Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Montec,

The essence of "waves" is not in their "bulk" properties but in their "discrete" properties. It is an accident of history that we discovered "waves" as bulk phenomenon instead of "wavelets" which pack a quantum of energy. Measurements of "bulk"properties tell us nothing of the discrete properties and is a kind of "false security". As I said in my last post.... the wording "constructive and destructive" are misleading... what we should say is "sum or subtract... vectorwise". This means that a "zero" is only a local zero and as long as it is "not sampled" to see just what it is, it really has any value you want it to be like Schrodinger's Cat. The next point is since waves are "apparently" made up of large numbers of co-moving photons (I am assuming coherent light here), there is absolutely no information regarding "existence or non-existence" unless you make measurements. Once you make the measurement that particular group of photons you "sampled" are no longer "coherent" and will not partake in an orderly interference pattern. This is a real "spoiler" with regards to "logic" since what we want to say is "what happens next".

Answer what is the "discrete" property of photons in waves, that is fundamental, then explain the bulk property of photons in terms of thosediscrete properties. This is what I try and do.

Intensity is just a measurement made with a particular kind of sensor.... in some respects similar to our eyes. People say seeing is believing... not for me. In "our world" if you have a enclosed room and you place an observer at the door to count who goes into the room, the number of individuals who enter the room is the number of people in the room. Light is not like that. If the vectors of the electric and magnetic field at the door sum to zero our doorkeeper counts a big zero entering the room. Yet this could be simply a billion photon fields vectorially summing instantaneously to zero then sneaking past the doorkeeper. Alternatively the doorkeeper counts 10 of them and does not see the other 999,990 that snuck through at the same time.

The continuous wave is not what is the important issue here, the radiant traveling energy is composed of many individual "synchronous" photons which act independently (absorbed or reflected etc.).... They are just all traveling on the same "bus" (single boson quantum state obeying Bose-Einstein Statistics). The nature of the quantum is such that we are not allowed to "peek" and then be allowed to think this is all there is to "Life, the Universe and Everything". For instance with EIT (Electromagnetically Induced Transparency) a stimulating EM beam "keeps the door open" through certain normally opaque matter, allowing as many co-moving photons to penetrate, without any opposition, a thick block of "solid" light blocking material almost as far as they want. Seeing is not believing. Another example regarding superposition is that a plane polarized beam of coherent light can still pass through a left or right circular polarizer losing only 1/2 the intensity. Common sense suggests that plane polarization should stop any circular polarizations... not so. These "effects" are all phenomenon associated with the Boson state which is not the same as fermion states (such as those that involve electrons).

I sense you had another point to make but did not ask? Am I right?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jul 12 2007, 10:16 PM

Hello!
This is what is being done to try to understand "waves".
There might be some information in this paper that might help with what you are doing.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs...-pub-12632.html
SLAC-PUB-12632
Novel QCD Phenomena
Stanley J. Brodsky∗†
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94309
june 2007
---------
jal

Awesome, awesome, awesome link jal! Thanks. Inside out is outside in! GE is gonna love this... though think there are not enough D.

Hi Jal, Why Not? and all,

That was a very interesting paper Jal, Why Not? is right to suggest that it is interesting with "AdS-CFT Theory etc in it. Unfortunately it is QCD and is currently beyond my ability to fully comprehend. This is the realm of the Super Colliders and I am prepared to wait and see what comes from that investigation. Many concepts are very deep and beyond proof for me at this stage... Not that I disagree... I would have to say that like QED the predictions are probably "spot on" within the paradigm. For me the high energy particle paradigm is asking the "wrong questions" but they are valid questions that someone will ask someday.

QCD is another level which is full of quantum rules that are comparatively "meaningless" and the double cover using the particle paradigm is "a world of it's own". I maintain that QCD is a "similar theory" to QED but embedded totally within our existing QED framework... a double cover and a particle theory to boot. I stop at QED where I am barely able to get some handle on the issue. Spacetime is not "simply connected" and it is far from Abelian so it is certainly "way out there" and it is a job for the most powerful computers not "elves".

IMHO the connection according to my theory is "holographic".... this has no place in this doubly covered particle theory as it presently stands... and while it should be a doddle for some bright person it certainly is not for me. I will try to stick to optical bench tops and little mirrors and crystals and experimental results where "I think" I understand what is happening. It is best for me to keep a handle on experiment and not to stretch some imaginary link beyond the level where it presently can be understood.

Our QCD is the QED of the sub-atomic realm. Our QED is the QCD of a "Super-Universe" where everything we are and have known is a single quanta floating in a near endless sea of similar quanta.

or as Wizards and Alchemists once said...
"As above ... So below".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jul 13 2007, 11:36 AM

Good Day All!
Wanting to understand "waves" is still a priority.
The experiments have moved down to the level of QCD.
With the level of education of the participants of this thread, the learning curve will be easier than for most people.

