Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

SHINE LIGHT ON AN ELECTRON AND IT NO LONGER BEHAVES AS A WAVE. WHAT COULD BE HAPPENING?

AS IF I DON'T ALREADY KNOW.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

hi, quick apology to C2, I just found a post to me back on page 180.... ok I am quite behind.... but trying to catch up.

You asked if I could post pictures of both aluminum foil and black card to see the difference. I will still try to do that, but it is very hard to photograph the black card pattern because it is so dim. We used the aluminum foil in the pictures posted and in the classroom because it is so bright it is very easy to see and photograph. I have been taking it slower now that the homework is done, but if it is still wanted, I will see what I can do. Do you want me to post more pictures with black card this time

Good Elf - how are things going with your laser experiment
Hope you are going to post some pictures. Hope I didn't MISS you posting pictures...... Do I have to go back to review

My question mark key won't work......

If there is no request for more pictures, I won't do it due to time, but if wanted I will do my best.

Hi "THEY", also other interested people...

Here are some standard shots using my simple camera. They could be better, they certainly look better live but they are good enough and look similar to the pictures that the NASA site had. The second shot I used a diverging lens to increase the overall size but the low intensity of the lower amplitude components of the function are lost in the background. I have no way to change the speed of my camera shots.

and this is the diverged image..

I am sure this could be improved on significantly but I think I would need a better camera... One with a couple of adjustments. I am quite sure that scoring a mirror back with a sharp blade using a steel rule is the way to go. Thanks for reminding me

Cheers

PS: Setup as per this site (additional diverging lens added in second shot)...
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/experiment_1.cfm

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 11 2007, 05:40 AM

Hey JR, LL, C2 Daren and All,

JR, I’m not sure where to begin and not at the same time get too far off topic… TIQM is an “interpretation”. It is meant to provide an understanding of the complexities of QM. Since I thought we were discussing various “interpretations” of the DSE, some of which were based on QM and others on various pet theories. Regardless, they are all interpretations and quite frankly, the Transactional one (and Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory applied to QM) hold up a hell of a lot better to Occam’s razor than many of the others out there. After all, you don’t need extra dimensions, an infinite number of universes, hidden variables, etc etc etc. Don’t we already “interpret” an anti-particle as a particle moving in the reverse time direction? T-symmetry and all? Anyway, for a more "in depth" analysis, hoe about this?Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Because the transaction (wave collapse) links the two through the transfer of energy.

Finally,

I think you should have posted this statement in all caps bold! We have all forgotten this at one time or another on this thread. And so I ask you, how “careful” is your interpretation when you remove your bias against time reversal?

C2, Thanks! Glad to be back. The power point is a user friendly version of all of the other WFAT links you have seen posted, so I do not think you missed much in the way of fundamentals. But you may get something from the presentation if you can find another way to view the content. Also, I think TRoc and LL are been trying to look at the “oscillator”. I have been wondering how a fermion emits (or absorbs) a boson and how the boson retains the oscillation of the ferimon at emission (absorption)? But maybe you are thinking something else entirely?

LL,

If you plot the AC field oscillations (position -vs- time) and then flip the time axis, doesn’t the plot look the same? I really don't understand the reluctance to “time reversal” especially in a thread about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser! It has been experimentally verified that you can change the outcome after the event, how better to do so than by going the opposite direction in time?

Hi Why Not and All,

Time is relative between two fixed points in space, and is dependent upon the
relative point of observation. From the point of transmission, time is a series of progressive
events that have already occurred. From the other point of absolute reference,
time is a series of progressions that have yet to happen, or be observed.

That is why we can observe cosmic events that occurred billions of light years
ago. From the initial frame of reference the event is long over, but from our
distant relative perspective we are just observing the transfer of
information/energy that is ancient.

In one case time has gone by, in the other, it has yet to happen due to the latency
of energy/information transfer which is limited by the speed of light.

According to Einstein, in order to go backwards or reverse time it is necessary
to exceed the speed of light. Since that is a physical impossibility due to the
concept of relativity, it is fairly easy to reject time travel or time reversal.

Time is a progression, a change of relative energy state and distance over a
relative time base.

Comments? Discussion? Anyone?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jun 11 2007, 07:17 AM

Hi JR,GE,Why Not?,LL et al,
If we imagine Good Elf's bubble blowing dipole at x0 .. if a photon is detected at (say) x20 then the entire 'bubble' is absorbed at x20 .. if the bubble represents anything physical then energy conservation suggests nothing can have been emitted in the -x (or any other) direction .. do we conclude that the bubble interpretation is wrong?
Best wishes - C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jun 11 2007, 10:35 AM

...

