Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

C2,

I think it is imperative to consider all possibilities that have accumulated
bits of experimental evidence which provide a better understanding of the
nature of matter and energy and the way that they interact. This is a
very complicated puzzle to assemble, and science is thoughtfully exploring
all the different angles of the pieces to try to get them to fit together and
provide us with the complete picture. The real difficulty is that this isn't
just a flat 2 dimensional puzzle, it is at least a 3 dimensional puzzle complicated
by the fact that we can only see the colored sides of the pieces for which
we have experimental evidence. The other pieces are blank and we are
still trying to determine the outlines of the shapes. If man is ever clever
enough to define the Unified Field Theory, then we will have the key piece
to solve the puzzle.

Please do keep posting your information and ideas, that is what communication
is all about, and I am learning from you all.

Sometimes I'm a little "slooooowwww" in trying to understand exactly what
others are trying to infer or communicate because they are ambiguous or
unclear in how they present their thoughts.

Please explain your question, so I can better understand what you are asking.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 12 2006, 01:13 AM

Good Elf, LL, TRoc, C2, "THEY", et al,

Good Elf, I think you have exposed the strangeness of the world we live in. If we were to build, beginning with the premise stated above that you already know about.

How can I tell if this computer in front of me is really real.

I know, DECOHERENCE that is the mechanism that destroys the weird quantum nature.. By this we have what we see as reality on the classical side?

Good Elf, hope all is well.

C2, check your sources on decoherence and it will explain the wave and the dynamics involved with QM, MM, and twin split experiment. Do as LL has said, it is just now becoming enjoyable and the ride is awesome.

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 12 2006, 01:21 AM

Good Elf, C2, et al,

I must get some sleep, I hope you keep this stimulating post going for many months to come. Truly, BEST to you gentlemen/ladies.

ciao_
yquantum

Hope to check back and see how far you have taken this subject, great reading.

yquantum, All,

Just FYI, I am not a student, not a physicist, nor a mathmatician, most of you
on this thread are way above my limited experience on this subject, but I'm
not totally ignorant either. What I do have is a very logical, curious, and intuitive
nature and a fair amount of real life experience and training in several high technology
fields that utilized many of the phenomena that we are all attempting to
fully comprehend. I'm a firm proponent of the KISS approach to describing
and explaining complicated subjects, because that usually removes any
ambiguity or misunderstanding for all.

Cheers,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 12 2006, 01:44 AM

LL,

The DSE is a showstopper. Feynman said something along the lines of " anyone who thinks they can explain it hasn't really understood it ".

http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp

The first few shots are from a DSE .. a low intensity source .. absolutely no tricks required .. it's bad enough anyway.

The interference peaks can be calculated from the difference in path length, trust me (or prove me wrong). How many peaks do you see? If each dot came from a single photon and the speed of light was 'c' then the path lengths would all be the same and the dots would all be in one place. What you see is the classical picture of EM building up dot by dot. A showstopper?

-C2.

My background is in electronics .. I 'peaked' over thirty years ago. Like you, perhaps, I need to know more.

My enthusasm for the (oddball) MM interferometer is that it embodies the same principles as the DSE but it is virtually one dimensional .. there is a purity in this that the DSE doesn't quite encapsulate.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 12 2006, 02:03 AM

There's just information. It can be interpreted in many ways including energy or matter. Information had to come first before any of the rest could be detected.

It seems to create even more of a problem making the assumption that at some point there was ever 'nothing'. It seems more likely that everything has always and always will continue to exist.

If you want a more elegant way of looking at this, consider a perfectly symettrical multiverse where everything has a perfect compliment. If you zoom out and attempted to view the entirety of this infinity it would be like summing up all the values from -infinite to +infinity, but +1 + -1 = 0 and +2 + -2 = 0 and +3 + -3 = 0 etc. and 0+0+0+0 ... = 0.

Of course what makes this not 'nothing', is that you aren't seeing all of it at once but instead have a 'trajectory' through this potentially infinite dimensional space and so from a local perspective all the components aren't emphasized equally and disparities result.

Exactly, though that's more or less by definition and not necessarily always true, but I'd agree that if conservation of energy exists then the universe must have always been a perpetual motion machine as there's not an easy way to imagine how it could have been 'jump started' from nothing, without something else in the picture and then the question of where did the something else come from can be asked etc. etc. etc. It's easier to say the assumptions that 'in the beginning there was nothing' are wrong and that it just looks like nothing if you have a perfectly uniform 'God's eye' of everything at once, but as soon as you try to zoom in any detail of the nothing, things emerge out of this void.

