Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

I'm not set in any particular interpretation of how it relates to particle motion, being a coupled system makes cause and effect hard to determine. I do believe that it is a factor though, it can possibly provide a mechanism for the resonance you describe, after all.

I'll have to take another look at your interpretation of gravity.

I took a look and our interpretations of gravity are very close. I found most of my material on SED looking for a way to describe it. The SED Gravity described in most of the papers is described in terms that are opposite to what I initially had in mind, but the end result was identical so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, thanks for taking interest. It's nice to get the perspective of people who have a bit of a background in physics. I've been approaching the problem as an analyst, looking for structure and equivalences in the existing theoretical framework. I lack the background necessary for a deeper analysis, so feedback from someone in the know is appreciated.

This post has been edited by Wulf on Jul 5 2007, 05:52 AM

Hi Wulf,

It was kind of you to say that, but I defer to others with more formal, high level,
physics training.

LL

Hi all,


Wulf, that was a very good paper; thanks for the link!

I am familiar with SED (we have discussed it a bit a couple of times on this thread, I think), and have followed it for a couple of years. This is the first time I've heard of the "LSED" version. It sounds like they have corrected a few problems that it had before.

This LSED is the closest thing that I've seen to my approach, and supports the ideas I've been talking about. As they state, answering the problem entirely within the framework of QM is basically impossible: too many inputs (circular reasoning), and too many inconsistencies in logic. However, the math here, combined with the full approach of 4WM can wade through this, I believe.


I recommend reading this to everyone.


regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

4 wave mixing, or 3 wave mixing at the confluence of the slits? How does
this induce refractive index changes, or a medium change in that locality?

At the atomic dipole and photon frequency levels, isn't there just 2 wave
(frequency) mixing taking place?

Please explain/develop your conceptual idea(s) further, with a verbal model.

Thanks,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 5 2007, 06:28 PM

Good article:

http://www.physorg.com/news102850833.html

What isn't shown, but is implied in the illustrations, is the semi-parabola that is
generated as a consequence of acceleration.



If you recall my illustration of circular angular rotation as it relates to a 2D plane,
this is the result of that when the inertial frame of reference, showing that an
increase in distance and/or acceleration, varies as a consequence of time.



We get a "warped" space as a consequence of acceleration, and a change in
phase angle as a result of a linear change in position along a fixed reference axis.
This is stretching time....time dilation from an inertial reference point.

They are reciprocal variables. This is good stuff!!

Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 5 2007, 06:51 PM

Hi Laserlight et al,

Just to finish off bubbles..

Hopefully we agree we can divide things up into source, grey and black. At the atomic scale we can't really make a mirror .. but let's assume we can.

Can you reproduce the DSE pattern even at one frequency using source, grey and black (and a mirror if you insist)?
Even if you could do it then it would only work at one frequency.
Conclusion (inevitable?) - its all done by the holes/slits and the distances between them. I suggest that creating two paths to the same point is all that really matters.

Minor point of interest..
Wavelength of light = 600nm
Diameter of atom 0.1 to 0.5 nm ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelPhillip.shtml )
Dipole?

Best wishes - C2.

I appreciate (LL) you aren't happy with my concept of a 'black' surface .. could you accept that for the purposes of the DSE you can have a region that doesn't radiate at the frequency of interest and therefore does not contribute to the DSE pattern?

Hi C2,

Wait just a minute.....We have already agreed that pathlength and the formula's
work. No argument from anyone on that issue. Path length is part of the
formula, phase angle at the point of mixing is another part. Geometry is
the mathematical aspect that determines the intersection of plane vectors, where
the phases meet across 3 coordinate planes (dimensions) at fixed points in time.

Do you not see that the atom's of the screen are necessary to detect and re-emit
the individual photons that are arriving en masse, and in phase, over a relatively
wide band area? If there were no screen to detect and re-emit the photons, you
would never see any signal mixing and no DSE result. The light waves would
merely pass thru each other with no net affect.

