Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi all,


LL, I think we are closer still to being on the same page. You will get "right answers" up to a limit, with the dielectric process as causal. I do not think that this is the best way to go, however. I look at the geometry (phase) as causal, with charge a result. The only difference would appear outside of EM waves, and there are plenty of other situations that can be described by the dynamics of Resonance. The geometrical approach allows for curved space, and relativistic interaction; both important to the "big picture" (unification).


Why Not -

Correct, and I agree. I do not think that single "photons" (quanta of energy) do not exist. I understand that we have single state transitions in electron orbitals, and that specific frequencies are absorbed discreetly.

What I DO think, is that Science (particularly at the time period that the theories were put forth) has NOT been PRODUCING single "photons", nor working with single atoms, in which to absorb single "photons" with. LASER beams of trillions of "photons" being measured by a cascade of electrons; and very carefully prepared to "click" at the expected rate of the resonant pulses -- disregarding the lower energy "photons" that CONNECT each pulse. I have given links to experiments boosting the photoelctric effect with IR waves superimposed onto a resonant (w/ work function) beam. Take a look at C2's now infamous chart.. there is NO PLACE measured that has LESS than 100 "photons" per second. So, if we take that to be correct, then we have a finite period of time between "photons" (supposedly assuring us that only 1 is in the chamber at a "time"). What should be said here, is that we have 100 RESONANT "photons" (set to expectation) per second arriving, and an UN-COUNTED amount of non-resonant, low energy "photons" CONTINUOUSLY filling the space between "clicks". Some specific interval of time separates the counts, and is filled by lower energy, longer waves. The INPUT energy of the laser does NOT change, and the LASER is never turned off. The emission rate MUST have a minimum to satisfy the population inversion; the emission rate is not changed. The ENERGY is CONTINUOUS from the LASER to the screen. By the "photon" hypothesis, this is one "photon" as well; 1 quanta of energy.

By definition, if we have an average, we have MORE THAN ONE thing. In my theory, the CYCLE is the important feature, and a wave packet (photon) will have more than 1 cycle, and at more than 1 frequency.

What I am saying is, that the word SINGLE can not be attached to a "quantity" of energy, that is made up of many of each of the components that make up an EM wave.

I also have a big problem with getting out of this "photon" definition by calling the same phenomenon (movement or transfer of energy) by a NEW name, every time an exception is discovered. ALL of these energies are conserved, and have a frequency. (solitons, phonons, excitons, etc.) By giving each new result a new name, the similarity is lost in definitions.


These components of a wave have a symbiotic, and an inverse-symmetrical relationship. If they are "broken up", either by the space between 2 slits, or through a beam splitter, etc. then the now separate components are "entangled". They will attempt to re-form, and this takes place superluminally. If one of the dualistic components is measured (collapsed) before the re-grouping can take place, then an opposite effect will be measured in the "other path" components. In the DSE, the separated components re-combine to form the fringe pattern (4 to 1 @ center, original axis).


regards,

T.Roc


This post has been edited by TRoc on Jun 8 2007, 04:30 AM

Hi TRoc,

Can you elaborate when you get the time. I am not sure exactly what you are
saying or why you think this dielectric effect will yield limited results.

My proposed scenario might not be 100% conceptually accurate but you may have
insight that will provide a key to unlock other clues or answers.

I think most of us are starting to agree that the DSE is a phenomenon with a
basis in optics, resonance, geometry, and how they combine to influence EM fields.

TIA,
LL

Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,

Welcome back yquantum. Good question. As has been stated, there is not universal agreement regarding facts and interpretation of phenomena. "Committees" are often a difficult "beast" to get any agreement on issues. Even more importantly (and this cannot be "under stressed") committees do not decide the Laws of Nature by a show of hands as they may do with the Laws of Man. None of us here (I think?) are here to arrive at "political decisions", we are here for the science. It has been my focus that when in any doubt there are usually some experiments that support the points being put up for consideration. If there is no justification other than some "opinion" then I simply dismiss that point unless I see that the "opinion" does indeed have experimental support. I think we all take that point of view. If there is any dissent on this point I would like to hear it.

I have some very controversial notions about this basic science. If I did not have them then my contribution would have not been of any worth and led to a conversation with a group of "co-conspirators" all nodding their heads whenever any comment was made since standard interpretations of theory has led to no new insights here. Anyone with any creativity at all would have left.

