain "keeping dimensional space open". Obviously a little arm waving here and I can't say that this detail can be proven since measurement would be very difficult if not impossible.

Getting back to the Java Applet, the electron's "bounce" at the front of the screen will actually occur since it's wave will "propagate" to all those places shown but an electron will end up in only one place (that click shown... sometimes behind and to the right of the slit on the screen and sometimes to the left of the slit. A single photon, on the other hand doesn't "bounce" as well, and will mostly be absorbed on the outer walls but does have a small chance of bouncing too (depends on just where that "eye of the Hurricane" hits... the wall or the space in the slits).. For electrons the finite extent of the electron is that of "the confined photon", it's wave appears to be confined in space to a smaller volume extent dependent on relative velocity to the observer frame (including the slit) but will appear almost equally extended in all directions. Careful examination of the animation shows a Gaussian function for the electron and not a matter wavelet (I mentioned this point before). A wave function must actually stay a wave function though and this applet only shows a Gaussian spread for the wave packet of the electron (indicating a kind of limited marble and not a wave). Its actual function would be a three dimensional analog of the pin hole diffraction pattern indicated in the reference above.

Even the square of the amplitude of that function should show the "packet" stretching far far away from the center of the particle... mostly unseen and at "low probability" (low complex energy density), but existing in all those distant places to some finite extent. The packet itself actually fills the space or the cavity it exists inside (eventually), this may also be the entire Universe for a "free electron", locality depending on the relative velocity. The infinite extent of this wave is truncated by Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber "window function". Unless this "window function" is "perfect" and contains an infinite number of frequencies (which would add photons to the electron packet) the electron will "leak" in the same way as Microwave Ovens leak radiation short distances from its cavity. This is the (electron) particle's evanescent field. This will not leak away or "escape" though unless the energy is taken from an absorbed photon as previously indicated ("twist" prevents the escape of the primary photon energy into our "flatspace"... energy leakage limited by a "range"... sometimes referred to as an "massive exchange force" different from the normal "massless exchange force" of our universe.. the "garden variety" photons). I would also add this "twist" has added more dimensions to the "flatter" flatspace spacetime photons and is what this is all about ... extra dimensions.

In the case of the DSE the photons are all bosons and have their clocks stopped and their photons do not have the "twist" shown above that electrons have. This "twist" is also responsible for the charge of the electron as well and in the nucleus and between particles is also related to the strong force through quantum chromodynamics since the evanescent field defines the range of this modified electromagnetic force as well within "confined boxes" in reciprocal spaces. This evanescent field is also a non linear function of the mass as well.

Must get some sleep... StevenA I will get back to your questions as well soon. Naturally an answer will hinge on what I have said above and your statement

I will be very "fiddley" about the definition of wavefunctions and their assumed extents. I will invoke Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 9 2006, 05:29 PM

All,



I was going to (reluctantly) re-post links, restate my position, restate the inherent flaws in the "simple, historic (archaic) version of the DSE. I won't, though. C2, I am not "adopting" the elf-packet, I was trying to tell him that he and I were on the same page about that. This, AFAIK, is totally in agreement with theory AND empirical data.

This experiment was done long before lasers, folks. The effect of the multiple frequencies present (from a candle, light bulb, or laser) creates the interference (difference in values measured) the is "holographically" projected onto the screen, by the reconstruction of the geometric mean frequency, through the summation of the beat frequencies. The "image" is the slit-tooth relationship, repeated with lessening intensity from the center out.


It can't be stated more simply.

When the "tooth" is removed, by reducing to 1 slit, the multiple image disappears, because there is only 1 image to reproduce.

When you take out these "ranging", or upper harmonics, AFTER the slit, there is no time to "regroup" (sum): and you get NO multiple image (the harmonics).

If you SLOW down this process ("1 photon" at a time), the MULTIPLE image is reproduced SLOWLY. Now you can use your statistical approach, because there are MANY interactions taking place between the laser and the slit (the secondary cavity). Eventually, the beats will cross paths with other (harmonic) beats, and they will pass through the "arches" together, recreating the multiple image.

The end-pattern is governed by the integer splitting of the wave, it will be produced every time. The "randomness" is generated by the many OAM's created by the scattered/reflected parts bouncing around in the secondary chamber, and then squeezed through the slits, each slightly different angle exiting on a different (but NOT infinitely so) path to the screen. (see the Compton effect; the DSE is inverse of that process: differing angles (OAM) through a fixed aperature)

Has this experiment ever failed? Then how is it "probabilistic"? In one of the papers, they clearly agree: the experiment ITSELF is a contradiction to the reigning QM theory! Such accuracy would NOT BE POSSIBLE if there were any REAL randomness in the process.


The real irony here, C2, is that the link you just gave SHOWS THIS PROCESS VERY CLEARLY!

If this (wave) were a small hill on a map, wouldn't the number of elevations be solely determined by the number of times you divided the hill? Indeed so! From the "level ground" in front, to the level ground behind, measures the overall distance. If we divide this distance JUST ONCE, we now have THREE points: the center (peak), and the front and back values, that MUST BE greater than "level ground", and LESS than the "top of the hill". The frequencies (elevations) are exactly the same way: they are points created by measuring the rate of change in distance over time.

A hill, in terms of elevation, can be simply described by ONE value: its' height.

This will not help a climber decide what equipment to bring. How steep is this hill?

