Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

TRoc, I think we are in agreement. You bring some excellent examples to the
argument, but I am puzzled by this....please clarify?

Let us assume that there are 2 rectangular key holes fairly close together
thru a soundproof door, leading into a soundproof room.

If a specific tone is broadcast toward the door, we will still hear a small
component of that tone coming individually thru each keyhole if we are close
to one or the other of them. The keyhole tones will have some distortions from
the pure incident tone due to reflection interaction with the physical properties
of the keyholes. These distortions will become components of the overall wave
energy propagating thru the keyholes.

If we stand back some distance from the keyholes we should detect the
mixed combined/reassembled harmonic beat frequency as the two
discrete "in phase" tones recombine as they spread out and overlap. There will
also likely be distortions from the pure frequency due to interference harmonics
generated by the timing difference caused by the separation of the keyholes.

The composite frequency will contain harmonic noise but the combined keyhole
tones should reproduce a reasonable facsimile of the original tone at some
focal point distance from the keyholes, until such time as the tones
reflect off of the room (cavity)walls and mix with the tones emanating from the slits.
At specific points there will be constructive and destructive tone phase interactions
as the incident and reflected cavity tones interact. Their interaction
should be completely dependent upon the dimensions and geometry of the walls
of the room. If we could observe the tone wave interactions we would see
numerous geometric patterns of harmonic interference.

Does this make sense?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Hi Troc,

One of the 'problems' I notice is the way you assume reflections will introduce new frequencies .. there will be phase changes .. but that is not the same as a change of frequency. Can you give any example of measured frequency change from reflections and or absorption? One obvious exception is where sufficient energy is absorbed by something to make it hot .. obviously the walls then radiate (say) infrared at a thermal frequency distribution which is totally unrelated to the excitation frequency. There are crystals that can be 'pumped' to produce new frequencies from old .. but the DSE is just going to be made of ordinary 'stuff' .. card .. maybe a bit of metal.

Although interference will occur in pulsed systems .. in general a single excitation frequency is used and the result fits well with the simple path length analysis I gave earlier. I think both you and GE feel the randomness seen in the single photon detections are the result of something added to the photon rather than something photons do naturally. As you proceed with your analysis it appears you are expecting an error that will not be random .. do we need single photons to find non-random errors? Wouldn't there be unexpected variation in the intensity of the pattern even whan a bright source is used?

LL

As above, if you are expecting new frequencies can you suggest the sort of thing that might produce them? Eg a cracked violin will produce harmonics of the fundamental but do you not think such problems could be reduced to a very low level in a experimental setup?

-C2.

Distortions can cause harmonics. High amplitude sounds distort the uniformity of the air they travel through and can create harmonics (you can actually use this effect to create lower frequencies as well and get sound to appear out of "thin air" by using strong ultrasonics focused to a point ... you don't hear the the ultrasonic frequencies but you can hear them being modulated at lower frequencies).

For light, there are crystals that can double or triple light frequencies. Many powerful optical lasers are created by taking a strong infrared beam (easier to create) and then running it through a frequency multiplying crystal.

If you can create a non-linearity, you can have harmonics. I'd assume the "brassiness" of a trumpet is due to non-linear vibrations creating strong harmonics.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Nov 10 2006, 11:53 PM

Hi Confused2, Yquantum, StevenA, Laserlight, Why Not?, TRoc et al,

I am not really trying to be evasive here and in the best spirit of the exploration of knowledge.. but just what is the point of StevenA's experiment? What will it show that is relevant to photons? Non-locality is a very established principle and it will need to be addressed... sometime.

