Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Afshar's experiment link:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/...rimentSmall.jpg



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 17 2007, 04:21 PM

The images in the top and bottom illustrations are slightly different. There seems to be a square (dark red) shaped object in the center of the top picture that is not visible in the bottom picture. The fringes in the top picture are sharper and there are less colors in the bottom picture. ie. either the colors present in the top picture are smeared together in the bottom picture or there is less variety in the spectrum shown at the bottom. Also, there is a slight but visible "raster" pattern of horizontal lines in the bottom picture.

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Mar 17 2007, 04:21 PM

Hi Neil,

I added the Wikipedia link to my prior post.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I zoomed in on the article and images to compare them,
IMO, there is a difference between images, as you pointed out. There is still
observable interference in the bottom image. I am having a hard time
understanding how Afshar reached his conclusion, and will read the wiki
explanation again. Something just seems counterintuitive about his
claim.

LL

Hi All,

Hmmm, I see Afshar's claims differently. The lens becomes a new source
for the focused photons. It has redirected the wave energy toward the
desired sensing detector. There is still some loss and interference observed
between the images which says that light is still being partially blocked
by the wires from one direction. Where do particles come into this?
What am I missing?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 17 2007, 04:45 PM

Hi all,





At least this is entertaining for the "silent" viewers. The patterns can not be denied: the record clearly shows when someone is more interested in appearing "the most intelligent", than solving the problem, or, heaven forbid at such a "ripe" age, even learning something new. This is a "reality show" for all the viewers who do not involve themselves. The characters who rely on beguilement are transparent on this stage.


I enjoy "solving problems", and learning. It has been my experience, that when I find an error in my approach, I am getting closer to the truth. I welcome any data that will show an error in my approach. Do not expect a "one liner", without logical validity, or experimental backup, to work though. This is not about "being right", it is about "right and wrong". "Indeterminacy" is dying; its' time has passed. This is a time for "answers", and the revealing of "falseness". This is not "my time", or "my truth"; the days of the individual are behind us as well. My intention is participating here (in general) is for the "real time" unfolding of discovery, in a vulnerable public forum. I make mistakes often, I say things I wish I hadn't, etc., but most often, I am forced to "grow".


anyway...


C2,

Saying "..the sources are not 'arbitrary' .. they are the same every time.", means that they are "consistently arbitrary", or "evenly arbitrary", but it does not remove the "arbitrary" nature of the method. It is drawing "points and lines" ON the diagram of the experiment, and using them to explain the results. If you could find a physical REASON, based on the form, or properties of a "photon", then you could JUSTIFY adding these arbitrary points and lines.

The ironic thing is, is that there IS a way out of the "arbitrary" nature of the method, and I have stated where to begin. I don't mind restating it. That is, AFTER you admit that the method is arbitrary. Otherwise, the growth will not come from within.


LL,

If my memory is good, you have 3 questions from me, that have "piled up" over my last several posts. Is there a reason that you are not answering?


jal,

I'm glad to see that you liked the cymatics videos! This is one reason why I couldn't make a good connection between resonance, and your "packing". The changing nature of the geometry, based on frequency. I think there could be a valid frequency, based on a natural minimum geometry, though. I guess we will see!


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

Yes, I was avoiding you! I do owe you a response and will do so later
today. Your questions sometimes are a "chore" requiring unnecessary work
to formulate an answer, and sometimes I see them as diversionary or off topic,
but I will be a sport and respond.

Regards,
LL

Hello all

I view the DSE as a geometric/frequency phenomenon.
If you vary the incident plane wave's angle of incidence the diffraction pattern changes.
If you vary the slit width or the slit spacing the diffraction pattern will change.
If you vary the frequency of the incident light the diffraction pattern changes.
If you change the distance between the slits and the screen the diffraction pattern changes.
If you move the screen far enough back then the diffraction pattern will disappear because the two spherical waves from the slits are now planer.

If you look at this closely

the beam center for each of the slits are offset from the centerline of the experiment but the combined beam centerline is not. This implies that the center section between the two slits does not exist and as you increase the distance between the slits and the screen the two slits become an approximate point source.

I will even say that if you can "stamp" time information on white light that goes though a double slit then the "stamp" will spatially separate as a function of frequency. Higher frequencies will be less affected than lower frequencies (down to the slit width cut off). Wider separation of the slits will also increase the separation effect. Higher frequencies will be more effected if the slits are replaced by wires (negative DSE).

The diffraction pattern of the DSE is just the result of interference of two non planer waves.

Now on how a planer wave is converted to non planer waves at the slits needs to be understood. As I see it an underlying mechanism is responsible for all effects we see that involve EM waves and matter. Understanding the mechanism of the DSE will help in finding the "underlying" mechanism.

