Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Good Elf, C2, jal, LL, et al,

Just wanted to say I am so glad there is one post that has a desire to better understands the weirdness of the micro world.

Hang in there your comments are thought provoking.

ciao_
yquantum

btw, hope everyone is doing well and please enjoy the winter or summer according to your location.
Best Regards

my mirror looks different.

Hi Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

I have been "digging" around in the "vault" and I have come across a recent paper that encapsulates many aspects of the properties of photon packets we have been playing with here. This paper has the advantage that it has the maths behind it to provide some "flesh" to these ideas that I have been "toying" with. As part of an even wider theory (and I assure you this is only part of the problem... this is a pretty big problem) it is a sizable piece in a Jigsaw that has been missing some reasonable theory for a very long time. The theory is 100% compatible with Einsteins Special Relativity Theory and extends Feynman and Wheeler's Emitter Absorber Theory of 1945. It promises to "solve" many of the issues regarding the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and connect with Dr. Taco Visser's Singular Optics and the emergence of Instanton's and Topological Charge as mentioned previously in this thread. The way it works is it is a wave packet theory that incorporate the known aspects of wave packets such as the superimposition of states and the Harmonic Oscillator to internal chiral propagating retarded and advanced waves as described by Feynman and Wheeler. This is not a totally new concept and I have shown these illustrations before...

... Here is an illustration showing two orthogonal plane polarized waves resulting in circularly polarized light...

Experimentally this is indeed what does happen ... this is incomprehensible to many but it is a purely "classical" electromagnetic effect due to the Principle of Superposition. In other doctrines of Physics this is the measurement problem ... here this is polarized light... take your position but explain ALL the effects with your chosen discipline. The only one that works for me is pure Optics and not Quantum Mechanics. These are simultaneous multiple states of the one wave and it is the measurement that settles what is actually the "interpretation". The "interpretation" will be as a spin or as a polarization and it will depend entirely which frame of reference it is viewed from as to the nature of this phenomenon. This is "exactly" what Feynman meant when he referred to these "polarization" questions when he was deriving Quantum Electrodynamics and his Many-path Interpretation. This "frame" determines if the "spin" quanta is an integer (boson) or a half integer (fermion)... Leading to the concept of either "soft wave" phenomena or "hard particle" phenomena respectively. In both cases we start with the same basic stuff and end with "virtual solitons" within the space. One leads to inertial phenomena of Special Relativity and the other leads to non-inertial phenomena and to "optical forces" of "spun light" etc. Where there are rotations of this nature we have already discussed that these frames are "apparently" non-inertial (accelerated) to some observers and we measure relativistic effects of Lorentz Rotations and also Time Dilations. This is crucial to understanding just what forces really are. So called photons are the "exchange forces" of our Universe and they occur when light transitions from the wave to a particle interaction. This means it travels in a straight line as light in "free space" and when it transitions to a different environment in "optically curved space" it is apparently non-inertial interacting as deeply penetrating "virtual photons". Yet these are stationary states. If we "see" integer spin (or no spin) we interpret the superposition of states. When suddenly we see it "pass" into 1/2 integer spin we note "forces" from our frame of observation. I have discussed all the maths and references to this earlier regarding rotating frames of reference.
Good Elf previously on this thread

Of course the concept of resonance is paramount in all of these processes. It is not "trivial" and it will take some convincing that this is the way to proceed. Now please look carefully at this paper. It says it all and brings it together into a "simple" though technically complex concept.
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)

It is educational to see how this problem is tackled and mapped out by the author (some emphasis added by me)...

Please note that this is not OEM though the author recognizes there is a strong correlation here, it is a structure that relates to the internal intrinsic spin of the photon packet, the basic photon spin quanta. This connects with Wheeler and Feynman's Theory of Retarded and Advanced Emitter and Absorber Theory making some sense of it all and creating a "realistic" theory based on semi-classical wave packet theory.
Retarded and Advanced Potential
Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: John G. Cramer

... Click to enlarge ...
Wheeler Feynman Theory: Figures and Captions
2. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory : See Fig 1
You can now see how this all hangs together, at least this section of it. There is a bigger picture but this explains a lot about the Double Slit Experiment that has not been understood previously and helps resolve a lot of the questions raised here recently. We now have a rudimentary framework for a semi-classical Quantum Theory that will enable us to incorporate Special Relativity and the other forces of physics into an expanded theory of Electromagnetism and Optics. It has a clear answer to why photon interference is "one photon at a time" and how this must incorporate with current theory answering many questions. "The PRAHM mode (Packet of Retarded and Advanced Helically Modulated mode) is seen here as a quasi-classical model for a photon that has an energy of formation that is proportional to its helical modulation frequency of (M+½)ω consistent with Planck’s law and causality. A heuristic model gives Planck’s constant with the right order of magnitude. The wave-packet explains the localised properties of the photon while the advanced waves explain the non-local properties."