Get out of the "time warp". The new experiments can be understood by those who learn the language being used in the new experiments.
Just remember that everything that we can detect is within the "drip line".
We have no way of verifying what is happening between the emmitted and the absorber because when we insert a probe inbetween it then becomes an absorber.
This applies to macro and micro distances.
QCD uses a "bag model" however, we do not know What is in the "bag". Is it the whole nucleon ..... a proton .... a neutron .... quarks .... gluons ....????
Do they affect each other like many bags in proximity? How do they interact?
Are waves real?
This is the frontier of science. This is the frontier of our knowledge.
jal

insert: info on "drip line"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0312/0312003v3.pdf
Standard Model Masses and Models of Nuclei
Alejandro Rivero
10 May 2004


This post has been edited by jal on Jul 13 2007, 03:48 PM

Interesting article on Plasmon's

"On a wire or in a fiber, a wave is a wave"

http://www.physorg.com/news103548765.html

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 13 2007, 10:53 PM

Hi Jal,

Get out of the "time warp". The new experiments can be understood by those who learn the language being used in the new experiments. Just remember that everything that we can detect is within the "drip line". Wanting to understand "waves" is still a priority. The experiments have moved down to the level of QCD. With the level of education of the participants of this thread, the learning curve will be easier than for most people.

The Forum is wisely divided into topics and then into threads. While I understand there is a continuation down to QCD from QED, I am not prepared to use the current QED Paradigm to explore an "embedding" of the that defunct QED Paradigm to "explore" QCD, a topic I cannot currently express in terms of "an advanced optics". There is an explanation but I leave it for you to discuss at this stage. I am not saying some things will not be learned... some things will be learned but it is more important how this information is incorporated into the base knowledge than the knowledge itself. It is like the story of Pandora... We have the ability to open the box but just because we can does not mean we should without taking some precautions since it is more difficult to unscramble scrambled eggs than to hatch an egg that has not been scrambled. This thread is about the Double Slit Experiment not QCD. I am sure you will find a thread that relates to QCD. What relates to the DSE is QED... Quantum Electrodynamics not QCD... Quantum Chromodynamics does not apply in this "realm".

As you have stated you may not know "what is in the bag" with QCD... take my word for it that I am prepared to leave in the bag what may be found there for the time being and work on examining the "bag" itself which is QED. It is precisely for that reason I am working with this level of the theory that I believe is deeply flawed. Without the correct tool you will obtain little mastery over the next level of the Universe. The only mastery we seem to be getting is that of a child with a big hammer. My methodology is trying to work more like a "craftsperson" and build a "pocketwatch" with tools we can actually access on a benchtop. I have said this before... all the applications will be at the level of the QED not at the level of QCD. There are not going to be hand held QCD Higg's Generators capable of punching holes in our continuum for a very long time. Access to advanced technology for the sustained future will be at the QED level and this will provide you with all your "wildest dreams" and much more right now. I do not mean more "IPods". What I mean is Theories of Everything starts and stops with QED being incorporated into a higher dimensional holographic optical theory... that is what I am doing (nobody else is currently doing exactly what I do).... With "that theory" everything becomes "Electromagnetics".... This includes Gravity as a pseudo-force and also the problems and advantges of "higher dimensions" which I maintain are nothing to do with Planck Length Scale. These are accessible from the benchtop not high energy atom smashers. Mankind is currently running blind "down a long staircase into the unlit basement of our Universe" and many of the steps are still missing. I am trying, against all odds, to put those steps in place before mankind stumbles or is lost in that darkness.

The answer to "Life the Universe and Everything" is not always "Get a bigger hammer and hit a lot harder"... For me the answer is "Get the right screwdriver and you can disassemble 'natures pocketwatch'". I am not "obsessed" with force and power or in building Cathedrals of Technology, I am interested in understanding "questions". I am not involved with some kind of Technological Arms Race to find the next most powerful "Weapon of Mass Destruction"... I am into something quite apart from that.

The absolutely most important observation we can make is not what is the highest speed you can push a particle... It is de Broglie's question as to what is the slowest velocity a particle can go and why (...the folding on V = 0 or V= C duality). The relationship between Einsteins Special Relativity and de Broglie's Matter Wave Relationships... the "low velocity end of the Universe". This demonstrates that the harder we push the less we really know about a most important point about our Universe and why it is here.

Horses for courses Jal... But first shoe your horse.

Cheers

Hi Laserlight,

Yes that is a very interseting article on Plasmons... Notice the comment at the end..

This is "advanced optics" but we need to see that surface plasmons (or SPP - surface plasmon polaritons) affect slits but when you do not have metal slits there will not be any surface plasmons. The DSE will still occur without Plasmons but Plasmons have an influence on the DSE for sure, the range and influence is still a big question.
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_B...-08/07-005.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1439v1.pdf
This last reference immediately above is very well illustrated and explains what these things look like and what their scale is as well. Well worth discussions.

I would state right here that SPP only occurs near the surface of metal films with perforations that are immersed in a "medium" like air or water... they do not occur in a vacuum as I understand it.

