Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

C2,

I am never in denial mode. Denial is a river in Egypt.

However, I do question "conventional" thinking, when logic dictates that accepted
truths are "flawed", or incomplete in their explanation. I am offering
viable alternatives. It is up to you to decide if you accept, or reject them.

Just because everyone insists that the world is flat, why should I tacitly agree?

I wonder how those "flatworlder's" dealt with having their belief system crushed?
"They be snakes, and monsters, and sich at the edge of the world".


Just an observation, you are becoming "crotchety" in your old age.

LL

yquantum!
Yes, I can see that a lot of people would have trouble with it.
The glass is 1/2 full.
It helps Good Elf, LL, C2, TRoc and ME.
Relax ..... read a couple of papers from an icon of mine.
Reading Gerard 't Hooft’s papers is like reading a corporate statement or a vision statement. Well worth the effort.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4572
The Grand View of Physics
Gerard 't Hooft

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4568
Emergent Quantum Mechanics and Emergent Symmetries
Gerard 't Hooft

Hi TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", yquantum, Jal, Confused2, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,

I am glad we are on good terms again... I have been a bit of a "grouchy garden gnome" lately rather than 'good elf". Your statement...

No vacuum there.

I agree but I was relying on the fact that many laboratory instruments have interferometers inbuilt into them and the use of gratings and slits under "hard" vacuums only improve the reproducibility of the effect. For instance one really big and obvious case of an "evacuated" Michelson Morley Interferometer is this one...
How cryogenics improves the detection of gravitational waves
These use evacuated MM Interferometers to track the distortions in space time through the instrument. These distortions are of the order of sensitivity around ∆x / x ~ 10^-24. You got to admit if there was a problem it would show up there. Now this is not the DSE but I do not expect that to be any problem ... it is simply just another optical interference experiment and I have seen "hard" evacuated systems with etched silvered glass gratings work "very well" and a grating is just a replication of a single DSE a very large number of times...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...pt/gratcal.html
One of the first problems Michelson and Morley would have asked is if the material "Aether" could be pumped out of a vessel... obviously it cannot be but an investigation of that aspect would have occurred "first up". The argument was the Aether material was "too fine" to simply pump out of a system since it was made of something "much finer" and "lighter" than a gas and could pass through the walls of all vessels effortlessly.

It is a technical point since plane waves infer far field and really interference is a function of the nearer Fresnel source effect. The slits/pinholes are close to the the screen and there is considerable curvature in the wavefronts there. In such a case we have interference since the distances from one slit and the other slit are sufficient to create "vacuoles" in the space as I have stated. If the waves were plane waves in the very far field the differences between the paths will no longer be able to be different by 1/2 a wavelength.... the vacuoles "disappear" in "empty vacuous space" far from matter sources in the way way out far field. Another way to look at this phenomenon is through Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory but since we can't see waves approaching from the future (even if they are there) a good story includes a retarded wave explanation. The approaching waves from the primary source side also have vacuoles due to 1/2 wavelength differences in paths due to extended sources. Of course these effects in the "open space" are not a part of the DSE, being blocked by the "non-slit" regions, so we can forget these influences for now. In any "free standing primary sources are used then we will need a better story. The other important point is "plane waves" cannot partake in the ISL.

You have said that RI (refractive Index of a vacuum) is the cause for spreading but I do not accept that believing it is the influence of a primary or secondary source. This Fourier transform does not rely on RI. The spreading is due to this transform and finite aperture of the slit/pinhole or lens.... or it may be due to optical focusing effects as well. In the case of pinholes it is due only to the transform originating from the secondary source plane (imperfect as it is). You are right about the side lobes radiating from the (secondary or primary) sources. No emitter of radiation can actually suppress them altogether. While I agree that "wave packets" contain higher frequencies of radiation which "sculpt" the photon and truncate it in the time domain, these additional "packet" frequencies cannot be separately dispersed when you apply a prism to the light and they are incorporated/bundled in the equation E = hf. The dispersion you are seeing in the DSE is spatial not temporal so unless you are deliberately using/creating several different frequency photons there are no "colors" other than the base "color".

These extra frequencies will be there as upper sidebands clustering around the base "harmonic". I think this will appear as line broadening when a "free" photon and exhibit "fine structure" when a "trapped" photon. This point is of interest to me if anyone should know more about this finer point please say so (with a reference). I would point to the recent post in which I discuss the fine structure constant as part of an overall theory. The reason I believe that you cannot "disperse" these "packet" components is in the limiting case of a fine optical grating the base frequency (lets say red) photons would appear at different screen positions to the higher internal components of green and blue Fourier components. The photon will always absorb as a single total photon. Removal of packet side bands from individual photons would change the character of the quanta in a way I cannot predict. E = hf seems to be the rule until otherwise contradicted. I am all ears on legitimate evidence to the contrary. In this case "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

Cheers

Hi Montec,

Just something to think about.