It is only when the waves are mixed in the presence of matter that the results of
that superposition are observed and can be measured. The waves from the two
slit sources are passing thru each other many times enroute to the screen, with no
resultant interference measurables prior to contacting the screen.

This is why you see no interference, or signal loss (in vacuum) when two light
beams pass thru each other. There is nothing physically there to mix the waves,
which are merely energy. There is no physical displacement, which is a result of
mixing, that only occurs in the presence of matter. I have argued this previously.
----

What has grey and black got to do with anything? I am really missing your
intentions on pursuing this line of logic? Grey or black have little to no bearing
on the results of the DSE, other than contrast/intensity of the reflected signal. If
you have a white screen it will provide better contrast than a black screen would,
depending upon the color/frequency being viewed.
-----

Regarding using a single frequency of light and a mirror to make an interference
pattern. Yes, we can demonstrate an interference pattern by shining a laser at
the mirror at an angle. Take your laser pointer into a darkened bathroom and
shine it at the mirror, at some angle other than 90 degrees, and look at the pattern
that reflects onto the wall. Hold the laser pointer 2 feet from the mirror. You will
see a "pattern" due to the separate interfaces of the mirror. Now put something
black as the screen material. You still see the pattern, only it has reduced
intensity/contrast.
------

At points of destructive superposition interference (dark bands) there is no net
energy being added to the atoms of the screen, due to wave signal "cancellation".

There is no additive energy/frequency component being absorbed and re-emitted
by the atoms of the screen at those destructive interference bands.

What is your point?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 5 2007, 09:10 PM

Hey C2,

Let me ask you a couple of questions that are relevant to the ongoing argument.

If the incident wavefront into the slits is a planar wave, why does it turn into a
spherical wave after the slits?

Why does the width of the interference pattern vary inversely with the slit width?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c2

Comments?
LL

Hi LL,

Originally it was to attempt to expose 'resonance' theories to some sort of analysis. Later to attempt to concentrate (some) minds on the holes rather than the plasmons which come round again every few months.

I agree there is a serious problem with my analysis. A white screen 'reveals' the interference effect whereas a mirror does not.

I'll restate the model

Black absorbs everything and radiates nothing (nothing to do with whether or not there is a signal there) a theoretical 'black body' surface .
Mirror reflects all incident radiation with angle of reflection = angle of incidence.
White reflects everything but at a random angle.
Grey is a combination of black and white.
Do we agree that a mirror does not reveal the interference whereas a white screen does? - and the difference is?

Best wishes - C2.

Hi LL,
Easiest first..
Why does the width of the interference pattern vary inversely with the slit width?
From the diagram at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...raungeo.html#c1
Bearing in mind that sin(theta) = opposite / hypoteneuse
delta = the difference in path length between the top of the slit and the bottom of the slit
(1) delta = a sin (theta)
At the screen the angle to a point (y) on the screen is given by D sin(theta)
(2) y = D sin(theta)
From (1)
sin(theta) = delta/a
From (2)
sin(theta) = y/D
Equating (1) and (2)
(3) y/D = delta/a
MBS by D
(4) y = D delta / a
the first minimum occurs where delta = lambda/2 (where lambda is the wavelength)
hence
y = D lambda /(2a)
In words ..
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the wavelength
the width of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the distance to the screen
the width of the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the slit width.

In reality we should have integrated over the width of the slit in a smooth manner .. but the result will be the same as the above simple analysis.
The rest of the answers are a consequence of the same type of simple (1.0) geometry (with a few approximations) and will follow as I get round to them.
Best wishes - C2.

Edit .. there may or may not be deliberate mistakes.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jul 5 2007, 11:26 PM

C2,

This is a good argument! At least it has a point that we are discussing.

I guess the question that you are asking is, "are the atoms of the mirror being
stimulated by the radiation that is impinging upon them, and is there absorption
and re-emission taking place in the form of the mixed DSE pattern?"