Actually I don't believe that's entirely true. Vacuum energies and virtual particles appear to be able to be spontaneously created from 'nothing'. The issue is that they generally recombine and disappear rapidly but under some extreme circumstances (like a strong gravitational field) they don't recombine as easily.

Agreed.

Let's add relativity (in a more general sense) to this equation.

If we took two people in separate cars and had this represent two particles with thermal motion, and they collided and emitted a piece of 'shrapnel' at a high velocity, then we might have considered their prior motion to be at a normal 'temperature' relative to each other, but after the collision, they're 'frozen' and stationary at absolute zero.

But the new particle that was ejected would have it's 'temperatured' measured in terms relative to the local temperatures of whatever is observing it. If the two, now frozen observers in the car attempted to compare the kinetic energy of the ejected shrapnel with their own kinetic energy the ratio would be infinitely more energy contained in the particle. So did they create energy for free or do relative measurements automatically create a conservation?

Information

I don't think it's stopped either. Radiation envisioned as having travelled through space since the Big Bang didn't necessarily have to travel through space all that distance. We measure a photon at some point and then point out in space and assume it was the result of something that happened X billion years ago in a straight line out into space, but those are just mental assumptions that don't necessarily have to pan out in reality.

Imagine instead that an underlying chaotic foam of information alters the universe slowly over time and that instead the reason why looking far out into space appears to be looking at characteristics associated with a small, hot, dense ball of chaos is because everything exposed to space is slowly altered over time and that physical relationships between objects separated by large amounts of time degrade and become incoherent the less "entangled" they are in terms of physical properties.

You could also look at this from the perspective of the Big Bang and ask, "if the Big Bang even determined things like fundamental physical properties, then why would distant objects, that were isolated in there ability to communicate with other areas of space evolve the same physical properties?"

The rapid inflationary period could represent not a point at which space rapidly exploded in the initial instant, but backwards as a threshold where correlations between physical relationships we understand locally and the properties of distant spaces rapidly decay into chaotic noise ... and you can't extract large scale spacial features from noise so you could see the Big Bang as immense with unrelated features due to large spacial separations or alternately as without any size and a hot chaotic, creative point source.

BTW, I admit I don't have any ideas where all the specific details of the universe came from. There are lots of requirements that need to be met simply to allow for human life to exist, but then again you can easily ask "why human?" ... again there might be some biases that make seeing things from a human perspective more likely than something else, but I recognize it's very likely there will forever be a 'veil' or event horizon you can't see past, but maybe that's good as it means you can't see the future either and you've still got a chance to write a good story instead of passively reading pages written by others.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Nov 12 2006, 02:09 AM

C2, LL, et al,

First of all, if I came across CONDESCENDING, please accept my apology, that was never my intent in fact the very opposite because of the strangeness of QM.

C2, said it correctly,

.

Once again I offer my apology and please understand it matters [PUN] not how long we have been in the field of research, the more we see, read, and discuss QM the less we know.

Best, ciao_
yquantum

Now before I insult anyone else I will gracefully go home and get some sleep.

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 12 2006, 02:11 AM

C2-

Sounds like we are two peas in a pod. My background is aviation jet mechanics,
radar/RF/electronics, and semiconductor RF plasma related processing and
high tech semiconductor equipment,
with a similar "relative" timeline. This is a fascinating, mentally stimulating,
and challenging subject. Sometimes I feel like I'm in "over my head" but I'm
treading water as fast as I can trying to keep up. LOL! I still have lots to learn, and the knowledge of people here is excellent!

I agree with your path difference assessment. IMO, the path length of the
individual photons was changed by the EM field interactions (delays)
with the sidewall EM fields of the material of the slit cavities and tooth which modified their flight trajectory left or right (and up and down*)
The eliptical shape of the dark bands appears to be caused by how close
the photons were to the sides of the slits. I would expect that the closer
the photon passes by either sidewall cavity of the slit that it would be
deflected left or right according to which wall it passed which is why the
center of the bands is darkest. There was very little flight deviation
thru the center area of the slit cavity.

*The vertical separation of the bands is
problematic, and might be a consequence of the discrete photon EM field
amplitude changes caused by the temporary asymmetrical distortion of the
inductive Electric and Magnetic field interactions. In other words, if the magnetic field was
distorted by momentary proximity effects, caused by the cavity, it would briefly also
distort the interactive electrical fields, and vice versa, which could result
in a deviation or change in spin momentum resulting in a deflection in the vertical
plane as the fields snapped back once they cleared the sidewalls. Also the
design of the laser output filter/polarizer is unknown and is potential variable.