This post has been edited by Mate on Jun 11 2007, 12:53 PM

Hi TRoc,

I think I see where you are coming from now...

OK, it seems that "theory mixing" is creating confusion. The QM "photon" is an indivisible quanta of energy. I disagree with this. What happens to our quanta of energy, after it is emitted, and starts to "spread", and fill the area of a sphere at the speed of light?

I would not say "indivisible" since a BBO crystal can split a photon in 1/2 into two equal "coherent" photons. There are exceptions to any rule that is a non-linear effect.

I also am no believer in energy spreading in three dimensions. As I have said before this wave phenomena cannot be actually witnessed "in vivo". The only way you "see" this influence is by absorbing photons whole. This obviously changes things somewhat. Absorb enough of these photons spatially you build the picture. There is no direct evidence to suggest that the energy of a single photon is actually spreading only that "waves" are spreading. I think there is a good argument to say that the actual energy of the photon is not traveling at all it is an effect that is being caused by "reciprocal space". In reciprocal space this is not spreading and getting bigger and bigger but it is shrinking and getting smaller and smaller... effectively 'fading away". The reciprocal effect in Fourier Space is "expansion". Have a look at this reference to understand how a Fourier Reciprocal Space reacts to an impulse. Also look at this...
Continuous Space Fourier Transform (CSFT): CA Bouman
In particular check out the three dimensional sync function described in "natural" Bessel Functions (one dimension is a parameter)...

... Click to enlarge...
Circular impulse in 2D to Fourier Transformed Bessel Function for two dimensions. Image taken from Continuous Space Fourier Transform (CSFT): CA Bouman. This is still too few dimensions to be a real function but it indicates the way this is progressing... your transform is the "Mexican Hat" function in a two dimensional plane. An additional dimension you would have a spherical impulse function then the sync function leads to harmonics on a sphere in three dimensions (slices of this function in any plane will be the "Mexican Hat" function as shown). This function "wraps" on the sphere or in this case shown as circle after one period. Higher order Bessel Functions provide the dumbell and other "orbital" harmonic functions I have spoken about in higher dimensions which are related to the various quantum numbers. Time evolution of any of these functions will have the "amplitude of this Impulse dispersing spatially. The transform f this will be the spreading sync pulse you refer to as energy spreading. As I see it this is not a "spreading" but a dispersion on the surface of a sphere. The sphere for three dimensional "flatspace" photons is the hypersphere of our Universe (our "piecemeal flat" Relativistic Spacetime).

Please look at the way in which size translates in reciprocal space for instance longer spatial wavelengths translate to very much closer "points" in the Fourier Transformed Plane (the analog is the wavenumber and its function in Optics). You can see examples of these entities toward the end of this document above.

So, yes GE, this is "mundane", but there is something to learn there, and I suggest that you are capable of doing so, but are choosing not to.

I read the article that you indicated.
"Detecting the colours of darkness"
This is dealing with optical phenomena and human psychological color perception. It is an interesting effect but it is to be expected from an analysis of the vortices. The green frequency is suppressed due to a vortex action in the Airy Disks or due to "defects created" by OAM. I agree the vorticies are an interesting phenomenon and it is important to understand this as a modification of the spatial refractive index.
Light Beams in High-Order Modes
These are zones of actual spatial forces and I have discussed these at length previously on this thread (I think) otherwise it was on an allied thread. The technology has been used as "optical tweezers" and forces at a distance. I see nothing about color mixing here and there is nothing mystical when we move from monochromatic sources of light to polychromatic sources which is what that topics about... Naturally polychromatic sources will have different standing wave patterns for each different frequency of the light simultaneously and these are a superposition state. This is a long way from the straightforward DSE. I was hoping not to stray too far away from the single frequency experiment. It is not telling us anything about your mixing theory or am I missing something?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 11 2007, 02:53 PM