Does anyone suggest that you do not need polarization information to connect photon qubits or that the information with entangled pairs travels at any speed other than Light or travels some other way other than with the system being measured. We are speaking of properties here and actual properties can be measured, and that is what we do. What is noted is that Quantum Mechanics, a local theory, will not explain this non-local nature of Photons because it would need to travel faster than light to do so. It is not just Bell's Inequality but a number of other non-local phenomena that disagree with Quantum Mechanics such as Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Aharonov-Anandan Effect and the Aharonov-Casher Effect. These show global spacetime dislocations that connect phase and spin of particles through "infinite" barriers at any range. These "forces" extend beyond all locality theories of Electromagnetism. I refer the the experimental works of Tonomura and others...
Verification of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect: Akira Tonomura
Wikipedia: Nonlocality
Wolfram Research: Aharonov-Bohm Effect
Direct observation of the Aharonov-Casher phase: M. Koenig, A. Tschetschetkin, E.M. Hankiewicz, Jairo Sinova, V. Hock, V. Daumer, M. Schaefer, C.R. Becker, H. Buhmann, L.W. Molenkamp
The Aharonov-Casher and Aharonov-Anandan Effect: Kendal Clark

A careful read of these results (and others) show there is indeed a question to be addressed as soon as some Theoretical Physicists get down from unapproachable "Ivory Towers" and deal with existing testable and tangible problems in their theories, bringing them into line with real experiments.

This is an area that has been probed quite deeply and any experiment you propose must also explain all the accumulated information already at hand about entanglement, phase and spin. It is very clear that entanglement in general correlates quantum properties and affects qubit information independent of time and even through barriers that should be opaque to any effects such as these. You can't just "trick it up". The property itself is not important, it is the correlation that is superluminal. Recent experiments indicate you do not have to be an atomic particle to be entangled and the speed of that entanglement is "instantaneous". , you can entangle several properties This phenomenon occurs across many different disciplines such as Condensed Matter, Relativity, Optics, Photonics, Quantum Computing etc.

Photons are particularly well researched and I assume you understand the results of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and have you really got any results anywhere that shows any separate or anomalous possibility. This topic is called... "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later", so the question is of particular relevance to this particular experiment and to this thread and requires an answer. Experiments like these can be done by anyone (not elves of course) but not everyone can design them, that is the beauty of DCQE Experiment... It shows events are correlated even into the past. There is nothing "apparently" wrong with this unless you have a problem with experimental procedure. The design of these experiments is an art that people like Alain Aspect and Anton Zellinger are very adept at performing and the design is supposed to remove any other possible explanations for the results. Remember John Archibald Wheeler (... Of Wheeler and Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory Nobel Prize Fame) himself originally proposed this experiment, but it took quite a while to think up a way to actually test this problem with unambiguous results. Quite a satisfactory result too if I am not mistaken. I am sure that JA Wheeler would still agree.
Wikipedia: John Archibald Wheeler
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment

Please clearly state why this new gedanken experiment rules out the DCQE Experiment or changes any results or conclusions related to Bell's Inequality anywhere and how your design has accounted for some "flaw" in the original experiments. All the Philosophy of Physics falls flat on its face right here and rides on each and every test in the real world. No Mathematical Physics Theory has ever stood the test "against the Universe" and come up with a different result and survived, that is the way this "game" works. I do not care if it is written in your Holy Texts as an additional Commandment, every theory must pass all tests despite all human "opinion".

With all respect... Is it that some people have a problem with the Universe and are petitioning to have some Laws Repealed?

Wikipedia: Quantum entanglement
Wikipedia: Delayed choice quantum eraser
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim [1], R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 11 2006, 12:37 AM

I don't see how this experiment would not be specifically relevant to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, other than possibly providing redundant results, but it's not really redundant if people are simply using prior untested assumptions about the behavior of photons travelling through space. In the particular experiment I suggest, it's very directly related to specific polarizations over time and space.

Again, as I asked before, if someone has information regarding a similar experiment, I'd be interested in hearing it.

This is a dynamic system, similar to the delayed choice experiment, except that it wouldn't include an acceleration, except as a constant angular acceleration (unless you could vary the speed of the rotation of the filter, but that would be difficult).

You wouldn't need to estimate delays through the system as the beam returns back to the source and passes through a single filter twice and if a constant angular acceleration isn't the same as the less predictable alteration of a shutter, the possibility for such a prediction would be noticed differently between these two experiments.