I am a little "put off" by claims that go against existing understanding without some justification. This next comment is not meant to offend and it generally applies equally to me as it does to others... A number of claims that individual photons "probably" do not exist based on nothing other than the requirement that the assertion be believed, when as "Why Not?" can instantly debunk this claim by simply "Googling" recent experiments where devices are available that are sources of actual single photons... and single photons can indeed be detected (quite easily). "Why Not? is entitled to be upset because what is purporting to be a rational debate has become a matter of unsubstantiated "opinion". Even children in schools do single photon experiments as has been stated many times in this thread. I am sure this is frustrating to many to be told that single photons do not exist. It shows that there is still a mental block against this discussion remaining consistent and for all of us to support any wild claims being made with some kind scientific argument. I am sure this is not deliberate misdirection but it means the claimant is selling all those in the discussion short and not recognizing that other minds are at least able to correctly asses these claims instantly. If we individually make a dumb statement it reflects on us individually and on our credibility. Now we can all make dumb statements and it is important to point them out but once should be enough. Is it any wonder that so many Forums result in "flaming bonfires of the Vanities and Hubris".

We could all improve the quality of the experience here if we all agreed that we not make totally unsupported statements unless we make a pretty good argument in support of our pet theories or that what we say is pretty prosaic and very well known already. I do not mean unscientific arguments by "playing the man not the ball". We are all going to make claims (as I have) for some extraordinary phenomena and I am sure that none of you should or would accept that claim based on the say so of an "elf". The progress any of these technical discussions will depend on the "slowest" member. The "goal" of this thread is barely starting to form and the real consequences are still far down the road. The length of the road has not changed but many of us are going in circles and having too many "pit stops" with our thinking.

Do you think this can give the same result as the DSE equation? (In your wildest dreams?) If it does not then it is simply 'wrong'. Sorry.

I though this was obvious... C2.. The distance from source (pinholes) to screen where the photons are absorbed is not always an integer length of the wavelength of light. What I will say is that each pinhole diameter is hundreds of times or more the size of a wavelength of light. This means that considerable path difference will occur from one side of the pinhole to the other (from the center)... hundreds of wavelength differences. The question is why does a slit or a pinhole produce a bright central spot on the screen at all?

The answer is the screen shows "intensity" and not phase... intensity is the square of the total vector phase amplitude. If a wave "combines" with positive phases then the summation is positive and at twice the amplitude and their square is also positive. If a wave "combines" on the screen with negative phase then their sum is also negative and twice the amplitude and the square is still positive... therefore regardless of the fact that the wave is in positive or negative phase the "brightness" is always registered as positive. In between these points of brightening on the screen where the brightness is positive, if the distance between equally phased waves is a half integer wavelength of the light then there will be absolute total cancellation. This is because for every instant in time the phases cancel... any positive phase is identically matched with an equal negative phase, one ray at a time, starting from the two centers and working out to all symmetric points up to but not on the periphery. So the phases subtract and the result is a zero... it does not matter it this is a "positive zero" or a "negative zero" its square is still a total of a "big zero".

Now on either side (same side) of the central point of the absolute exact center of the two pinholes that I have evaluated the intensity at the screen for, we have for every other point in those two tiny disks, equivalent matching "rays" where the path to an equidistant part of the screen is displaced a small distance (equal to this displacement) from the original equidistant central point of the screen. These add or cancel in pairs depending on the distance to the screen. When they add there is a brightness and when they cancel there is nothing. The primary reason why these add or cancel is we are dealing with coherent light and waves whose individual photons are reaching the screen in the far field as plane waves are all phase matched along the secondary source and whose size is larger in the transverse direction than the distance between the pinholes. The exact value of the phase is irrelevant since only squares of the path differences are important so the arbitrary phase due to the distance to the primary source are not part of this calculation.

As I have already shown that the photons have spread as "pancakes" and they overlap but absorb according to Geometric Phase.... a single flash much smaller than that pancake. This smears the brightening on the screen to the eye... but we know this is actually made up of individual flashes.