Hi Confused2,

Works fine for bubbles.. Bubble blowing is not Electromagnetism and you need to upgrade your thinking about "bubbles" to "waves". I have made some statements, in my previous post to TRoc about the way the impulse in more than one dimension may be interpreted (see illustration). The other possible Spherical Harmonics can be seen on Wolfram Research's Site (I have shown them here in full already). I think it would be better for you to direct your efforts toward a sophisticated way to deal with "sources" rather than to stretch the bubble analogy beyond it's elastic limit. I told everyone not to push the point too far at the time. The "source" in the analogy is not blowing single bubbles, it is a bubble blowing "machine", and if you do not have any experience of it you need to experience it first hand to understand the concept. The gentle act of blowing spawns dozens of similar sized bubbles, one after the other, and I am not referring to it in "single bubble mode". "Single bubble mode" is not the analogy I wish to pursue at this time. The dynamic is incorrect. The next point is the shape of bubbles is spherical not pancake shaped. One reason it does not immediately resemble the dipole is it is not a dipole... it is a monopole blowing single bubbles on one side of the hoop. One other good reason for this is the soap bubble is not traveling at the speed of light and forced on to the surface of the expanding light cone. One more good reason it is not the same as a photon is photons are "bosons" and bubbles are "fermions", bubbles as fermions do not "spread"... "here endeth the analogy".

More Dimensions.... To be or not to be. If there are to be more dimensions there are limited options. Where are quanta when we can't see them? Billions of photons can exist in space right in front of our nose but they are "invisible". They can all occupy the same space at the same time. In that respect the photon is multiply simultaneously occupying space this implies possible extra dimensions in a specifically limited way... for Bosons (not fermions). Until they are absorbed the energy of those photons also does not exist, unless there is a particle interaction they are unable to be observed or even measured... Not in our Universe anyway... because the energy can only be absorbed as a whole or not at all.. Quanta are on the other side of a quantum "wall" while they are "not here". This boson state is reciprocal to a particle state so it is possible to think of a photon as a reciprocal particle as well as a photon boson. We can "reach" these particles (as reciprocal waves) because they can penetrate our space according to de Broglies Hypothesis... that wave is its undoing. The boson photon's wavelength is also it's de Broglie wavelength, the only one we know of that is an electromagnetic wave and a de Broglie wave at the same time. The fermion particle's wavelength is the reciprocal wavelength (wavenumber) of an equivalent "trapped" photon. The wavelength of a quantum depends inversely on the particle's mass and velocity. For a given velocity the mass affects this particles influence in our Universe... Do you agree?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jun 11 2007, 03:13 PM

Hi Good Elf,

I'm keen to have a bubble day because I think it illuminates the problem rather well - in a way that my willful lack of clarity did not. The bubble as waves (or whatever) looks to me like a reasonable way of describing the probability of a photon interaction/transaction occurring.
We have the options
The bubble is a physical wave that is scooped up by the destination .. clearly the destination is not at the centre of the bubble so it would be hard for it to scoop it up with any precision.. time and geometry are against this option
The bubble is a physical wave that is cancelled by the source when a transaction is made .. the source is well placed to cancel the bubble but needs some dubious fiddling with time for this to work.
Other options
There is no bubble.

Best wishes - C2. (sorry about the short reply - must work now)

Hi Confused2,

The "bubble" is not an analogy for the quantum wave. It is clearly a particle. It really does not have wave properties other than it represents some kind of "stationary state". I will certainly agree that there is no "bubble"...

Cheers

Hi GE and All,

They exist, they are just not "time relevant" until detected (absorbed).

Isn't this inferring that the EM field package "size" of a discrete photon
corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength? Does't the insist on boundary conditions
for the EM fields?

A quick question. When an electron with a fixed velocity in vacuum strikes a
phosphorous atom (or molecule), how many photon's are emitted as the electron
is absorbed?

LL

Hi Laserlight et al,

They certainly exist "somewhere" but if they are currently making on contribution to our Universe then they are invisible. They could be coming from the past or the future but we know nothing of their origin. I think that our preferred position of seeing events with the arrow of time pointing positive leads to events such as the existence of positrons being interpreted as a separate particle to electrons rather than the positron being an electron traveling back in time. In the same way we probably see photons in the same context as traveling from the past to the future even though we do not see them "traveling". Just making a point about the lack of locality for individual photons and their position until detected.

Think about it... Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory has an inbuilt answer for antimatter doesn't it? Antimatter is just matter traveling back in time and the asymmetry in time is very small and almost everything seems to be heading into the future but interpreted as an asymmetry in space it seems there should be 50/50 matter and antimatter. If Wheeler Feynman is right then the answer is antimatter is just mirror matter traveling back in time. The state of this asymmetry is only temporary, isn't it, taken one transaction at a time?