Then again, it might be exactly what concensus seems to favor, and just be wave
interference caused by the dual slit.

Best Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 12 2006, 03:15 AM

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

The idea that we can have "waves of nothing" is too esoteric for me. It is something because it is all the reality we have. What I would prefer to say is quantum mechanics describe particles and is not a fully geometric theory as I see it. Because our Universe seems so much like particles most people concern themselves with this comfortable paradigm. What I think is the underlying "truth" is "everything" is pure geometry and this geometry has two possible complementary descriptions. These are waves and packets (frequency and Impulses/particles). Quanta are simply truncated continuum waves... Waves that start and then stop because everything in our universe does this. There are no quanta that could not be explained by this simple "truncation" phenomena. Waves can be truncated in space and in time. Some "waves" have geometry that spread in space away from the source over time at the speed of light ... the photons... bosons... the force carriers in our Universe and others do not appear to spread... the fermions. But the closer we approach the rest frame of the fermion the more spread our it becomes and for an observer in the rest frame of a fermion, that fermion will spread to fill the space relative to that observer (even including the observer). This is de Broglie's Hypothesis... it is quite experimentally proven but understandably bringing particles to rest in an inertial frame of reference is quite difficult... he he he! At the other end of this phenomena we have Special Relativity as the relative velocity approaches that of light. This is not the behavior of a simple billiard ball in a box, and probability does not adequately address the Complex nature of the phenomenon... especially the non-locality. So both the photon and the fermions all experience non-locality to a greater or lesser extent. Quantum theory does not address this point except to provide a "local" but inadequate explanation. The numbers the theory generate are fine but fail to describe the full range of experiments. This thread has discussed a number of these points and it shows how some such as Richard Feynman addressed this point providing a very good description but in his own words Quantum Electrodynamics is a "dumb" theory, not that he meant it was wrong... it provides the most accurate "numbers" available to science. What he meant was it was probably conceptually wrong (... even though he was speaking about his own theory). Each path is assigned a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the actual amplitude we observe is the sum of all amplitudes over all possible paths.

If each photon has traveled over all possible paths I believe this is equivalent to saying the photon is visiting all possible paths "in sequence" when you sum all the intermediate terms up in a certain way. This is the same as the spreading wavefront and could be equated with it if we chose to. In this way a single photon results in the one picture of the "boson" in the same state as all other co-moving photons (bosons). The only difference between them is an "unknowable" path for the "still" point of each individual photon. Quantum Mechanics cannot provide this and no other theory can predict this either. What I am saying is the photon is not traveling in our three dimensional space (plus time) since it cannot be referenced to that space (this is not in dispute). David Bohm would say it is traveling in a configuration space which always remains out of the plane of Einsteins Spacetime... IMHO this is what Alain Aspect was alluding to. This is because a point source of photons can be known and the final destination of the photons can be "counted" individually. Therefore the path through "configuration space" can be plotted after the final data has all been gathered. You can "project" this space and the path into our Spacetime and you end up with a "geodesic" that ignores the intervening slits and obstructions. From our point of view the photon is passing "over" these obstructions in higher dimensional "configuration space". This configuration space overcomes the problems of locality that Quantum Mechanics has no answer for. Mathematically this approach leads to avoidance of the measurement problem and to String Theories which potentially "solve" some questions posed today that remain unanswered. Experiment does support this phenomenon. I have mentioned some of these issues in previous posts.

I can tell if the computer in front of you is real by the fact that you can observe it and use it and so forth. When you press a key it will input a character. The "reality" we know is purely "sensory" so if we receive sensory information then this information is the reality. In the same way that you can produce a Kondo Phantom... the Kondo Phantom is as real as any object that can be known (if done correctly... he he he!). What is the reality of our Universe is the information content. If we dumped our entire Universe into a "Black Hole" the information remains on the surface of that "Black Hole". The information in our Universe are "events" and the order of those events determine History... history may be jumbled but the information (events) remain... forever. We are thinking beings and we can measure stuff and so on. We do not have access to ultimate information only a relative source of information. This is saying to us not to think we are the ultimate judges of information content but we can get a good description of information content by way of experiments. These differing descriptions of the Universe are converging on a global description of our Universe... we will never get there but as we sort information derived from those experiments the inconsistencies can be removed and what remains must be the truth... or a better approximation to it. The Scientific Method... Theory -> Experiment -> more Theory -> more Experiments and so on. All the while we are benefiting from this enhanced knowledge through "applications" such as longer lives and "new tools" and an understanding of our basic question of why we are here. That is all a sentient being should do other than have a benevolence and generosity towards others who are also similarly looking for answers. I need not emphasize that this process is devastating to those who choose ignorance and is a kind of "Natural Selection".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 12 2006, 02:48 AM

