Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Good Elf,
I agree about the non-linear thinking. After umpteen posts we're back to where we started.

All IMHO

We have not yet had an interpretation free description of the DSE .. instead we have "My interpretation is better than yours" .. interpretation of WHAT?
The equations are as much a part of the DSE as the result itself. How else can you distinguish between 'cavity resonances' and other effects? The maths is simple enough that I would be surprised if most people could not immediately see how the peaks and dips arise by inspection.

'Wavelength' has the advantage that it fits in well with both the EM concept of 'intensity' and the QM concept of 'probability of detection'. Wavelength is also something we can actually measure as the experiment is in progress. I do not see how you can claim to measure frequency in the DSE and I do not know what meaning you attach to the 'frequency' of an event that only occurs once (eg the detection of a photon). I suggest that my preference for 'wavelength' remains 'justified'.

If we assume a single photon can be responsible for the observed effect we notice that the path lengths ** required to explain the peaks observed will often differ by more than one wavelength. Under the circumstances I am even less sure of the meaning you attach to frequency .. defined as f = λ/C .. how many λ's do you choose? Do you have a new 'c' , new f or what? Again I suggest that my use of wavelength remains helpful and does not prevent the introduction of unmeasurable f's in your (or any other) analysis.

Since we are all by inclination 'handwavers' .. I don't think a handwaving competition will get any of us any further forward.

If anyone else feels my 'basics' approach is unhelpful or needs to be modified .. please say so.

-C2.

** I have assumed acceptance of path length as being the determining factor in the generation of constructive/destructive interference .. please post (GE, anyone) if you are not happy with this.

C-2,

[/QUOTE]We notice that the wavelength is also NOT a function of time. When we apply a Fourier Transform to something that is not a function of time the transform cannot produce a "frequency" as a result. We need to keep a clear head so we don't confuse "spatial frequency" with "temporal frequency".[QUOTE]

Shouldn't these be interchangeable values? Wavelength a component of
Frequency (One is in nm and the other is Hz), but you can derive one from
knowing the other. One is the linear component, the other is the time
component they have an inverse relationship.

f = 1/t
t = 1/f

f = c/λ
λ = vw/f

LL

Hi Good Elf! and all...
You have done a lot of work for this thread.... thanks.
It's the only interesting thread on this forum.

I do read the links .... here is what I get from your latest links.
I believe that it will address some of the problems raised by C2 ... TRoc ... etc

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri is proposing two experiments to determine if there must be ”a sea of EM field energy” for the photon to interact with in order for us to get the experimental observations.

I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.


http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf
Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
University of Connecticut, Department of Physics,
SPIE Photonics East,1-3 October 2006 Advanced Photon Counting Techniques (SPIE Vol. 6372, paper no. 29)

I am awaiting the results of this experiment.
It will lead to a better understanding of what is causing the dynamics.
Jal
ps....TRoc....have you checked your PM? does it work ?

This post has been edited by jal on Nov 15 2006, 05:02 PM

Hi jal,

I am not suggesting all may be 'wrong' .. just that caution may be appropriate.

Chasing up Emilio Panarella.. (cited by Roychoudhuri )

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

-C2.

LL,

The lamposts on my street are fifty yards apart (a distance in metres) .. so there is a bright patch every fifty yards (spatial frequency = 1 bright bit per fifty yards) .. does this influence the frequency (cycles per second) of the light from the bulbs in the lamposts?

-C2.

Confused2!
Can the journal be more fringe than us
It's obvious to me that any proposal outside of the main frame has got to be fringe.
Therefore, I do not feel so lonely.
Isn't Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri trying to get an experiment that would help to address some of the questions that have been raised here?
jal

C2,

HUH?

The issue is a wave amplitude/field intensity phenomenon. Is that your point?
If so, I agree.

Frequency just determines the spacing relationship of the amplitude
peaks and nulls over a fixed distance as they relate to time. One cannot
exist without the other.

I think we are trying to equate a 2 dimensional measurement and mathematical
interpretation to a 4 dimensional interactive phenomenon. Perhaps this is
the essence of why conflicts arise in the various interpretations of the results.
Applying 2 dimensional thinking to a 4 dimensional issue is problematic, IMO.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 15 2006, 06:59 PM

jal,

I think your assessment is pretty accurate. I contend that all great
original thinking and innovation comes from those who do not follow
the mainstream, but are bold enough to venture in their own direction.
They deviate from the conventional philosophy and modify it to meet
their needs. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Is that a
derivation of the Uncertainty principle?

LL

Hi LL,

We have light of F Hz.
We map our predicted intensity using the wavelength and geometry of the slits. Are you suggesting that the geometry changes the frequency (F) of the light as it arrives?
-C2.