Hi Montec,

A subtle inference is made that a sliding gap is moved across the face of the
detector lens of the teachspin single photon experiment while the data is being
collected. So we are seeing the intensity varying as a consequence of the
movement of the gap across the detector. So our resultant waveform pattern is
caused by a change of the sliding adjustment. I have read this experiment
numerous times and can not reach a conclusion of exactly what the data is
showing. Is it an intensity/amplitude pattern caused by single photon interference
or is it merely an intensity distribution graph that results from moving a slider
across the visual field? The graph shows the data from each slit superimposed
over the data collected from both slits. Is it just an intensity comparison graph,
or an interference graph?

Comments?
LL

Hi LL,


It is certainly within reason for you to ask me to "clarify" or restate a question, if you do not see how it connects to something. I can assure you, I would not waste my time, or yours, with "unnecessary" questions.

It will not result in "a "chore" requiring unnecessary work" if a problem hindering further understanding is removed, correct? That is the point, after all.


You have not been able to explain how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit. That is why I am trying to determine what you are thinking about electrons, and their fields. I want to see just WHERE in "space" this field becomes a "real" "photon" to you, and where it still counts as an electron. This is because, apparently, you refuse to believe that there is no such thing as "space without matter". This is paramount, because you are saying that there MUST be "matter" present, for energy to interact/interfere. That's fine actually, but you must then realize, that matter is everywhere there is space, because space is what exists between matter; otherwise, we have no definition. This leaves your "counter-argument" empty, from my perspective.

You never did answer the very important question of WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies? Do you accept that I have established that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet?

We will make better and faster progress if you answer the questions directly, rather than trying to just "re-explain" what you've already said. I understand what you have already said, and I find problems with it. You should address those specific issues.

The typical response of "these "photons" are traveling across space without any visible interference" DOES NOT cut it. It can not rule out, by logic, the possibility. You need to address WHY it can NOT; not by showing an example of WHERE it does not. There is a huge difference. If you don't see me eat food in the morning, you can NOT reasonably conclude, that I DO NOT eat. It is that simple of an analogy. You need to state the REASON.




regards,

T.Roc

Hello LL, et al.

The sliding aperture is measuring the intensity (constructive interference) of the light across the interference pattern that could be measured at the aperture. The interference of the aperture should not change the total energy allowed through. Something like an interference pattern of an interference pattern. If the aperture is wide enough and the detector close enough then the aperture will have little effect in the experiment.

The graph is a measure of the intensity seen by the detector as a function of the sliding aperture. All that changes is the area or available power between one and two slits. This accounts for the magnitude of the intensity between the double slit intensity and the single slit intensities. Double area quadruples intensity.

The horizontal measurements of intensity are the same for all three intensity lines.

Single photon (planer wave) hits double slit and forms two non planer waves that have DSE interference because of the slit spacing. How much the planer wave is distorted (to a non planer wave) is dependent on the slit widths.

The emitted photon (EM wave) intensity does not necessarily correspond to the detected photon (EM wave) intensity. The detector has a bias applied to the system.

Hi TRoc,

Ok, I owe you answers to questions that you have posed. I really thought that much of my prior discussion had already provided most of the information that you
seek, but I will elaborate for the sake of clearing up any misconceptions or
misunderstandings in my thought processes. This will be a long post I apologize to
all, but there is some good thought process involved.

I had answered this quite a while ago, here is the post. It was complete enough at the time considering the necessity for brevity.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=167741

The electron doesn’t absorb the photon, the atom absorbs the energy contained in
the photon, and it attempts to come back to some equilibrium value and release
the absorbed energy via radiation. There are a slew of variables like the
frequency of the photon, how much and how long the total energy is applied,
the coupling efficiency of the atom to its environment/surroundings, ambient
conditions, etc., etc. There is no simple answer without understanding the
conditions and variables involved.

I sort of agree with this. Standing waves are a synchronous timing phenomenon.
Think about a strobe light synchronized with the timing of the blades of a rotating
fan. The fan is rotating but it appears to be stopped due to an externally
generated harmonic phasing point of observation. It is the same with waves... they
aren’t actually standing still they are moving but they are synchronously time and
phase “coherent” at various points in their observed cycle. The energy being
transported is the medium, the wave is just a graphic representation of the
mathematical solution of the energy “cycle”.

I’m not exactly sure that I can answer this correctly. Normally, I would say the
upper limit has to do with the minimum Plank length distance between a nucleus
and an electron where frequency oscillations can take place, but then again we
must consider that there is likely some frequency oscillation between quarks and
other sub atomic particles that we can’t measure because of physical
measurement equipment limitations that could raise the upper level. This almost
approaches some string theory of vibrations/oscillations.
The lower limit is the point where EM fields are not present as first order direct
contributors to energy propagation as in sound and water waves caused by
physical transfer energy mechanisms.