I have not seen these things but obviously they are what are used in Aircraft HUD's. These are in depth gelatin Holographic Gratings rather than the old Relief Gratings (scratched lines) I have usually been dealing with.

What I am really interested in is how these gratings or rather how holograms could be "exposed" as a series of exact fringes for light in space if light was not forming a series of standing waves with spatial maxima interspersed with spatial minima.

Cheers and thanks

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Aug 2 2007, 03:28 AM

Hi GE, TRoc, et al,

Packet sidebands??? HUH???

If a photon represents the minimum energy equivalent of a quantum impulse,
which has a fixed time interval, and a fixed amplitude, there can be no other
frequencies in the package. Frequency denotes a repetitive oscillation over time,
secondary frequencies represent harmonics of the fundamental and can be
separated/isolated from the fundamental.

IF E=hf, then there can be no other frequencies in a photon packet, otherwise we
violate the energy equation. Likewise, there can be no sidebands, because those
are considered "parasitic" elements of an EM wave, which represent energy
dissipation/spread, and energy loss, which cannot happen if E=hf
at the quantum level.

Am I missing something?

Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 2 2007, 04:31 AM

Hi all,


LL, WHAT???

Did you forget everything we've talked about regarding the realistic measurement of frequency?

You can NOT have a wave of absolute single frequency.

It's "release", or emission time is a finite length, that has a natural "linewidth".

You were just asking about the "dynamical" approach to the electrons' change in position at the time of excitation. The electron has spin, and is orbiting the atom (in a classical view). Even in the QM view, these are both still CYCLICAL: they are rates of oscillation that will be "modulated" onto the frequency of the "photon". [ and that is just the simple Hydrogen atom; each electron in an atom contributes "blocking" or screening that can modulate the wave-form]


The "string" that represents our wave, has a beginning and end that correspond to the beginning and end of the emission, and is known as an "envelope". This is because it contains something; namely these other perturbations.

The evolution~propagation~spread of the wave form generates a mean, or center frequency that is what we toss around as a label for it's cyclic rate.


The "beginning" and "end" points contain the "information", and follow the maximum group velocity speed limit of c . The internal part of the wave has its' own phase velocity, and contains other frequencies. (sometimes called side lobes / bands)


We are not talking about variations in f that are greater than ~6%.

You have to realize that, for example, what we would call "yellow" light @ 5.12e+14 Hz, and what we would call "green" light @ 5.43e+14 Hz, are separated by 3.1e+13 Hz. There is PLENTY of linewidth to "play with" before something as "drastic" as noticeable color change occurs.


Last, but NOT least:

Where in the equation " E = h f " do you see a rule that says this is representing some MINIMUM / indivisible energy?

For an alternative view, to change your perspective, look at it this way:

" h " is the only constant in that equation, and only one of the others are INPUT.

h = 6.626e-34 Joules per sec of ENERGY
per
1 Hz ( f per sec )

So, when we have MANY Hz, we have MANY h . It is worth noting that the equation should read E = (n) h f , and the "n" number of "quanta" the size of " h " is REPLACED by our measuring system standard "n" number of cycles per sec (Hz).

Here again, we find a mathematical LIMIT "saves the day" for a theory that would prove "intractable" otherwise. [ e-34 digits is FAR, FAR beyond our current accurate to 12 digit calculations ]


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi LL,

I like to think of myself as a finely tuned receiver and processor of ideas .. the results may subsequently be transmitted. 'Crotchety' is probably also a fair description. As history records it there is a major step forward about once every ten years... the steps have already been taken .. we can read about them (though perhaps not understand them) in a few days if we want to.

Max Planck (1900) and a solution to the black body problem .. apparently somewhat accidentally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Black-body_radiation

Einstein (1905) and Laserlight (2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric...n:_light_quanta

Einstein (1909) .. Laserlight (2011 ? )
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Developm...ce_of_Radiation
Anyway, this conception seems to me the most natural: that the manifestation of light's electromagnetic waves is constrained at singularity points, like the manifestation of electrostatic fields in the theory of the electron. It cannot be ruled out that, in such a theory, the entire energy of the electromagnetic field could be viewed as localized in these singularities, just like the old theory of action-at-a-distance. I imagine to myself, each such singular point surrounded by a field that has essentially the same character of a plane wave, and whose amplitude decreases with the distance between the singular points. If many such singularities are separated by a distance small with respect to the dimensions of the field of one singular point, their fields will be superimposed, and will form in their totality an oscillating field that is only slightly different from the oscillating field in our present electromagnetic theory of light. Of course, it need not be emphasized that such a picture is worthless unless it leads to an exact theory. I only wished to illustrate that the two structural properties of radiation according to Planck's formula (oscillation structure and quantum structure) should not be considered incompatible with one another.