Look Ma ... no hands!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 14 2007, 02:14 AM

Hello all

There are two types of energy that relate to EM waves. There is the energy (E1) associated with electric and magnetic fields as they propagate through space and can be described via the Poynting vector. The other energy (E2) is related to the frequency of the EM wave (E = hf). This is where we get waves (E1) and photons (E2).

E1 gives us intensity and magnitude. The energy to do work. You can have a single wave of high intensity or a constructive interference of many low intensity waves. At a single point of measurement you can not tell the difference between the two.

E2 is energy that relates the EM wave to its environment. It takes more energy to reverse the electric/magnetic waves per unit distance/time for high frequencies than it does for low frequencies. Space (this includes the space within atoms) imposes a rate of change (inertial) work function on EM waves. The "mechanics" of this work function need to be understood. I know of no other type of energy that is tied to frequency in this manner.

E1 gets weaker the farther you get from the source. This falloff rate is a function of geometry. E2 does not fall off or change unless you change the per unit distance/time baseline from the baseline at emission.

Just some thoughts open for discussion.

Hi Montec, Yquantum, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

These are the same energy only E1 is dealing with "populations" and E2 is dealing with "individuals".

I still maintain that aside from what is being said in the paper above photons simply spread as their wave expands into space. Until the collapse of the individual photon's packet happens in one sense the photon as a particle is not here at all and only the wave aspect is spreading like a shadow cast by a lone streetlight or the streetlight itself, the intensity falls off but the photons are still there ... 100% of them and when they interact they deliver 100% of the original energy since these "packets" have not been subjected to time as we understand it. These photons can cross the vast distances of interstellar space unaltered and identical to the photon that came from those dim sources of light in the night sky sometimes billions of years ago. Given the opportunity they will arrange themselves into waves like this...

... Click to enlarge...
Each sync pulse arranges themselves in a wave as shown. My picture only shows the retarded waveform as this is what we can directly measure. The paper would suggest that instead of this plane sync function it is extended into a third dimension as a spiral. Therefore we have two sync spirals that rotate in the opposite sense to each other .... the advanced wave traveling backwards and the retarded wave traveling forward within the resonant packet wherever it is (they are "non-local")... Of course we cannot see this process because causality prevents us seeing the advanced wave. The paper indicates that the this consists of all the frequencies of the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator. This is true but in the sync function we have this as the simplest of packets and they are already there because the sync function is the time domain transform of the simple impulse. This is decomposable into a series of harmonics using Fourier theory.

... Click to enlarge...
This could be expressed as the Harmonic Series (as previously discussed) Ω = (M+1/2)ω : ‘Schrödinger’ frequencies in the frequency domain (where M is an integer , an alternative representation to the sync function) and with the fundamental frequency of the packet. Recall the discussion recently...
Good Elf - this thread earlier
Here we see why only the upper sideband is emitted and the lower side band is reabsorbed as in that "sucking back" on the inductive field of the wave. It is only in the source we can notice this inward going wave which is traveling in this region faster than the speed of light. The "process" of photon absorption and emission has only "recently" been timed at the attosecond level (10^-18 s) and ionization experiments of the way in which photons are absorbed and electrons are ionized through tunneling has been observed. A "photon process" can now be timed and caused within a few hundred attoseconds. This is not a "random event" anymore. It has been said if one attosecond was equal to one second than one whole second would last 30 Billion Years... longer than the age of the universe. Such measurements in time show us incredible "non-quantum" control over emission or absorption phenomena using a simple electric field.
Glauber States: Coherent states of Quantum Harmonic Oscillator in atoms
Recent advance in Metrology...
Electrons caught in the act of tunnelling PhysOrg
Watching Electrons Tunnel
Attosecond real-time observation of electron tunneling in atoms:F. Krausz, M. Uiberacker et al
We see that the laser action actually causes the photons to be emitted on the crest of the "wave", which was postulated and with a timing that is in the attosecond range... there is apparently no "latency" period at all.

... Click to enlarge...
As to the sync pulse "dislodging" the individual photons the experiment has shown this to be the case... the ions are emitted on absorption of individual 1/2 wavelength "packets".