Are you assuming that the EM waves just bounce off the surface with no physical
interaction?

For a glass mirror, we know that ultrapure glass is transparent to the visible
spectrum of EM wave energy, so it is unlikely that mixing takes place in that
medium since it doesn't have absorbant properties. We do know that photon
waves change speed and slow down while in the glass medium, due to the
difference of refractive index between glass and "space".

The question is do the waves interfere at the physical surface interface between
the glass and the silver backing. We are not seeing the interference result at the
mirror, but it IS there, because it is a physical point of mixing for superposed
waves across a photo reactive medium.

The resultant interference image that is produced is being reflected at some
complementary angle to the angle of incidence, and would be visible, but
expanded in size, and the image would be reversed along the plane of view, if the
reflection is projected onto a screen. Consider what would happen if you were
to project a movie onto a mirror, the image would reverse and expand
according to the ISL, when viewed at a distant screen at the complementary angle.

If you project an image onto a mirror, the mirror acts like a new source
and inverts the incident phase angle by 180 degrees from the normal.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/U13L1d.html

Comments? Discussion? Other perspectives?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 6 2007, 12:00 AM

Hi LL,

I'm not sure we are of one mind in the matter of interference. Looking at smartassanswers ( http://ask.metafilter.com/16550/Why-does-laser-light ) we see

Ideally I would set up my DSE thing and see what it looks like through a mirror. My bet is that you'd get a back of the eyeball effect which is quite different to the 'looking at the pretty pattern' effect .. not least because one goes one way all the time and the other goes one way when you move your head and you are short sighted and the other if you are the other. Enough of this madness for tonight. Must sleep.
Best wishes - C2.

Hi C2 and All,

Well, the math is nice, but it says nothing about the physics taking place that
gives rise to the mathematical description.

Do you agree that the waves are interacting with the physical nature of the slit(s)?

Yes, there is a geometrical relationship at work, but what is the PHYSICAL cause
that makes it all happen? It isn't a spontaneous event. There is cause and effect
that needs to be explained. That is the physics, not the math.

As has been pointed out, plasmons are indigenous to metals, however, surface
polaritons are indigenous to all physical materials that have atomic structure.

In other words, matter will respond to EM fields that impinge upon it, but there will
be different results according to the energy levels and frequencies involved in
the reaction.

As a point of interest, white surfaces are reflecting all visible frequencies. Black
surfaces absorb all visible frequencies, up to the ability of the atoms to convert
and radiate (re-emit) those visible frequencies at a higher IR wavelength.

Comments?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 6 2007, 12:56 AM

Hello Laserlight, Confused2, et al.

Look at this image.

The top is from a double slit. The bottom is from five slits.

Notice there is no light (photon energy) between the bright spots where we have destructive interference. Can you explain how the energy (photon) is moved through space where there are no EM field vectors? EM field vectors are needed to move energy through space. If there is no frequency how can you expect to have energy transport. The energy (photon) is the boson not the EM wave. The EM wave is the transport mechanism.

So you do not need a viewing plate to see interference from a double slit. A 3D vapor area would show a radial (from above) view of light beams emanating from the double or multiple slits. More slits will narrow the beam widths as shown in the above image.

Discussion is welcome

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

I have been quite ill for around a week and I am starting to revive now. Please do not expect too much at first.... I am still catching up.

Lets straighten out some ideas completely and lets hope we do not forget them in five minutes... Firstly I see a lot of "speculative" Physics as if "anything goes". Any idea seems acceptable to some on the basis that it feels good. Statements about "mirrors" and "black objects" and "grey" objects are "meaningless" unless you and those you are communicating these ideas with understand in what context there is a meaning. In fact what I can assure you is what is being said is not physics at all. The Universe is a quantum Universe and black body radiation at all frequencies is just not on. In the same way for the same reasons there is no reverse situation where there are black body absorbers. When these "models" are invoked it is an indication of totally ignoring quantum behavior and any statements about quantum behavior in these terms is pure "bunk". Everything "individually" is a "quantum harmonic oscillator". If you want to speak authoritatively about the quantum you can't use classic black body emitters and absorbers. It is precisely because sub-atomic entities are not black body absorbers that we have quantum behavior.