Maybe this would just be another experiment showing identical results ... maybe not. It's a very simple system that doesn't provide a lot of divergent pathways or much additional hardware to complicate things - it's just a single filter, mirror and laser (though truly it doesn't even need to be a coherent light source but that it makes it easier to get a large delay and high intensity), nor does it require creating, maintaining or otherwise utilizing entangle pairs of photons.

There's a lot of wiggle room in the DCQE:



Compare that to:

laser/detector <-----> rotating filter <------(large delay or distance)------> mirror

Feel free to guess what happens but unless you have knowledge of a similar experiment, it's just a guess (and what you might consider to be similar experiment, may not be).

P.S.: The reason I'd recommend a single filter, instead of rotating two separately spaced filters is due to coupling issues between them. Using a single rotated filter creates a dynamic system as the properties through it depend upon time (again, assuming a constant angular acceleration classifies as a dynamic change ... that seems questionable as the filter itself doesn't experience an acceleration, except in relationship to the space around it).

In the delayed choice experiment, there's a question of whether or not the observer selected the result after the fact. In that case, all possible outcomes occured and the faster than light, or non-causal observations weren't due to anything in the experiment, which remained constant throughout the entire time the photon(s) moved at light speed, but instead that an alteration to the detector/observer occured after the fact and selected one of the results.

In the rotating polarization filter, if all possible photons are emitted at light speed, none of them would be able to avoid being filtered twice and thus the intensity of the returning beam would be lowered, but if the detected polarization was a predetermined correlation at faster than light speed then the filter would appear stationary during this period and the intensity would not drop with rotation, and if the wavefunction is determined at a specific moment, the moment this occured could be determined by measuring what phase the detected photons had.

Here's a comment regarding one of the links you provided:

In the twin slit experiment there's a question of how the surrounding slit and shutters can affect the phase of photons, using a single rotating filter removes the variance between these states (though I'd have to say a constant angular acceleration may not be the same as a dynamically accelerated shutter, spacial distances are in terms of path delays between information, though intuitive senses of spacial distance wouldn't seem likely to include variable path delays depending upon a shutter, yet might compensate for constant angular momentum) as the only significant factor is the angle of an identical filter.

Not really. I can propose things that could appear as entirely random experiments as well. It's up to others to decide whether or not they provide any useful information. If you want to see it as providing yet another point in what you see as an already oversampled database, that's fine, but unless you feel the result could be very confidently predicted (which your question about how it's related to the DCQE brings into question), then I'd recommend looking before leaping to assumptions.

If you believe it's simply redundant, show me an experiment that you believe already addresses this and I'll check it out.

Exactly.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Nov 11 2006, 03:25 AM

Hi Good Elf,

In my mind a large number of massively improbable phenomena cannot easily be assembled together to produce anything resembling a reasonable probability.

Unfortunately we don't even agree that wavelength and frequency have no meaning for a single event. In the basic DSE with one photon there is only one thing we might regard as a wavefront and yet we see interference on the same wavefronts as if we had a continuous coherent source of light. The different pathlengths suggest that 'c' doesn't apply in the DSE .. so how far can we stretch this little problem with 'c' ? .. I detect no enthusiasm for predicting the outcome of the MM with arms of 1m and 1000m even though Feynman was pretty definite about the result. Do we have a problem with 'sum over paths' or don't we? I predict Feynman was right .. this leaves me wondering how radios work using a system that apparently relies on delivering a photon of the right energy at the right time. While the Good Elf non-predictive strategy allows you to say "of course the receiver picks up the signal" .. my rather more pedestrian approach leaves me somewhat lost.

So I haven't really even got as far as the slits .. let alone through them, and I don't seem to be the only one.

Decoherence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence ) .. the best approach to this seems to be to find out what happens and then pretend you expected it. Wiki implies decoherence only works forwards (I assume forwards in time). Why not? gave a link to a paper which strongly suggested that a delay after the measurement could effectively shift the time of the measurement. What do you think?