I said its not a photon if it isn’t propagating in free space and becomes “trapped” in
a balanced offsetting energy exchange as a constituent part of the fields of
matter. A photon is a self regenerative propagating form of energy transport.

This is a “string along” ambiguous type of question and unclear to me exactly what
you are asking.
Fields can exist in empty space, electric fields, magnetic fields, gravity fields,
radiation fields, etc., they do not require the presence of matter for them to
"occupy" empty space. However, if there does happen to be matter that is being
influenced by these fields, the EM fields of the matter can interact with
these “dimensionless” and uncoupled fields. Matter “couples” fields together.
(That’ll open a can of worms) Fields by themselves will not interact or combine
unless there is a displacement of mass that occurs when the fields of matter
interact with the uncoupled fields occupying proximity “space”.

No matter to act as a work function “catalyst” = no interaction/interference
between uncoupled fields.

Fields are forces, they only interact when accelerating matter. F=ma Take away
mass and the equation just doesn’t work (pun intended). Forces/fields are a form
of potential energy in open space/vacuum.

In order for there to be kinetic energy transfer there must be some displacement of invariant or relativistic mass. Remember E=mc2 ?

You are following “textbook” wave definitions here...are we really sure that we are
observing different internal frequencies in a wave packet, or are we really
observing different phase angle relationships that are caused by interactive nearly
synchronous coupling of individual wavelets all propagating together but
just slightly out of phase, but that support a regenerative wave and OAM. I had
proposed this mechanism in a prior post also.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173102

You are asking for abstract proofs that cannot be measured insitu. I have
presented you this argument several times previously but you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation.

You must concede that an unlimited number of individual frequencies are crossing
thru each other from all directions in the open vacuum of space. Yet, all photons
that we can directly observe can be individually discriminated by wavelength,
frequency, color, direction, and qubit information even after billions of light
years of travel and countless wave crossings with other extraneous photon
frequencies over that duration. We are seeing the exact same photonic
information, without distortion, from the far reaches of the observable
universe. We can filter out unwanted signals and decode the information in the
exact same format that existed when it was “spawned”. There is no evidence of
interference that affects the information being transported. I think that is sufficient
proof.
I think another recent post where I responded to GE about OAM of a propagating
wave is the likely reason why individual waves cannot spontaneously mix in
the vacuum of space. The EM fields of discrete photons can not perfectly align
and they each have a precise "relative" time and information stamp that indicates
their point of origin. It is the same reason why if you stamp a one way bus ticket
from Sidney to Canberra you can't use it to fly to England.


Tit for tat....Can you show me evidence/proof to the contrary?



Some more LL “theory” FYI.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=174546

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=173743


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 17 2007, 11:05 PM

Hi Troc,Montec, Laserlight,Good Elf, jal et al,

Some of the analysis can be found here:-
Electromagnetic
Waves and Antennas
( http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ )

Chapter 16 ( http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch16.pdf )

As always there is no 'complete' analysis, for example (to please Laserlight) the book mentions neither surface states that might be induced in conductors nor the field strength that might induce them.

Despite the difficulty of a full analysis of any particular slit we can 'probe' the properties of a slit by measuring the output as a function of angle. Looking carefully at the results of one DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see the number of photons counted per second as a detector is scanned across each of the slits individually. While this only tells us the gain (loss) of the slit we can be sure there are no abrupt phase changes (resonances) because these would cause the gain to change rapidly as a function of angle. Once we know we have a 'normal' slits we can safely predict the result for the combination of both slits.

Comments welcome.

-------------

Montec .. the words I have been waiting to hear .. "If you look carefully at the result of an experiment.. "

The Teachspin results are 'photon counts per second' .. the relationship between this number and 'intensity' might (one day) tell us a lot about the nature of EM waves/photons. Please clarify what you mean by 'bias'.

Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Mar 17 2007, 11:20 PM

Hi Neil Farbstein, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, fivedoughnut, "THEY", Montec, TRoc, Aerohead et al,

I am not sure what it is that I have said but nobody ever responds to any of my statements. Oh well.... I will respond to Neil about the Afshar Experiment.