... Click to enlarge...
I would say it is becoming a very well known phenomena with unheard of precision. It is showing that measurables such as the electric field can be used to time individual quantum events to unprecedented resolutions in time. Questions welcome, much of this is a matter for experiment and "interpretation". You must begin to ask yourself if we can "order up" quantum events to occur with the precision and direction with attoseconds reproducibility, then in what way is this function "random". IMHO we are seeing a way in which to gain control over the quanta and to express it as deterministic phenomena... semi-classical phenomena. Back to you Montec (and others)

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 15 2007, 02:41 AM

Hi GE, Montec, C2, TRoc, and All,

I was waiting for someone to comment on the recent physics articles posted in the
news area of PhysOrg.

I have a concept that might help explain the atto-second transition timing. Any
comments or further development would be appreciated.

What is the possibility, that instead of an electron transitioning orbital levels
to generate a photon as proposed by the Bohr atomic model, that what actually
might be happening is that the "stimulated" electron is changing its spin direction
due to the electrical field applied to it? Basically, I'm asking is it possible that the
affected electron is merely "flipping" it's relative "pole" polarity while remaining its
normal orbit due to the applied fields. This would be like a "switch" that flips
due to the phase polarity and resonant amplitude of the applied electromagnetic
fields being induced upon the atomic dipole that exists between the proton and
the electron. In this case the resulting emitted photon would be the energy
release that occurs during the electron's angular momentum directional change.

Electron spin wasn't discovered until 1925 much after the original Bohr atomic
model was proposed.
http://www.electronspin.org/

Please provide feedback about the feasibility of this idea?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Apr 15 2007, 06:58 AM

Hi Good Elf,

Looking at your post here:- http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=199381 .

In partular the bit about

"A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell etc." ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609156 )
If we imagine giving his model a choice of two paths one of which is (say) several wavelengths longer than the other .. do you think it gives the DSE (interference) result when the paths are combined or something else?
Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Confused2, Yquantum, Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

C2... Once again we are discussing "interference" outside the context of the DSE. You are referring to the Michelson-Morley Interferometer with uneven arms. Regardless... since this is still interference you cannot choose which path an individual photon takes. To do that, as we have discussed many times before, is to "force" a particle interaction. Then you do not have interference at all. It really does not matter what shape the interference experiment takes (in this case uneven length arms) you must choose to tell me if you want to observe the interference or not. On the basis of "your choice" I can tell you the result.

If you choose only to observe photon particles traveling up and down the interferometer tubes there are no fringes and no interference so that is case one with interaction and a collapse of the wavefunction, there are two possible ways in which the photon can travel, a long path and a shorter path... No fringes... Just time the photons through each way. This is a "do nothing exciting" experiment.

If you do not have an interaction and choose not to "force" a choice for the photon, then you can have interference and this can produce the fringes. In this case you are not permitted to neither stipulate (nor discover) which path the individual photon travels. Timing alone would be able to tell which path, so timing cannot be used to determine which way the photons travel either. There will be one set of fringes as always and we must rely on the long established fact that this experiment can also be done one photon at a time if required. My view about this is the photon will on balance take a longer time on average to travel through the instrument than the shortest path and a shorter time than the time to travel the longest path. Measuring this time would "crack" the experiment as always. The "instrument" is a resonant chamber. This is in keeping with the concept that the cavity is a particle in a "box" and even if it has some apertures it is 'defined" by its Cauchy and Neumann boundary conditions. Don't ask me to solve it but It will have a solution and anyway it could be found by direct measurement as indicated by those pictures I have often used.

My suggestion is we keep to the single simple experiment that tests most successfully what it is we are supposed to be testing for. Explain that and we explain everything, even your interferometer experiments that are not constructed to determine an answer for your "ill conditioned" questions... they are too hard for me and I am sure they are too hard for any one else who has to explain this point... he he he! The reason we use different laboratory equipment to test different parts of theories is because this is why they are designed specifically to answer specific questions. A microscope is not used to study the stars ... we have a telescope to do that... Why you may ask?... The answer is the telescope is a better instrument for that purpose. This does not stop you using a microscope to study the stars but you will not discover as much. when you want to ask the wrong question about a piece of equipment that is not designed to answer the problem posed, do not be disappointed when you do not get the answer you would like. It really is a kind of Philosophical Conundrum.