We have established that the phases cancel or add depending on path length and that if the "gross" path difference is 1/2 a wavelength it cancels for all symmetrically matching rays from both secondary pinhole sources (in pairs) and they add when the path lengths are integer values to the screen of a path length. Do you agree? They will all add somewhere symmetrically and directly in front of the pair of pinholes, symmetrically between the pinholes and at certain angles where the path length differs from the exact centers of the pinholes by a whole number of a wavelength and totally cancel half way between where there are a half integer number of wavelength between paths. This is very symmetric within and around these idealized circular holes. So you may ask why doesn't the waves sometimes result in nodes along the way to the screen and only be maxima in between? A reasonable question. This would mean that as you moved the screen back 1/2 a wavelength further from the pinholes, we should be seeing dark not light along that central maximum. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? This is quite right except there is a misinterpretation here... the arbitrary path length does count in that region of the pinhole in more than 1/2 a wavelength deep... it is hundreds of wavelengths "deep"as it is "wide". This is the virtual source size. It is quite big relative to the wavelength. The next point is the screen is not flat and it is partially absorbing. To be able to see light and dark patches this screen would need to be be at least partially absorbing and partially reflecting (not totally absorbing or reflecting) and it would need to be flatter than 1/2 a wavelength for combination. Clearly this screen is not very flat compared with a wavelength of light and it absorbs most of those photons not perfectly reflect them. Therefore whenever there is a positive or negative antinode there it will be bright and anywhere or anytime there is a total node there it will not have any influence on the brightness since intensity does not vectorially add but only scalar add, very important point to understand. As I have already demonstrated the photons are very widely spread so this results in constant illumination on the screen in "zones" rather than discrete lines.

Why doesn't this happen to the in between positions as well leading to nodes and antinodes?... Just think about it... the rays are 100% canceled two by two along those rays. There is no brightness antinodes along those directions at all so no intensity for any distance from sources. This is why the minima are always totally black and are much more limited in width than the brighter regions which are broad and diffuse right up to that nodal zone where it is totally black. When you consider that these nodes are the same for one or many photons this light and dark patching on the screen is due entirely to a single photons internal diffraction due to internal phases it encounters on the way to the screen position. At this stage in the DS Diffraction pattern we now realize the individual photons which before the slit "might" be as small as only a few hundred wavelengths across (the size of the two pinholes) behind the slit the photons are now optically diverged to span the entire optical space of the diffraction pattern and individually could absorb anywhere in that "region" except at the designated nodes. We now recall that all co-moving photons travel as a single boson state no matter how many are on the wavefront... one or a million but they do not all share the same Berry phase in the cavity.

The next question is are we looking at standing waves or traveling waves? To get nodes and antinodes you must have standing waves so the square of the amplitude is always positive. If you had a mirror there you would certainly have a node on the surface where the direction of the wave would be perfectly reflected changing the phase by 180 degrees. As it is with an absorbing surface of a matched load, the waves will terminate the line with a permanent antinode.

So rather than just a geometric idea of distances we end up in spatial resonant "lines" or "zones" in certain spatial directions with a source at one end (pair of pinholes) and a sink at the other (screen)... perfectly matched to the load if "black absorbing" and less perfectly if "white partially reflecting or scattering". Since a perfect black body will neither reflect nor scatter any light we do not use black for the screen. If you put a mirror there instead of the absorber screen, you will never be able to know what happened to the photons since no photons would be absorbed and that results in a perfectly resonant line in that direction. They would then be "unobserved photons". Can you now see this is a cavity or at least an optical resonant line through space terminating in a load (much the same thing)?

Cheers

PS Clarification: I would like to add that to "see" photons on that screen we need to see a source of photons on that screen... this is usually scattering of the light there (absorption then emission events)... the source appears at the screen surface. Itf the screen is perfectly black you will see no secondary sources there at all. If you put a mirror on the screen surface you do not see any photons from sources on the screen, you see sources coming from the original sources and still coherently linked with them.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 8 2007, 05:43 AM

Hi janrinze, "THEY", Laserlight, Jal, Confused2, Zephir, yquantum, TRoc, Montec, Neil Farbstein, Why Not?, Mate et al,

Just to clench this deal in the previous post look at this article and convince yourself that this is what is the universal mechanism for photons too... resonance... and some kind of "cavity"...
Goodbye wires... MIT experimentally demonstrates wireless power transfer
This not a surprise is it?

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 8 2007, 06:13 AM

LL,

I am not commenting on your proposal here, just on the phenomenon of charge based on a specific geometric phase pattern, like the "electron as a toroidal photon" model.