This ONE value is very adequate in explaining the relationship to all the other hills around.. IE the statistical nature of the hill.

I have climbed the mountain, C2. I am trying to tell you how to get up here. Do you really wish to do it hand over hand, up the"monochromatic" rope?




T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 9 2006, 08:03 PM

Hi Troc, StevenA, Good Elf et al,

I'm a bit miffed that you see irony in the way the applet I posted showed what you wished to show.. even I try to post with some integrity. If I remember rightly I was one of the people (a year ago?) that suggested you needed some numbers and some maths .. am I not now doing my best to follow the maths?

Of the applet itself -- I admit that I wasn't happy with the applet from the start .. my claim that I couldn't see it was true but I also wanted a second opinion. Good Elf kindly pointed out that the applet describes an electron not a photon as I had supposed, maybe I should have tried to read the writing inbstead of just looking at the pretty picture.

On the 'integrity' front it might be helpful if I point out that I view frequency as no more than uncertainty in time and I view wavelength as no more than uncertainty in position (this isn't a 'theory' I just do it because it seems to work).. so you can see in advance what I'm looking at..

In my quick scan of Hugens he used waves to construct his rays but made no statement about wavefronts (that I noticed) .. a 'ray' is perfectly compatible with the C2 PoV... a wavefront is (I suspect) where it all goes horribly wrong for everybody.

In the case of a single photon DSE .. you give some justification for 'spreading' .. this is not the same as diffraction and I see no explanation of interference.

-C2.

TRoc, I'm with you, it seems so self evident that the "standard" interpretion of the
results is incorrect. This could be illustrated if instead of slits there were 2 posts
spaced the same as the slits with the rest of the area open and a scanned
laserbeam light source were projected across width of the cavity area with the
posts in the center. I am fairly confident that very similar interference results would be observed but a lot more washed out....

I find it conradictary that on the one hand, it has been stated, that light cannot
interact thru the interaction of EM fields (waves), but on the other hand passing
it thru 2 slits the EM fields (waves) do interact. I am perplexed at the inconsistency....what am I missing? Now, I know from first hand experience that
cavity reflections do set up standing waves at harmonic frequency intervals
depending upon the wavelength of the energy source and the dimensions of the
cavity. Just try dropping a stone
nto a rectangular tub of water and watch the wave reflections coming off the sidewalls and the standing wave pattern that is developed due to time lag effect of
non-symmetric wave interaction. As an exampe, have you ever seen the standing
waves generated in a rectangular ultrasonic tank?

I am not claiming that light doesn't travel as a form of wave, I agree that it
does. I just have a fundamental problem with the interpretation of the DSE
results as described.

If the DSE experiment was done with sound, water, or any wave transport mechanism I would expect harmonically generated interference patterns to
emerge.

Can anyone here prove that the initial wavelenth of the impinging light upon the
slits is the same wavelength separation measured in the interference banding in
the secondary cavity?


I think many of you will find these links worthwhile...
http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculator...tml#OPT-SCIENCE

http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators4.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...con.html#quacon

I'm seeking knowledge (I am very appreciative for the knowledge and
information shared by many on this board). Convince me and remove all doubt.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 10 2006, 12:02 AM

Hi Laserlight,

The separation of the interference banding is not expected to be the same as the wavelength of the light .. it is related to the wavelength and path difference .. can you clarify what you mean by 'cavity'?

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html

If you don't like my links .. try it at home!

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/youngdoubleslit.html

Links to.. (the equation YE )
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...ght/u12l3d.html

Note that the formula YE gives the wavelength calculated from the geometry of the experiment.. algebra allows us to manipulate the formula so we can predict the separation of the banding using the wavelength and the separation of the slits. I can help if this is a problem.

Best wishes,

-C2.

TRoc, is this reprentative to your harmonic reflection assertion?

http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/bp/n4.html

http://www.kw.igs.net/~jackord/bp/n1.html#p1

http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcinty...ng/grating.html

Hey Confused 2, Good Elf, TRoc and Laserlight,

I realize that this thread is trying to stay on optics (bosons) but I think C2's link and Applet are extremely informative. The Applet illustrates the WAVEFUNCTION of an electron developing in time as it passes through the two slits. It does not show an electron smashing into the wall with some portion transiting the slits, being diffracted and recombining in an interference pattern (along with some being reflected back). It shows the WAVEFUNCTION of the electron, not the electron. For example, there is absolutely no way that the electron's charge is split up, reflected, diffracted, and/or recombined.

As stated in C2's link...

Complementarity... if you accept the experimental evidence that single particles exists (be they photons, electrons, nucleons, etc.) and you except the experimental evidence that these same particles have wave like properties, then you must also accept the principle of complementarity.

To Good Elf (and everyone else), Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory seems to work well for zero mass bosons (and possible very light weight neutrinos as well) but not so well for slow moving massive particles. But slow moving massive particles also exhibit wavefunction self interference. Thoughts?

Why Not? et al,

I'd be very pleased to go 'Feynman-Wheeler' (I've never understood it) but Troc and I have been discussing 'stuff' on and off for nearly a year and it looks like the DSE is getting us close to 'something' (also Laserlight) .. New thread? .. or pick any I've started that looks remotely suitable. Good Elf's 'Electricity - is it bubbles?' is a safe place if he's happy with the idea.

(!Y glad you're back)

-C2.