Here is the experiment...
http://origin.www.nature.com/nnano/journal...007.185_F1.html

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jul 14 2007, 02:19 AM

Hi GE,

I am giving credibiltiy to the concept that nearly all materials form oxides on their
surfaces, which are dipolar materials. Some exotic noble materials may not
oxidize, but most elements do form an oxide coating that enhances polariton
development. The key, is a resonance response of surface dipoles to an
externally applied EM field. Keep in mind, that even a single slit has the effect
of taking a planar EM wavefront, and diffracting it, turning it into a spherical
wavefront. It is likely that there is an induced resonance response between the
surface EM fields of the cavity area of the slit, and the EM fields of the arriving
coherent photons. IMO, these surface polariton fields produce an optical field
effect that changes the local refractive index, which causes phase changes in
the photons in closest proximity to the surfaces. This creates a focal point
effect for that slit, where everything beyond the focal point starts spreading
in spherical wavefronts. The DSE is the common wave superposition/wave
summation phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton



http://www.physorg.com/news103469279.html

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 14 2007, 03:26 AM

Hi Laserlight,

This is in general true... SPP can increase the transmission of photons through DSE slits like an optical waveguide. This of course is an effect that is limited to the surface of the metal. It does not extend into free space too far ... only around a short wavelength of light which can be much smaller than the gap in the slits in the DSE. As to the modifying of the RI, this does happen through very normal means since there is a gas there and its properties depend the near field on the metal surface. As I have been saying the more interesting phenomenon (for me) is distant phenomena away from the slits where the RI is changed in free space due to EM defects as stated by Taco Visser. These RI changes occur in free space in a vacuum. This is a far more useful property. I am not trying to understate SPP but I am pointing to the other far more interesting phenomena. As to SPP being the cause of DSE... I would not accept that since it occurs in non-metallic slits and also in a vacuum.

Cheers

Hi all,

Is there more? Why would spherical and plane wave interference be different than spherical/spherical or plane/plane interference? They both are described by a constant difference. Or, are you talking about the "change" from spherical to planer, & vice versa?

If the plane wave is an abstract concept (not that it is not, it is just that SO is everything else, so why would this stand out?), then what is Science describing when it uses this definition in theory AND experiments?

You're suggesting that Huygens principle is invalid, from my understanding of your statement.

Are you also suggesting that we can NOT have a "complex" wave envelope, with more than one frequency, and more than one curvature?



regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

Every wave is actually curved. You can have a mathematical simplification by ignoring curvature and this gives mathematically more simple answers. This was real good when you worked on paper with a slide rule that had only four significant figures. It made sense that all the mechanical operations were reduced. Today we have computers that accept very complex programs that work to 30 significant figures if required. All this without having to do any calculations in practice.

Summary... even if light comes from Alpha Centauri it still has wavefront curvature. The further the source is away the more like a planar solution it becomes. The principle of superposition says that you simply superimpose the wavefronts from all the sources to obtain the solution. There are no sources of plane waves... only sources which originate from dipole emitters (maybe 1/2 wave emitters etc... but no actual plane wave emitters.

"What science is describing" is the older way in which things were done where accuracy was at the 1% level was considered as being very good. Nothing like actually reading up on these topics to be able to understand what is described. People are making statements and saying things without a single reference so what am I to do. You know the adage .... Garbage in... Garbage out.

If you really think there is something in these statements then give me a substantial reference... there have been none so far. I have no idea what you are on about ... please construct a sentence that means something to more people.

Cheers

Hi Good Elf, TRoc, Laserlight, Montec, Jal et al,

IMHO

To explain the DSE result all one needs to do is explain what happens when you have two paths to the same point. Diffraction and the slits in general are merely incidental to creating those two paths. Creating two paths using mirrors * produces the same result as the DSE so explaining one will explain the other. An explanation for one but not the other is an indication that the real problem has not been addressed.

Best wishes - C2.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Edit .. the same 'problem' exists for all EM interactions .. using monochromatic/coherent light simply makes the effect easier to observe.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jul 14 2007, 10:17 AM

Good Day!

It seems to me that this is a premature conclusion.

I've shown you the water ..... have a drink whenever you are ready.
jal

Hi GE,

IMO, you are disregarding the natural native oxide build up on the exposed
surfaces of nearly all materials that increases the active number of dielectric
dipoles available to generate surface fields. The more dipoles available, per
unit area, the higher the refractive index. The higher the refractive index, the
more influence and the wider the diffraction/spreading of the wavefront, as can
be observed in the case of narrower slits.



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

Same wave source, the only obvious variable is the slit width. This change
of geometric ratio, between the light waves and the slits, also changes the
refractive index within the slit cavity. Why?

Obviously, the refractive index of the slit cavity is affected by its width and it's
associated surface electrical fields, which have a stronger influence on passing
photons when the fields are concentrated. The surface E fields have been
concentrated by being brought into close proximity, which exerts a stronger
influence on passing photon wave fields and phase angles.

We also know that sharp edges concentrate surface fields along the edge
boundaries, and generate a higher field strength along the edge, because there is
more exposed angular surface area in that locality, than a flat surface possesses.
We know and use this phenomenon as a point source "radiator" that provides
focal control, as in the emitter of a scanning electron microscope, or any high
resolution imaging source where point sources are used to improve/focus
image resolution.


Polarization of dielectric.

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

TD Visser paper-
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/jump.pdf


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jul 14 2007, 03:25 PM