Hmm... A zinc sulphide molecule with a Copper activator is what is usually on a conventional Phosphor Screen. The electron is not absorbed (at least not permanently), it is just scattered by the material. The electrons go on to complete the current loop. Depends on the energy of the electron and how inelastic the process is. More energy... more photons of a fixed wavelength. That is a pretty chaotic process. I suspect it has been analyzed to some extent but I m not sure who...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor
This has nothing much to do with the DSE (I hope)?

Cheers

Hi all,


I glad to see everybody posting "good stuff". Also, before I forget again, (C2 reminded me) "Welcome back WN?" I was literally just thinking of you (if you were still around) the day before you posted.


I don't have time to contribute much; I want to address a couple of question/statements, and link a few more references.


JR-

You are the first to acknowledge this right off, and I can see that you have a similar "varied" background as myself. Because of this format, I guess that you'll just have to trust me, when I say "I already have" read and studied all about Sound and Light, in regards to human perception.

Again, this is NOT what I am talking about (or wish to on this thread).

Sub-Atomic Physics. Possibly without QM.

So, I think that we will agree that there is NO transition that corresponds to "magenta". It very likely is only something that we can observe. If you say that it happens in the eye, that is one thing. IF this "mixing" is happening at the surface of an object, then we may have something else.

I will not "disallow" an observation, simply because it came through a human eye. What would be left of Science if we did that? How far would we be without all of the individual theories, that we now use daily (and take for granted), if everyone who studied the "rainbow" (Franhoffer) spectrum immediately stopped because it was just "human perception"? The answer is shocking: we would have NOTHING that we have today. The same thing can be said of the study of music: we would NOT be where we are today without it.

No disagreement there. In fact. I'll remind everyone again, that BLACK and WHITE FRINGES are NOT there! There are no black or white atomic transitions either! The fringe pattern IS HUMAN PERCEPTION. So, if you disallow that, we have NO DSE.


More reading on "black light sandwhich": "Black polarization sandwiches are square roots of zero"


Black, White, and Color and the relations with phase singularity/optical vortex/intensity zeros/

"Exploring the colours of dark light"

"Coloured phase singularities"

"Much ado about nothing: optical dislocation lines (phase singularities. zeros, vortices...) "

"Black-and-white fringes and the colors of caustics "



WN?-

I'm not sure if I totally understand your question. Interpreting the "Resonance matrix" is ongoing; I tend to look at it in a more "dimensionless" way (scalar). It is not ONLY frequency (as you stated, but I though you knew?), it is wavelength too. That is where the symmetry comes from, with the constant product of all "pairs" being c . C2 also asked about "units of time". It wouldn't matter what unit you plug in, because it is a scaling factor.

As far as an expanding sphere, if you start from the center of the matrix (not the numerical beginning), you have to move EQUALLY to get your value pairs (f & w ), so THAT can be an analogy of orthogonal radius expansion, so that, while the energy increases with frequency, so does the "distance" between f and w. This can mean that the expanding sphere is "borrowing" (or storing) energy, and then transferring it to the resonant point of collapse. Since very high energies would then infer very large radius, then the interaction zone between sender and receiver is also quite large, meaning that any "transaction wave" (reverse) from the receiver, does NOT have to go far, and has this large "potential field" as a "waveguide" of sorts, telling it "where to go" by following this potential field path that leads back to the sender.

Just think of "energy density" behaving like "mass density": the black hole already exists, and has a fixed event horizon. Our atom also has a fixed energy level, BEFORE it is put into an excited state. This energy MUST come from outside (the zero point energy of free space) the atom; and this is what I mean by "borrowing" energy from "space". The sphere that it borrows from will encompass the receiver; the "energetic event horizon". As the energy "collapses" from space to sender, it creates a filament waveguide (pilot wave) between resonant points.


regards,

T.Roc

Hi GE,

How do you arrive at this conclusion. That would infer that antimatter travels
faster than the speed of light, which would mean that antimatter has the qualities of relativistic mass but is not a physical form of invariant mass. By inference
that says that antimatter is pure energy moving faster than the speed of light...
mc^2.

From our frame of reference, energy travels at the speed of light, so there
is some inconsistency in the logic.
----

Regarding the dynamics of an electron yielding a photon(s) when colliding with
a phosphor... In order for a photon to be emitted the electron must be disturbing
the steady state of the atom, by either ejecting another electron from its orbit
and taking its place and falling into the orbital of the atom which emits a single
photon, or it is disturbing multiple atoms and transferring its energy component
to several atoms yielding multiple photons.

I am trying to associate the energy in an electron to the energy in a photon,
and I realize that momentum plays a part in the reaction.

We don't need to pursue this...

LL