In the illustration the first image is a two slit interference pattern (classic). The second image Afshar "discovers" the single slit interference pattern by blocking one slit and then puts wires in the optical path which can "detect" a photon... . which naturally partially disturbs the pristine single slit pattern. To get this "image" you need a "strong source" of photons and the pattern is made up of many millions of photon events (tiny single flashes of light dotted all over the screen to build up the image). Some of these photons are actually scattered by the wires and this makes tiny flashes in places that are not part of the coherent pattern thus producing the second "slightly" distorted image. In the third image the second slit is opened again, this time with wires in the "dead zones" where little of no photons are sound. This is back to the two slit experiment. This still disturbs the final image "a bit" .... some tiny flashes are falling off target such that the image is only "very slightly distorted".

Here is what is being determined and the two screen images are equivalent to this...
Double Slit Diffraction... one slit two slit side by side

Wires are place along the paths to the screen where there are dark zones in the RHS image.

Lets accept this as showing that the final result is "pristine" (I realize it is not but it is crucial to Afshar's argument that the wires do not affect the result). What Afshar is saying is by seeing this strong interference pattern (the pattern on the right) not disturbed by the wires and by seeing the screen pattern of tiny flashes, he has proven that he has "measured" two separate properties of each and every photon... a Particle and a Wave property. The particle property is the tiny flash on the screen due to each photon and the overall wave property is the NULL result due to the wires detecting "nothing". This experiment could be refined to a single photon at a time (I think this is the additional "evidence" being recently reported... in that respect it is important to do... one photon, one flash at a time, null "result" for the wires all the time). This is hailed as a wonderful "breakfthough"... wave particle duality "measured" at the same time..... Wow!

What is not said is a NULL measurement cannot be used to prove existence. It can only be used to prove non-existence. For instance the Michelson-Morley Experiment was looking for the existence of an Aether by trying to measure a property of the Aether. It got a null result. That shows only it could not measure a property that does not exist. A non existent Aether has non-existent properties, hence a NULL result. This was taken as proof that the Aether did not exist... not evidence of existence.

Here in Afshar's Experiment we have a search for a property of a photon in a place other than where it is finally indisputably detected. I can propose any number of non-existent things which have non-existent properties "almost anywhere" that have "null" results. I can point to any number of places in the Universe where I can measure a null result at the same time the the flash occurs on the screen. This experiment does not attempt to prove we are measuring the same entity (the single photon) at the same time. What is happening here is an argument is proposed based on assumptions about a wave that are not in any quantum theory.

The wave phase of the single photon is not being measured. In fact it has to be assumed that since these points the wire are placed are always in shadow when you run the two slit experiment, you would normally conclude that photons are not found there. In particular... the particular photon that causes a flash in the screen at some point other than those dark nodes cannot be linked to the fact that the node is dark... it is "dark" for all "coherent" photons. What Afshar is supposed to show is if you measure the one thing "twice" you must prove beyond doubt that the null measurement in some other point in space is intrinsically linked with that tiny flash on the screen somewhere else in space. It is equivalent to placing the wires on the screen in the "dead zones" and measuring flashes "elsewhere" on the same screen... the events are not connected. A very "unremarkable" experiment". You must be able to prove that the particular photon being measured has specific properties that can be measures in a "dead zone", We know that the photons do not have a physical presence in the "dead zones" (that is why they are "dead"), at least as far as our instruments are concerned.

It is called "cause and effect"... you must establish it if you want to make a "famous claim".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Mar 18 2007, 12:04 AM

Hi GE,

I think that we are in agreement about Afshar's experiment. However, we
are still deadlocked re: what an Aether is or isn't.

If you design an experiment to measure a specific value or quantity but your
equipment is unable to resolve or detect some other type of unknown "quantity",
then all you have succeeded in doing is proving that either your experimental
design criteria/assumptions are wrong, or that your equipment is incapable of
measuring some unknown value. Just because you failed to measure something
doesn't mean that there isn't something else present.

An example: Afshar's wires didn't detect visible photons in the null areas, but
that was all he was looking for. I'm fairly certain that there were other photon
frequencies there that were just not observed and probably not important
for his purposes. If I go fishing with worms in fresh water, what is the likelihood
that I'll hook a great white shark?



This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 18 2007, 01:14 AM

The AWT considers, the Aether, which can transfer the light of the high energy density would have the high energy density, too. Such material will be formed by heavily compressed density fluctuations in the form of foam. Such fluctuations are transferring just the transversal waves, therefore the absolute reference frame cannot be observed here.



From this insight the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment follows. In fact, each the inertial material can exhibit both the transversal, both the longitudinal waves at the same time - it's just the matter of its internal structure, which form of energy spreading will become prevailing. Please consider, the Maxwell's aether theory of light was based on the tranversal wave spreading too, therefore the result of M-M could be expected even before one hundred years without problem. If you're expecting wrong result, it's logical, you'll make a wrong conclusion from it.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Mar 18 2007, 01:45 AM