What I am saying, is that the geometry of the wave is more fundamental; it creates the conditions for the dipole. This is similar to molecular structure, and the degrees of freedom. If the "center mass" and the charge are separate, you get the dipole moment.


regards,

T.Roc

* the paper that GE just linked is a good example of "outside of the coupled EM wave" realm. The standing magnetic wave would present a problem to the explanation of a dielectric based interaction, yet, we could get interference in a DSE with these wavelengths too.

This post has been edited by TRoc on Jun 8 2007, 06:10 AM

Hi GE and All,

GE said:

Ouch! I/we probably deserved that "tongue lashing", but hear me out. Even
though there have been lots of inventions that use the scientific tenets of photon
theory, which means that science has proved that the theory "works", there are still
some "flaws" and unknowns that have not been, or cannot be, reconciled.

I presented arguments, with the caveate that they could be inaccurate or just
downright wrong! But, when theories or scientific principles collide, are
inconsistent, or have no basis for explanation, then we need to confront them and
explore alternative possibilities that might unify or elicit the truth. Yeah, we might
make mistakes along the way, but how many great discoveries were the result of
mistakes or unexpected consequences?

Even a wrong answer gives us a data point.

I will point out that all scientific discoveries began with an original conceptual idea
that was proven AFTER the theory was proposed. If we limit ourselves to
merely conventional thinking then we will make no progress.

Can you assure, or prove to me/us that an electron can be made to make only a
single solitary quantum jump between orbitals without a resonance? I do recall the
recent trapped/delayed photon experiment in a resonant cavity, but again it was
a resonance due to physical cavity effects, where energy is cycled and delayed
within the confines of the cavity.

Comments? Discussion? Anyone?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jun 8 2007, 06:54 AM

GE,


I'm not offended, and won't ever be, by someone disagreeing with me, or pointing out a problem or mistake I've said/made. I welcome it, because of a desire for truth.

You make a good point about not making claims without some decent substantiation. The same should apply, then, to critiques of claims.


When you make this kind of statement, "I am a little "put off" by claims that go against existing understanding without some justification. This next comment is not meant to offend and it generally applies equally to me as it does to others... A number of claims that individual photons "probably" do not exist based on nothing other than the requirement that the assertion be believed.." you are proclaiming that you have not read what I've been saying. "Without some justification"?? Come on! READ. Nothing I've said is that hard to understand, and everything I've said is supported by data from experiments.


What I am ultimately saying about "photons" is the QM-Copenhagen interpretation of "quantum exchanges" is false. The energy can be divided and recombined as many times as we are prepared and able to measure it. There is nothing "lumpy, granular, or particulate" about the wave, other than a node / phase singularity (and that is literally nothing).

E = n h f is a statement about converting frequency into joules, or electron volts (both are abstract terms for quantity of energy). Just as in your explanation to C2 just above, all of the "photons" that arrive at the screen do not all line up with integer wavelengths. Neither will any atomic frequency line up with the integers of Planck's (watered down) equation. Prove me wrong with some simple math.

Within the LAST DECADE, we have FINALLY started to be able to MEASURE frequency directly, in the optical range. STILL, the accuracy is AT BEST (BEC state) 10e-18. That leaves 16 digits before we could measure "n" integers of 6.6267055e-34. I'm being very conservative here; you won't find ANY frequency of an atomic transition to an 18 digit accuracy on the NIST web site, and h has 41 digits of "accuracy".

What DOES work, is that you will get a "lot" of zeros after the "right answer", so we just "call it good". Does anyone disagree with the idea that we should have 40+ digit accuracy before we can measure integer multiples of a 41 digit number?
And you wonder why Pythagoras feared the irrational number?

Finally, I'll repeat: this is about the REAL DSE not dealing with individual "photons", but lasers, light-bulbs, and the Sun. None of which are capable of producing "1 at a time photons". So, all of the hypothesizing that went on to explain how a "photon" interferes with its' single frequency self, are subject to re-examination.


regards,

T.Roc


PS.

I "googled" Bigfoot, and got 83,600,000 hits. Conclusion: Bigfoot is 8 times more likely to exist than single photons.