Now as to the interpretation of some of this mathematics I think we need to look at the the "retarded solutions" proposed by "TEM Theory without too much mathematics" by John Rodenberg. I am going to speak in broad terms allowing you all to fill in details where you need to. Certainly the references given will allow you all to dig up the necessary detail. This is truly a great resource to get the feel for spiral fields (in this case of electrons but are analogous to photons as a limiting case). Naturally any retarded solution will be missing the advanced component of the wave but understanding this limitation, much of what is being said there on his site applies... the only difference is the amount of "twist". You can't specifically show this without the advanced waves but his retarded wave spirals appear as being conveniently placed to act as a solution as well even though it is referring to electron diffraction and not photon diffraction.

Referring to the section on :
The scattering vector and plane waves in 3D
When working in k-space (reciprocal space) the form of the wave is ...

This is what he calls his "corkscrew function".

Where we have incident waves with wavenumber ki and scattered wave ks with this relationship...

The relationship between ki and ks is :

Where "K" the difference between the vectors ki and ks is related to the Fourier Transform of the "diffraction grating"...

The value of K relates to the value of the particular Fourier Component. This in turn relates to Bragg's Law as shown in the next "lesson"...
Bragg's Law

Now we are able to see (if we can read the tutorial) that we are able to describe simple "cavities" which would be defined by all the blue boundaries in the k-space for all possible directions of diffraction (we know they form spherical wavenumber spaces surrounding tiny circular apertures or pinholes. These boundaries are not defined by atoms actually occupying the space but the coincidence of atoms "anywhere along the blue boundaries" in the space... Including distant "walls" and slits etc. (Not my interpretation but his, I have just extended the definition a tad). Notice the need to define both a source and a detector position.

Under certain circumstances these blue lines (Bragg Planes) and green lines (nodes and antinodes) define "voids" in which critical diffraction may occur if the refractive index in free space were being altered (as we already know it is in certain cases). The blue lines (passing through the slits), for all possible orientations of the diffracted ray, are regions where radiation of the appropriate wavenumber is trapped by the blue plane. In the DSE we have only two slits but we can see that all this will do is reduce the gross dispersion and increase the size of the voids. The major effect is as shown ... due to the slits but other secondary effects are also due to points in the "box" where these blue boundaries meet with the walls of the systems such as on the screen and any other places in the void where there is a coincidence of "target" geometry. As indicated, the Fourier Transform is the general form of this solution in two dimensions regardless if the radiation is Fraunhofer or Fresnel Zone Radiation. There is a much more general solution to the cavity and this will be Schrodinger's Wave Equation and its solutions in the space for all possible excitations.

The main difference between fermions (electrons) and bosons (photons) is only the amount of spin that is carried. There will be a direct (almost exact) relationship between the discussion on these matters of TEM and the behavior of photons.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 17 2007, 12:38 PM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

The actual experiment is probably the reverse... ionization of an electron from an atom by absorption of a photon. I "think" I see your point. You are implying that the energy transition may be due to Orbital Angular Momentum due to the "system" of nucleus and electron undergoing a spin transition. I guess it is not impossible, we would need to know a lot about the experiment to tell. Still it is a "semi-classical" event being produced by the electric field... Is this what you mean? When it comes to the finer points I am certainly no expert on this process. I usually allow the experimenters to tell the story unless I have some prejudices of my own, I suppose there could be different interpretations depending on how we understand the phenomena.

I might say that I really am surprised just how much this general phenomena is nailed down and I am still amazed that they have been able to do all these things. If the Universe has an underlying "reality" that is a continuum rather than a discrete reality, then quantum noise itself may be simply the result of us not being able to know all the things that actually influence phenomena at that level of the Universe rather than some inherently unknowable phenomena. You better explain just what it is you mean.

That reference on spin is very extensive but I am unsure that this is the best way to deal with electrons. I will need to think about it a bit. For instance The electric charge distribution inside of the electron does seem to be difficult to explain using a common charge distribution. High Energy Physics Experiments seem to indicate that electrons practically have no discernible sized "core"... this is odd for something that has a magnetic dipole moment.
http://www.electronspin.org/2.htm
I am probably missing something here and you better tell me what it is...

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 17 2007, 03:28 PM

Hi GE and All,

Ok, try to visualize a single atom being stimulated by an arriving "photon"
wavefront. The EM field(s) of the photon are arriving in the form of electric
and magnetic energy that have the characteristic sine wave amplitude oscillation
distribution over time.

The energy of the arriving sine wave is absorbed by the atomic dipole(s)
which are naturally formed between the atom's positively charged nucleus and its
negatively charged electrons (we must assume that there are multiple field dipoles
per atom). These individual dipole arrangements have a natural resonance
that will be influenced by the application of any external EM fields, and are
sensitive to the frequency of the sine wave energy being applied. As we
know, the higher the frequency the higher the energy associated with it. Each
individual dipole gap (nucleus to electron distance) is most sensitive to the
photon frequency that corresponds to a specific dipole gap distance.