It seems Aharanov and Bohm predicted their effect years before it was actually measured. You seem sure it proves something relevent to the DCQE.. but I'm not sure what.

There is an excess of improbable things going on here already.. adding more and more of them doesn't help.

StevenA's proposed experiment is interesting .. I have an idea about the way radios work that this would be a fair test of. I suspect the result will depend on whether or not QM thinks a polarising filter is a receiver or not .. and you?

-C2.

All,

I want to quantify what I think I understand about energy. Some of this may be incorrect
in theory. so please feel free to modify or correct it accordingly. Some of this is speculative or
theoretical from a personal perspective.. (if Elves can do it so can I !…LOL!)
My reasoning is that by discussing and thinking about some fundamental
foundation blocks regarding energy that we will be all be on the same
thought wavelength, and it may stimulate some spontaneous insight that is
new.


Free energy rules/Characteristics ?

1. Energy is a physical manifestation that cannot be destroyed, but it can change states when it
interacts with matter. Radiated free energy has no mass but it does have an EM field charge
component.

2. Energy is a spontaneous photonic radiated wave emission propagated by the displacement of
matter over a time interval..(a photon is the lowest constituent component of free energy)

3. The amount of radiated photon kinetic energy emission, propagated from matter, is
exponentially proportional to the amount of the displaced potential energy stored in matter.

4. Energy has 2 primary states, potential and kinetic.

5. Energy is emitted as a photon and propagates in the form of a wave, consisting of self
contained, phase angle related, inductively coupled electric and magnetic fields along a
directional vector.

6. While propagating, photonic wave energy has a net neutral charge until it interacts
incrementally in a phase angular relationship with the potential field charges stored in matter.

7. The interaction of the self propagating alternating EM fields of photonic energy interact with
the EM potential charges stored in matter in an additive manner. An increasing charge
interaction occurs over the angular rotational time of the spin of the photon which is
represented as a phase related alternating EM waveform over time.
It can be considered an antenna voltage amplification effect at atomic levels.
The cumulative charge interaction causes a localized
increasing EM field that displaces the interacting charged matter from its normal steady
state “ground” level. The increased stored charge in the matter must return to its ground
state in order to maintain atomic stability, as it drops back to its ground state it releases
the accumulated energy as another photon with an energy level proportional to its
displacement. If the matter being acted upon by energy is in a physical atomic matrix with
available free roaming electrons, the additional energy added can store potential energy and
excite electron mobility within the matrix which spontaneously releases lower level energy
waves over time.

8. The wavelength and amplitude of an energy waves EM fields quantify the power level of the
photonic energy wave being propagated.

9. Energy has 2-EM rotationally oriented phase angle dimensional components and a vector
momentum component that interact with matter in 3 displacement dimensions.
(y plane, rotation and spin) and net charge over a frequency time interval.

10. Energy has a net self charge determined by the phase angular relationship of its EM fields
due to the angular momentum of its spin. This can be defined as a frequency vs time
dependency along with a charge component that is translated into a physical displacement
component when it interacts with matter.

11. Radiated energy power levels halve over the square of the distance from the source.

12. Energy and matter are synergistically interchangeable and mutually interactive. Matter can
be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter. There is a synergistic
catalytic conversion process requiring simultaneous multiple complementary interactions
between matter and energy

13. Matter spontaneously generates low levels of infra-red energy by virtue of the dynamic
movement of sub-atomic particles and their inherent spins and charge levels during the
kinetic interaction of its atomic structure.

14. Lower forms of kinetic energy and stored potential energy in matter, are responsible for
stimulating higher forms of energy as matter energetically interacts with matter.
All higher forms of kinetic energy have their basis in the interaction of the potential and
kinetic energy stored in matter.