This post has been edited by TRoc on Jun 8 2007, 07:00 AM

Hi Good Elf, Laserlight et al,

Here is diffraction
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1

And here is refraction
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html

Fortunately (or unfortunately) the DSE gives us the ability to measure relative phase to such an astonishing degree of accuracy that we can measure the wavelength of light. IF there were a change of velocity of light in slits/pinholes then the DSE would be the IDEAL instrument to detect that change. In fairness there is an analytical difficulty which is that for any particular slit width it is just possible that (by coincidence) refraction and diffraction might produce the same result. To counter this possibility we rely on the fact that the DSE experiment has been repeated with many different slit widths and (so far, the first 200 years) diffraction gives the right answer. The difference between the 'right answer' and the 'wrong answer' is that the right answer predicts the bright bits will in a particular place and they are actually found in that place. If we have two answers that predict the fringes will be in the same place then we would not be able to distinguish between the alternatives - as it happens (in this instance) we can very easily distinguish between diffraction and refraction :- we just need to look at the experimental results. Of course, if any change in speed of light caused phase changes below the threshold of measurement then we would miss it and it would fall into the category of interesting things that do not effect the result - unless (of course) anyone can show otherwise.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi TRoc et al,

Let us start with the claim that single photons 'exist'.
Let us listen to the Teachspin Cricket ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/cricket/index.shtml ) .. sounds like random noise.
Now we feed what sounds like random noise into a counter and see what happens .. over a period of (say) ten seconds we find the total number of clicks always comes out to be about the same number.
We now use the analysis that has worked for the last 200 years (the diffraction one) and we predict where the bright bits will be and how bright they will be. We assume each photon has the same amount of energy .. which leaves us with no choice but to predict that at the bright bits we will count twice as many photons as the total from the slits counted individually. And we get the result we expect.

We have a complete path from prediction to experimental result. If there were any errors in the theory/assumptions then we would need to explain how the counter has managed to get it 'right' despite those errors. We are forced to conclude that for every error there must be a compensating error that brings us back to the 'right answer'.

If there is no such thing as a single photon then we need to explain how the counter can take those (apparently) random clicks and still produce a curve that fits our prediction so well.

As in the case of diffraction/refraction - it is possible that any particular apparatus could accidentally (or deliberately) be set up to confirm the prediction - but this could hardly be true of every set of apparatus on every occasion..

If the assumption about single photons is false then how/why does the result appear to confirm that assumption?

Best wishes -C2.

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

We can still allow for the assumption that single photons exist without making the assumption that a single photon can be properly represented by an impulse. If single photons exist then the DSE is (surely!) telling us that an 'impulse' is not a good representation of a photon.

Best wishes -C2.

Hi TRoc,

Does that mean that when you google sources of individual photons on demand you completely miss references to specially engineered quantum dots and get those references to Bigfoot instead? You do have a problem.

'Plug and Play' Source of Single Photons

Couldn't disagree more... I disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation in "detail" but I do not disagree with some observations that were made. Your conclusion has nothing to do with the QM-Copenhagen Interpretation, it has only something to do with the experimental corpuscular nature of individual photons. Photons are pretty rugged items and to utilize any of their energy you must absorb them whole or not at all. You can't drain a little energy off without that "collapse" . We can discuss what that "collapse" may mean but some facts are already experimentally on the board.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 8 2007, 12:21 PM

A quick glance at the circuit of a PC would suggests that communication beteween elements is possible without resonance.

On matching aerials (dipoles) to space.

Local definition of 'resonant' is Q factor >= 1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor )

Looking at the impedance of free space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space .. 377 ohms (resistive)

Given the nature of geometry it is not possible to make one aerial that matches all frequencies. To this extent the aerial must be 'tuned'. To make use of any energy collected by a dipole it must be connected to some sort of signal processor (usually an amplifier to start with). The dipole is our match to free space (377 ohms) .. if the impedance at the driving point of the dipole is 50 ohms and the cable is 50 ohms and the input impedance of the amplifier is 50 ohms then is the dipole resonant? I would say not. If our dipole was 'resonant' (ie the incoming signal was not absorbed completely) then it would itself become a radiator - would we want to pay for all that stuff to pick up a signal just so we re-transmit it? Likewise I suggest we can look at all forms of 'resonant reception' as less than perfect .. the higher the Q factor the more likely you are to lose (re-radiate) whatever it was you were looking at in the first place. Loosely we might describe re-radiation as reflection-in-no-particular-direction. Note that frequency selectivity and 'resonance' are separate items. To receive something it would seem that you need a good 'match' rather than 'resonance'. I appreciate this goes against the local wisdom of this thread - perhaps I am wrong.