On the other hand there are perfect mirrors. Perfect quantum mirrors exist at individual frequencies, these occur when the photon is perfectly reflected. Only a "perfect reflection" is a mirror event... everything else is not a mirror event, quantum events cannot be half and half, they are perfect mirror events perfect transmission events or perfect absorber events... aside from EM soliton events which "slows the photon down and then re-emits it intact with its qubit... there are no other possible quantum events I know of. If the atom or sub-atomic state cannot absorb at that one frequency it will have a choice of reflecting or transmitting the photon... all of it or none of it. Aside from having an available and appropriate quantum state, the ability to reflect or transmit depends only on physical size... From these factors ... the resonant states of the system tells us if it is possible to absorb a particular photon.... the current occupancy or latency of the state tells us if it is currently blocking incoming photons of the same frequency... and from the physical size of the absorbing system you can determine if an incident photon is absorbed or reflected or transmitted through. What you cannot determine is if and when an incident photon will occur. In quantum mechanics this is forbidden knowledge yet almost always in the real world we want to know about specific events so quantum mechanics is way way over its head and incapable of any predictions except in generalities because quantum mechanics contains ABSOLUTELY NO PATH INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, in theories like Bohmian Mechanics this path information can be estimated but not necessarily known because this information refers to an interpretational space where the path may be satisfied by several classical trajectories to solve the dynamic equations. You will have even more problems if these states spawn further quantum states such as bright matter solitons or those null singular optical regions interconnected with instantons where there is topological charge and underspecified boundary conditions.

In all other respects it is very classical. We know a source's general locality such as a single quantum dot (we can cause this dot to emit singularly a single photon... one at a time within a certain period)... we know potentially where the photon is absorbed using a number of sensors, especially if they form a 2D array like that video camera interface... so using dynamics we can infer a path of least action after the event. You can try and force all this into 3D space but it will fail, especially when you consider the double slit experiment. This process does not fail if you consider this "space" as not being part of "our" three dimensional space. This is the stepping off point for higher dimensional theories. These quantum mechanics can argue all they like but they are unable to derive a single path using their theory and they need to "steal" from continuum theory to get realistic answers.

You might like to deal with this statistically but if this is a one off event QM is all at sea and incapable of any resolution and can say nothing about it. Other theories can provide answers after the fact. You need to look to these theories to gain any "real" answers.

You cannot view a quantum between the emission and the collapsed state. The whole point is if you "observe" the state it is no longer a quantum. In the "wave" state some "observations" can be used to limit some of the complementary variables or measurables of the systems. This should be thought of as narrowing the state but not defining it. Because if you define it as in the case of the DSE you force the photon through one slit or the other and then this has collapsed the state and is no longer a quantum state. My take on this is you have forced it to travel in our three dimensional space .... reduced dimensions.... This does not "harm" the photon ... it still has the energy of the original photon but it is no longer "coherent" with the source. This photon may still be of some use to you but it cannot be used for the original use ... such as the DSE. Does everyone "get" this?

I hope this helps put everyone back into a logical thinking mode and not a "free thinking" irrational mode. We cannot proceed with a lack of rationalism, we need to be entirely rational about this. Notice that I am dealing with the dual nature of the wave and the particle at the same time but I can only do this if they exist in separate dual spaces... the photon "particle" does not exist in the same place as the photon "wave"... they are separate spaces and are incompatible because they are conjugate...