Einstein again (1920)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...versus_Einstein

The story continues..

Comments most welcome ..

Best wishes - C2.

Hello everyone, so many now which is great,

Would it be possible for someone to put out a summation/points/results -- on what everyone does agree on =>dealing with DSE?

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Aug 2 2007, 03:03 PM

Hi yquantum and all,

I'm not aware of any overlap of ideas . Perhaps if we tried a ten line (maximum) abstract of our current ideas we could try to deal with each in turn .. just a thought.

Best wishes - C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Aug 2 2007, 03:25 PM

Confused2
Everybody is afraid to leave their own street light and step into the dark.
Except me.
------------
I've pointed out that GE can have part of his cake (tornado) with the fact that an electron is doing something and its energy density can be seen at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf
High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron
systems
O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy
July 11, 2007
------------
Troc can have a basement for his approach. (minimum length, drip line and quark sea)

-----------
LL can have a finite size range for the electron and photon.
------------
C2 gets a reason for his path lengths.
------------------
yquantum gets an explanation for UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT.
-------------
I'm in the dark by myself and nobody can see me.
-----------
jal

Hi Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,

I have an answer to your question and I am sure that when you hear it you will be really horrified. Yet it is all in the figures.... there will be only a couple of them and yet I should be able to make the story "compelling".

First consider this reference.... I consider this paper "rock solid" and very complete. Einstein did consider this problem and he intuitively believed this was indeed true... if you cannot believe Einstein's Intuition then accept the maths.

Consider a rotating disk like our Galaxy but much larger ... 10 Billion light years in circumference. If it rotated once a year the rim would need to travel at 10 Billion times the speed of light to keep up. We know this is impossible so lets slow this rotation down to allow the rim to be speeding along at just under the speed of light. This would mean the disk would rotate once every 10 Billion years. From the standpoint of any observers placed near the rim or at the center of rotation this very low angular velocity is not able to be measured using present technology. Since the points on the rim and the point at the center of rotation are effectively in the same inertial frame of reference and appear at rest relative to each other at a separation of 10^9/2π Light Years. This is a fairly large distance of separation and spacetime is not likely to be flat over such distances. It is conceivable that spacetime is folded over such vast distances into Rindler Foliations or closed so it would be difficult to determine where forces would appear. It may simply show up as a universal expansion or as "dark energy"...

What I do know is if I was situated beyond this "spinning disk" I would see it moving relative to observers at just under the speed of light. A "length contraction" along the direction of tangential motion would occur (along with a spatial rotation) and the circumference of the disk would be as short as you want it to be depending only on the difference in velocity between the rim velocity and the speed of light. This length will be variable between a value of zero circumference if the rim was actually moving at the speed of light, and 10 Billion Light Years if the rate of rotation was zero. The internal difference between these states would be at the limits of observation. The internal rate of rotation is so small (one rotation every 10 billion years or even less) that from an internal observer it is debatable if any rotation would ever be seen at all. From the point of view of an internal observer the size of the disk is the full 10 Billion Light Years around. A difference in the rate of rotation of one second in 10 billion years would be sufficient to enable a finite size for this disk which was very small yet internally the spin rate difference would not even be noticeable. We have an equation for particle formation and it is E = hf. Perhaps h (Planck's Constant) is just a measure of this small size of the particle when we relate the final size of photon "particles" to the speed of light. This is a difference in scale seen from the inside which appears pseudo-stationary and "huge" and as seen externally a tiny spinning disk of diminishing circumference somewhere between zero and any size you can pick. The external small particle will exhibit a high rotational frequency due to its small circumference while on the inside it will be an almost limitless void bounded by a standing waves on the surface of the everywhere bounded spacetime. These are two separate domains in the Fourier plane if you only consider rotation "on a circle". Of course we understand that such "sub-atomic particles" actually show some kind of spherical symmetry and instead of Fourier decomposition on a circle it is really Spherical Harmonics on the surface of a hypersphere and these are in an additional 6 dimensions.