LOL! I was not the least bit offended by your comments. I realize that there
are lots of different educational levels that frequent this website which was
why I was drawn to it and am fascinated by it. I just didn't want anyone
to misconstrue or think that I was an expert on the topic, I most definitely
am not. We are all seeking the truth. Unfortunately, we tend to spend much
of our time stumbling around in the darkness trying to find the light switch!

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 12 2006, 04:01 AM

StevenA,

I've heard of such sponaneous "virtual particles" which, if they are a reality, might
be evidence of another dimensional plane, or could they just be high energy particles
or spontaneous particle decay (from our dimensional plane) that just happened
to wander thru during the course of the experiment. My inclination tells me that if they are from another dimension
that we should be able to conjure them at will by prolonging or reproducing the
experiment where they showed up.

LL

"Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're really saying is you're following the crowd.

I'm following the "the dream".

It's apples and oranges – no need to debate.

This post has been edited by Eric England on Nov 12 2006, 06:22 AM

Good Elf,

I'm having a hard time rationalizing a photon sequentially exploring all paths
available to it in open space as this contradicts photon dispersion over
extreme distances and seems to violate the inverse square law.

A potential problem with this theoretical approach is that if the photon were
communicating (traveling) thru another dimension phasing in and out, it would
require 2 extra dimensions, 1 for the E field and 1 for the M field. Why does it
only physically interact with matter in our 4-D universe where its effects can be
measured as it destructively interacts with matter and imparts its EM field
energy? Are you suggesting that matter is also phasing in and out of our
space-time?

Hmmm, a variation on Occams razor?

LL

Hi Eric England,

"Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're really saying is you're following the crowd.

I'm following the "the dream".

It's apples and oranges – no need to debate.

Apologies all around. Debate is fine... it was not meant to be dismissive, it was a link to how to find out what this means. I would never leave anyone hanging for want of knowing a point or two. What is meant by finite yet unbounded does not stop you dreaming (... though I am no psychic and I can only guess what you mean by that). What I mean is if you walk the walk you must talk the talk (... old saying but backwards). Finite but unbounded means this is the geometry of a space that we exist inside, we already have some data on this. There is WMAP (one of the references) and other data now and we can see that the data does indicate a complex interconnected space as shown by those links... Finite but unbounded. This means the geometry is such that if you went as far as you could in one direction in space you will inevitably loop back onto your original position. Any direction you choose will lead to the same result. This scale is very large but still finite (the numbers boggle the mind). There are also places in the Universe that are probably moving away from us through "Hubble spreading" faster that the raw velocity of light leading to Rindler Foliations... The link for that is there too. To go anywhere "different" at all you would need to travel "inter-dimensionally".

Now there is the real dream...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf and some links
and...
Good Elf on A cosmic hall of mirrors: PhysicsWeb Sept 2005

Cheers

PS: I have looked under the table and I do not see any "crowd" and I think I am the only one out here saying these things ...

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 12 2006, 07:56 AM

All,


First, to C2, who questions a change in frequency, upon reflection or absorption.

Hopefully, that will suffice.


Laserlight,

I agree that "that there is no absolute definition for what makes up the composition of a photon." For now, I am concentrating on the mathematical foundation; hopefully that would lead to some insight as to the form the "photon" wave takes while traveling at the very fast "c".

Both well said.


I would add that we do NOT have to have a Big Bang for this to work. It more or less leaves that question open. The Philosophical underpinnings to NOT starting from NOTHING are very important.

By just the minor change in Philosophy, we can go from starting from ZERO (nothing) and then to ONE (something), to starting from ONE (something), and using the distance to TWO (the fundamental resonance) as an approximation to ONE.

Mathematically, of course, its' the same. I have made the case for NOT using an integer to represent the "fundamental quantity", or beginning. So, specifically >1.

Now, some should see the connection to Planck here. The constant "h" is represented in frequency as 1.00000093 Hz (that may not be exact), but it certainly fits the bill of >1 .


That is also a clue to my question.



more later..

T.Roc