... Click to enlarge...
Here we have a circularly symmetric Impulse function and the two dimensional circularly symmetric wave function associated with it (wave-particle duality). This is a two dimensional analog but "real" particles/impulses will have more dimensions, these dimensions are spatial as well as temporal. The two different representations cannot co-exist in the one 3D space but in different 3D spaces and these are as different as chalk and cheese... I can "almost" point to where these spaces are but I cannot show you what is "inside" them without collapsing them from higher quantum dimensions into our space through a process of "quantum demolition".

... Click to enlarge...
Where they "are" located relative to our space is "near" the "input plane" for the source, "near" the "transform plane" for the Fourier "input plane" dual, and "near" the "image plane" is an exact duplicate optically of the "input plane" rotated in space. Each of these "places" carry information from the previous source. These three planes refer to higher dimensional objects and if you "interfere" with them it collapses the states. To provide any results at all in the "real world" we need some output "image" where we collapse the arriving photons and destroy all qubits in that image (screen).

In general it can be considered that the impulse and the wave descriptions are similar and they are when you think of them this way as the optical "sources" and "sinks" being described in reciprocal domains. The domains are "equivalent" but certainly not the same. It is very difficult to measure them and their meaning must be an abstract one to be compared with the screen images that may be found there... In the case of the original source "we" usually choose a "picture" of something we know to transform. There is absolutely no physical reason, only a utilitarian reason to choose this we may choose the higher dimension complex spatial transform instead which looks more like this...

This is not the Fourier transform since a second image is required always and the two together form the Fourier Transform. This contains essential phase information that is not lost by this process and it is easily restored. In actual fact the source image we usually choose (a 2D picture) also has a complex "development" but through a mathematical "device" we can choose to use only the "phase free" image to create transforms. We have no current way to capture the full information about a real source without resorting to true holograms. This is an area of experimental research that I notice is not well developed... complex spatial descriptions of or normal universe are "ignored" to make things simple but without complex information source reconstruction is impossible. This is a philosophical as well as a practical area in which someone will get a Nobel Prize one day since this is aligned closely to complex wave functions.

This is the story regarding "photons" and their interactions ... this covers most of the physical Universe and most of its properties. It does not contain information about why everything is where it is, that is particle theory, and it does not speak about "radioactive processes" which has a time asymmetry that cannot be explained by QM. The particle concept can be handled by an extension of Quantum Electrodynamics to the realm of Quantum Chromodynamics... In my interpretation these are extensions of the same holographic theory to further embedded dimensions. Of course this is then at the level of matter waves which are far shorter than photon waves but similar in kind. Matter waves can go places photons cannot go.

The other aspect is "gravity" which is a pseudo-force. It is simply a symmetrized version of the electromagnetic wave function. The "forces" are those transferred by electromagnetism and its force carriers the photons not separate gravitons... In all their possible "wrappings" as particles. Until they "find" gravitons and even magnetic monopoles I will not believe in them. The "gravitons" I can quite confidently say can never be individually detected and proven to be separate from "photons". I predict that a pseudo-force will be possible that will have all the aspects of gravity and it will not be that far different from "twisted light", that we already fully understand, and can be used to "project" force" which is all that is necessary to satisfy the equivalence principle... That gravitational and inertial forces are equivalent.

A large scale matter wave imaging system (if it could be built) would "non-optically" duplicate the "matter source" in all it's extended properties such as has been performed with Kondo Phantoms at an atomic scale. As long as the source exists so does the image and whatever happens to the "image" can be as real an event as a meeting with your "matter wave" exact twin. "If you cut him does he not bleed?" Temporary particle(s) creation without actual energy input as long as the source remains. Because the "matter wave twin" is not necessarily connected with the photonic processes of the "original" and the two may have totally independent existences "as in the NIST experiments". Possibly a true "doppleganger". Now this may not be extended too far beyond several atoms but there is no reason to assume this has "natural limits".

Have a look at this as well as also very interesting...
Teleportation method proposed by Australian scientists

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jul 6 2007, 05:20 AM