LL

C2-

Exactly! We are talking about the harmonics of the fundamental frequency as
defined in the dictionary:

LL

StevenA,

Very good. I think this correlates fairly well with TRoc's statement about
deformed photonic waves (deformed by interacting with matter while passing thru
the slit cavities and with the slit tooth) and the beat timing delay differences that
generate secondary frequencies of the fundamental waves as they recombine in
the wave cavity beyond the slits.

LL

Did you post this idea on this thread already? (I scanned back a few pages and couldn't find it)

I'd be curious as to the idea (I work with electronics though don't currently have much access to decent equipment ... but that could change ).

GE-

LOL! You have been so very patient and have put a tremendous amount of
effort into promoting well documented experiments and explaining theory
to us. I just want you to know that it is DEFINITELY APPRECIATED... I don't
want you to feel maligned or frustrated. It is obvious that you have the
most comprehensive knowledge accumulation about theoretical quantum physics
among other topics. I am learning a lot about a topic that fascinates me, but at
the same time bewilders me because of the complexity of the subject and my
lack of training on the subject.

One of the great things about this board is that it challenges everyone to
think at a higher level. You and others are contributing and I believe that
we all are the better for it. Sometimes new spontaneous thoughts or ideas
are generated by subtle innuendo or alternative perspectives presented by
others. Who knows, maybe we will collectively come up with a
Unified Field Theory that changes contemporary thinking or easily explains
the origins of the universe.

Challenge your peers to exceed beyond that which they would normally achieve
on their own.

LL

StevenA,

You might find something here.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../interfcon.html

Let me ask you, if you have two separated rotating polarizing filters won't you
just get pulses of phased light as the polarization planes line up periodically?
Maybe I need to read your proposed experimental design and explanation again.
I must have missed something. IMO, radiating polarized light will maintain its polarization state unless it interacts with matter, at which point it will diffract,
change direction, slow down, or even change phase. I will read your experimental purpose/nmethod again.

Wouldn't it just be easier to rotate the laser source so that there is no
externally generated phasing interference other than the rotating phasing
by the laser itself? Or perhaps use a rotating beam splitter...

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 11 2006, 04:28 AM

Hi StevenA, Laserlight and Confused2,

You are all taking a keen interest and I would not want to dampen that down but you might need to think through some of these ideas a little more so we can get to the "real" questions quicker.. I know you are all patient and you are asking a lot of questions but that is fine as long as we all have an open mind.

I can't know what is in StevenA's mind here. I have already asked a couple of times and I still have no answer... what is the experiment supposed to show? If StevenA explains what the experiment is supposed to show (unequivocally) I will attempt to show an existing experiment that does likewise but properly designed, recorded with the conclusion. In that way we can "actualize" your Gedanken Experiment and provide the answer as JA Wheeler did for the DCQE Experiment. I cannot comment on the fact it may be a redundant experiment until you make a definitive statement as to what it is supposed to show. No criticism intended.

My question is identical results to which experiment? Is the purpose of the experiment to find identical results or to find non-identical results. For instance how is it experimentally different to passing the light through two successive polarizers? Your thoughts please and to show what result...

Confused2, your statement...

Wavelength and frequency can be shown for a single photon by simply placing a triangular prism in front of the collimated beam. The angle the light comes from the prism is characteristic of the wavelength. If this chooses the entry point for double slits then it would be very frequency dependent.

You don't need to do this but if it helps then do it and see... Single photons at a time not withstanding. Interference effects do not change the speed of propagation of the light source. It does change the "density" of the function in space. The lines on the screen are not primarily related to the wavelength of light they are derivative depending on construction and destruction (conservatively of course) of mutual path differences "summed" as complex phases in space. Do people have an idea of how short the wavelength of light really is... quite short. You can't see that short. Te light and dark bands are "gross" effects of interference.

We "know" this is the sort of thing happening throughout the intervening space but it is a complex phenomenon. See all those wavelets in the gap behind the slits.

Laserlight...

Energy is simply the capacity to do work. A photon may carry energy but is not actually the energy itself. There are two forms of energy potential and kinetic. The electric charge has nothing specifically to do with energy as such and is part of other theories.