What I am proposing, is that the electron that is most stimulated by the
specific arriving frequency is riding on the oscillations of the electric component of
the wave. Now consider an unexcited spinning electron that is always rotating
(spinning) in a constant OAM direction relative to the nucleus. If this spinning
electron now starts "riding" on the arriving photon's varying electric field, its
OAM should invert at each 90 degree peak of phase change as it follows the
cycle of the sine wave. In other words, it flips its relative spin direction by 180
degrees as it tracks the incident sine wave's field polarity changes.

Now consider what happens when different frequency photons are applied to
established dipoles and what the effect would be on the electron spin.

Comments?
LL

Hi!
See if there is anything in these papers that would help.
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gonzalo/3bgraphs.html
AN EXTENSION OF SCATTERING THEORY
Gonzalo E. Ordonez
My supervisor T. Petrosky, together with T. Miyasaka and I have worked on a system of three quantum-mechanical particles, interacting through a short-range potential. For simplicity we have considered particles in a one-dimensional space. The particles are represented by large wavepackets in space representation.

http://www.mbi-berlin.de/de/research/proje...scopy/index.htm
2-02 IONIZATION DYNAMICS IN INTENSE LASER FIELDS
Project coordinator(s): W. Becker, U. Eichmann, H. Rottke
Subproject
"Correlated electron - ion momentum spectroscopy - probing the double ionization mechanism"

Z. Ansari, M. Böttcher, H. Rottke

jal

Hi Good Elf,

From http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/Braggslaw19.html

That last bit (in bold) is how all the other equations I've been posting have been produced. DSE, MMX, K-T, Bragg angle - if you can understand the reason for just one equation then the reason for the rest will (hopefully) become much clearer.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Edit
The sin(theta) (or whatever) in these explanations (Bragg/DSE) is telling us what the path difference (in the far field) will be. In trigometry 'sin' is the ratio of the length of the opposite side of a triangle to it's hypoteneuse. In this case (almost without exception) the hypoteneuse is the distance between the two slits/atoms and the 'opposite' is the extra length a 'ray' from the second slit has to travel compared to the path from the first slit/atom. By such means (theta = arcsin(N* wavelength/(slit separation)) can we predict the angle where the path length difference at any point (in the far field) will be an integral number of wavelengths and we can (succesfully) predict a maximum at that point.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Apr 18 2007, 05:14 PM

Hi Good Elf,

If we look at a real DSE experiment (eg http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) we see the results here:-



Looking at the dotted 'interference model' line we see how close it is to the actual results.

We don't know how complete their analysis is but its likely to be just like one of these:-
(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html

An attempt to explain the deviation from the predicted value is just a 'write up' exercise once you've grasped what the above equations are telling you. If the equation works at the maxima and it works (pretty well) at the minima and it works in-between then what's left to explain?

We could try analysis in the k domain - if the analysis doesn't produce the same answer as above then we've done it wrong - the analyses are precisely equivalent - there is nothing new to be found .

If the plot is any clearer we might start to notice something very strange - all the above analyses (including k domain) require the assumption of a continuous sinewave (or e^(iwt) ).

Enough unpopularity for one day.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,

It produces the correct answers but it will produce them at any distance from the source. A close examination of the data you supply are not exact they are only within a couple of percent (look for yourself). Considering how accurate Quantum Theory is it is no wonder why this data is at variance with this result when you may want an accuracy of better than one part in 10^18 to agree with the data we want to check with. It is a more complicated solution but it is one that will work for all cases and is not independent of cavity shape .... Admittedly it is more complicated but you appear to be interested in only ball park figures. That is fine for College Students but it is inadequate if you want to find the "kinks" in our theory. There really are not 2 or three solutions depending on Fraunhofer or Fresnel Conditions or even Near Field (which is the third option not mentioned here)...

This solution just takes care of finite slit width, you need solutions for the Fraunhofer, Fresnel and Evanescent zones. There really is only one general case that is the interference of light in cavities and the solutions have a more general style...

and the solution to this wave equation for the specific geometry is isomorphic to this...

The Schrodinger Wave Equation... Do you get it or not? You can't get there from your theory as you currently present it. If you solve for the whole cavity you solve for the simple pattern you are seeking as well.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 19 2007, 03:57 PM

Like always time is short,

Just something that you might find interesting?


http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/2

You will find this in the ©2005 American Association of Physics Teachers.

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Apr 20 2007, 01:28 AM