Effectively this will be a rotation and enfolding along three orthogonal planes which are demarcated by light cone walls. With six extra dimensions in which to spin a solid sphere could rotate around all three axes "shrinking" the external circumference to an arbitrary small sub-atomic particle dimension and simultaneously exhibit an external high frequency while still being quasi-stationary as viewed on the inside. I can see no objection to a very large "small Universe", 10 Billion Light Years (or more) in internal circumference, in an unbounded but closed space. It would have an apparently infinitesimally small rotation in 6 extra dimensions (barely perceptible internally) that leads to a shrinking to the size of a rapidly rotating sub-atomic particle "wave" externally. These objects exhibit both temporal (reciprocal time - frequency and time dimensions) and spatial reciprocity (reciprocal space and space dimensions) on the surface of a closed spherical like surface bounded by the light cone.

I am convinced with all the visible rotation occurring inside our Universe that it could be a lot bigger than this minimal size and still be any external size on the outside as demarcated by a light cone wall. These complementary views of our universe provide a very small communicating external surface available for matter waves (reciprocal electromagnetic waves) to propagate upon with almost instantaneous access to the entire "small outer surface" through a reciprocal tunneling process (de Broglie waves). On the inside of this surface the quasi-stationary nature results in standing wave patterns as seen from an internal observer where 2πr = nλ... Where n is the primary quantum number. The other quantum numbers are provided by Spherical Harmonics and by external particle spin quanta. Naturally no one is going to believe this but I think this is very plausible and all the circumstantial evidence indicates it is possible.

Therefore we end up with an electromagnetic basis for compact dimensional space wherever any sub-atomic particles are to be found. They can even be created spontaneously in free space through particle creation. Perhaps entire Universes like our own are single tiny rotating particles. If it were so it would explain the basis of atomic theory and Quantum Electrodynamics and also matter waves and de Broglie phenomena. The emergence of mass is a function of the external surface curvature of this reciprocal space, since spacetime curvature is already known to be geometrically the basis of mass and of gravity. A very neat idea that we can apparently already see at our scale of the Universe.

The instantaneous collapse of the wave function is simply a reciprocal optical phenomenon on the "outside" of the light cone akin to a shallow spherical pond that is the surface of a "sphere" where a "source" impulse at one point causes waves to propagate around the surface to "focus" at a "sink". The wave does not "carry a particle", it is the reciprocal domains expressions of the outer surface of this "sphere".... Just like Kondo Phantoms. The point of focus will depend on purely optical elements acting on waves.... see reference below...

The phantom matter wave amplitude can be as much as 60% the amplitude of the source atom even in this imperfect configuration. This process works so well with these corrals that chemical bonding with "phantoms atoms" and real atoms is possible, oxides have actually been constructed of the phantom. Imagine if instead of these two dimensional corrals a fully closed system (a "Universe") in which "impulses" at sources create wavelike "photon packets" at one point in spacetime on the outer surface of this sphere and the source influence is perfectly conducted with no diminution to the sink without any delivery of a particle between. This is done by this packet "spreading" like a ripple on a pond curved into a hypersphere. If this can be done for single photons then why not "trapped photons"... matter particles etc...?

All this may seem improbable to some but I could show you all a host of experiments in which these "principles" hold for a very wide range of "applications" as real phenomena. What initially seems like "quantum weirdness" seems to me like "quantum optics" within a greater holographic Universe.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Aug 2 2007, 06:16 PM

greater holographic Universe.

Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Good Elf, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,

There was a time that I would as a friend challenged this hypothesis, but it is plausible if one was to use the complex means in which the mind works. I would not count it out as impossible -- Good Elf.

Example, for those who might be physicians that are on this post have studied how the eyes function, where the optic nerve connects to back of the eye which causes a blind spot due to the connection of the nerve so the brain extrapolates the information that it sees <=important to fill in the blind spot & you see a -- "complete view".

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Aug 2 2007, 06:44 PM

Hi GE,

A suggestion. Instead of mixing everything from the macro realm, to the
subatomic realm in one HUGE, all encompassing post, full of dislocated/disjointed
theories, how about broaching each individual subject as an individual post, with
a common theme.

Too many topics, with different "elf theories", in one post, is not really productive,
and jumps around too much, IMO. When trying to make a point, maintain
focus on that topical argument. Comma's are nice too.

Excuse me........I need to wipe the glaze from my eyes.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 2 2007, 06:54 PM

I agree with Laserlight1905 .. pithy posts are best.

C2.

I don't hold your lack of vision against you. Myopia is a treatable condition.

Just don't fall over the edge!

Laserlight ∞(ad infinitum)