Light is a form in which energy is transported it is not the primary nature of energy. If I have a rock on top of a hill it has potential energy because it could supply work by rolling down the hill. Emery is not absolute and depends on "systems" to determine the value of energy involved. One particle may have two different potential energies depending on which reference you are measuring it by.

Are you referring to photons or are you referring to waves or are you referring to something else. We all know that photons retain the energy they initially start with but the surface over which the light spreads determines over a period of time the rate of deposition of the energy in accord with an inverse square law. This is obviously subject to the geometry of the radiation since mirrors and lenses can concentrate it and surfaces can transmit it depending on the particular frequency. Need to be a tad more specific.

Energy is capacity to do work. There are no "higher or lower forms of energy" unless you are actually referring to photons or particles carrying kinetic or potential energy.

The passage of electromagnetic waves through space does not signal the passage of any charges through the space . The electric and magnetic fields are the results of "stressors" in the the resonant space and charge is a phenomenon that arises like that described in Williamson and Van der Mark's mechanism through "topology" in higher dimensions through that "twist" in the three dimensionally flatspace of the wave into higher dimensions.
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 11 2006, 04:29 AM

Good Elf,

Thanks for the reply...

This seems contradictory. Consider a receiving antenna, where the photonic
EM field wave energy is stimulating an alternating voltage. magnetic field, and
current in the antenna via the
electric and magnetic field components generated by the photon. In order
to generate a voltage change there must be a balanced distributed charge component
to the photon. Which is part of the argument of the DSE results as waves interact
with matter going thru the cavities of the slits. Waveguide theory seems to
validate this effect.

No disagreement with your comment...I should have specified kinetic free energy
in the vacuum of space.
Water wave energy certainly isn't light...but it is an interaction with mass, and
energy transport across a potential energy medium as it relates to gravity, and
cohesive molecular attraction of water molecules.

I should have been more specific in detailing what I was inferring, i.e.... All, more
energetic forms of kinetic energy have their primordial origins from the
interactions lower energy level interactions of matter. Energy does not
spontaneously appear, it is the result of matter interacting. The least energetic
kinetic energy level takes place at the atomic level, and when compounded by the
sheer quantity of large massive atomic interactions it becomes more energetic and
concentrated...more mass = more kinetic and potential energy. So it is a self perpetuating
phenomenon of the natural order of the universe. The higher the concentration
of energy over time, the bigger the effect it has on the stored potential energy of smaller
masses.

Are you supporting the Aether (ether) theory as a wave transport mechanism?
How do you get resonance without an interactive medium that has some
phyical component? Interdimensionality has not been proved, it is a theory.
Are you proposing that the E and M components of a photonic wave are
ineractively phasing in and out of our dimensional space/time continuum?

As for the electron, that would make sense...either torroidal or helical topology.

I think I hurt my brain......

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 11 2006, 05:55 AM

Hey TRoc, Good Elf, C2, LL, StevenA, and yq,

I concur wholeheartedly with LL's assessment...

Good Elf, your statements…

I think we will need to come back to this. But at the moment, all I can see is that the equation only works when 0<v<infinity. Within these bounds, I think QM does a fine job correlating to your suppositions.

TRoc, I understand that you do not “buy the particle explanation”. But I do not understand how your model can deal with the experimental "evidence" of particles.

C2, I found this link...http://cem01.ucsd.edu/~vitaliy/courses/ece...Coherence04.pdf I have either a much better understanding, or a much worse one! It seems to me that both TRoc interpretation as well as the ‘Elf packet” can fit within coherent length, time, area, and/or volume. Also, it might provide some insight into the oddball MMX.

LL, I don’t understand the exponential part…

... wouldn't it just be proportional?

StevenA, I am with GE. I would like to know what you predict your experiment will reveal and why. I have my own ideas, but want to hear yours first.

yquantum, Thanks for the lead on David Deutsch. It From Qubit I am not sold. But it is a good read.

This post has been edited by Why Not? on Nov 11 2006, 06:41 AM