Best wishes - C2.

Hi Confused2,

Yes... Current computers use "switch settings" to store information as a 1 or a 0.

You must be the first person on my block with an optical computer using qubits eh? Those standard processor circuits are also full of delay lines and matched outputs and that means standing waves regarding the energy but the circuits are still using "primitive" electrons and line DC voltages, not photons as elements and the information transferred is still "primitive" bits and not quantum qubits. There is a difference. At 3GHz you can't get away with those frequencies in the processor without some tuned circuitry otherwise the lumped inductance of the "signals" would short the signal to earth..

The fastest computers on Earth still do not use qubits nor do they use optoelectronic components for communication. Optical computing is still some time off and may come at the same time as quantum computing. Those computers will be resonant systems entirely. Maybe you need to understand a little more about current technology and not confusing this with what the future technology will be.

I guess I was "old fashioned" and used a tuned tank circuit to get my signals... or a VFO... pretty dumb eh?

Wikipedia: VFO

Radio strategies are another class of technology and you are not as interested in selectivity in an antenna if the signal strength is already very high. In fact it is actually "bad form" to use high gain in Metropolitan Radio Reception to use a tuned antenna since you usually want to tune more than one Metropolitan Station. The strategy is to not pick up stations from way off because they are all broadcasting over the same band and sometimes at or near the same frequency. Modern Antenna design is to not provide range but coverage. This is taken to an extreme in the Packet Radio Concept used in Cellular Phones where range is not the main issue and would be a real problem there. Selectivity is done "back end". This is a "red herring" to the fact that the principle to photon emission and reception remains resonance.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 8 2007, 12:59 PM

Good Elf, C2, et al,

Not sure where this all will end but this might bring everyone up to speed dealing with your approach.

Have a great weekend, gentleman.

Demand for optoelectronics components, especially those that enable access to the Internet, has grown tremendously in the last few years," said Jeff Rittichier, recently named general manager of access products in the optoelectronics components division of Lucent's Microelectronics Group.

"The upgrades to our Alhambra facility and the expansion into Irwindale will help us bring those types of products to a capacity-constrained market faster through new and improved equipment and processes, including flexible production schedules, automated manufacturing capabilities, and reduced cycle times."

The expansion includes a new 20,000-square-foot state-of-the-art wafer fabrication and testing facility, now under construction in Irwindale, Calif., which is expected to begin producing optoelectronics components for cable television networks in the summer of 2001. In addition to the new facility,

Lucent is renovating an existing 166,000-square-foot building also located on the Irwindale campus. That building will house administrative and some manufacturing operations and is expected to be operational by the end of this summer. The company also has enhancements under way to another 104,000-square-foot facility in Alhambra. That facility, which is expected to be completed shortly, will be equipped with increased levels of automation and higher precision manufacturing processes.

I should have just posted the paper but this was faster,
ciao_
yquantum

Hi yquantum,

Welcome back yquantum... I understand that optical components are very common and they are used in communication extensively but as far as I know a full performance optical computer has not been built. Some qbit transmission technologies are in use in some very specialized areas but you would need to be pretty special to own your own quantum computer... Though a couple do exist though not so very useful as yet.
D-Wave Systems
They are certainly not general purpose devices and they perform only a sub-set of the functions required to be called a real Quantum Computer.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 8 2007, 01:19 PM

C2,

why you are saying that we do not have good results for a single electron DSE when we actually have?

Example:


link

Let me also express one observation in principle.

If I ( or you or anyone else ) would come/came with particular hypothesis, and if that one simultaneously suggested an experiment with which his hypothesis , possibly, could be falsified, would it be better to actually try that particular experiment instead speculating what would happen on the basis of contemporary knowledge? Surely a science is progressing on the basis of rejecting or limiting contemporary knowledge , if enough experimental data is justifying such a adjustment?

Now, if previous suggestion about set up for the experiment was a difficult one to conduct surely this second suggested set up is not?

The only precondition in this suggested set up would be that a released electron is passing only through one slit, while both slits are open backward so to speak.

If a pattern of hits on the screen would be a single diffraction then this hypothesis is not a valid one.

If it would be an interference pattern then the fun starts right away.

Is here someone who is willing and who can actually try some of the suggested experiments or I am just uselessly "barking" on the Moon?

Anton