C-2, no that is not what I am suggesting at all. But what happens if you interfere
with the amplitudes of the EM components of a wave, by changing their normal energy
distribution relationship over some interval of time due to their interaction with
matter (which changes their phase timing relationship) and then recombine them
with all of the corresponding timing mismatches?

You get a distorted wavefront. What is distortion? An unfaithful reproducion of the original wave caused by the mismatch of the phase
and timing of components of the EM fields of the original wave.

Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 15 2006, 07:34 PM

LL, Ge,jal, yquantum (hope this is ok) , Why Not? et al,

LL .. the shape of your field
Hm.. yes I see what you mean. My analysis is very much simpler .. you have a photon of energy Ep .. the probability of detection is given by the geometry so you just fire away and count them. My 'probability of detection' is going to mirror the way your fields change .. since both is pretty much the same thing. I think the diffraction and slit equations are already telling us how the E and H will behave .. that's why we did them. I must admit I wouldn't care to say what happens when you start messing about with polarisation .. but overall I think it works well and is accurate enough to give a good 'fit' whichever way you look at it.

One of the 'trick' things that really needs to be proved is (we're pretty sure) that photons only interfere with themselves so the interference will not be dependent on the intensity of the source (almost proof in itself). I think you can see that IF its true .. it will be very difficult to prove.

An actual QM explanation here:-
http://ej.iop.org/links/r1abYbZiN/yJkKtOJ0.../ejp4_5_l04.pdf

My own handwaving " field = ψ*ψ " effort is pathetic .. but hopefully in the right zone, at least.

-C2.

I should make clear .. I just read the words in extracts like that. Maybe one day..

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 15 2006, 08:37 PM

C2, LL, Good Elf ,jal, Why Not? et al,

I do not think there is an intuitive answer to this question, but I think everyone does have a point to be made. If this question keeps the momentum I believe all will have a much better understanding. The paper below will give you some food for thought and a different spin [pun] on how this test can be made. This is not the answer to the QM enigma dealing the twin slit experiment.

My view on this experiment is so multi-layer, wavefunction, entanglement, decoherence, superposition, etc. I will post when it is applicable and does not interfere with other comments. I am just one of many on this forum.

I felt like I should not have mentioned plasma, but I want it to be put into context and this is somewhat a simple, yet could have some difficulties but just try and find the premise of the experiments and I hope all will be fine after reading the paper. They use an array but mention Young TSE , I hope many will find a pearl in the paradox that will be of use.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512107.pdf

This will give you the meaning of Plasmon so that you can read with a little more clarity.

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

Best to all,
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 15 2006, 09:24 PM

Hi all,


WOW, this is terrible! I don't have the kind of time to address everything that has come up.


First, let me say this. I think that C2 was coming from the entire DSE as a whole, and trying to interpret things. I was NEVER attempting this. I only responded because of THE PROBLEM with the DSE QM interpretation. I ASSUMED that the "basics" were accepted. I am NOT trying to REPLACE the KIND of information made available by Fraunhof or Fresnel. If you want a SPECIFIC value for intensity, and the "size of the pattern", you would still be better off with those methods.

Again, I'm presenting a different view, so you DON"T HAVE TO accept multiple paths, multiple orders of SPEEDING past c, and some kind of strange "particle duality".

Those methods use the SPACE parameter of DISTANCE. LL & GE are right in telling C2 that we can (must be able to!) to use the TIME analysis as well. The 1 meter distance between the slit(s) and the screen can be replaced with 1/c time, or 3.3356e-9 sec, and a "measurement" of what happens to the frequency in that amount of time.


C2,s comment was informative:

You will also notice that this description of the S/DSE does NOT include the constant speed of light c , or the Planck value h . These things were NOT discovered yet. Does that make them wrong? Of course not.

C2 also said

No problem, because IT IS SCALED down. The EXACT wavelength of the incoming wave IS NOT duplicated at the screen -- it is scaled down.

This exact same feature keeps the street lamp (from your analogy) from INCINERATING you! Do you really think that the EXACT same, very small, highly energetic wavelength, that is creating temperatures around 4000(?), is being EXACTLY replicated on YOUR FACE? Talk about UV overexposure!


From GE's link

This only holds true for LINEAR attempts at mixing. Frequencies (visible light range) are being made to "interfere" with each other in experiments FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, at least. You can not deny reality. THE LASER EXISTS BECAUSE OF RESONANCE, INDUCED BY INTERFERENCE.


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

and, JUST SO GE and C2 will STOP couching this is terms of "western music"..

This MATHEMATICAL FACT, which I am making a "historical adjustment" to, BECAUSE it is ALREADY FUNDAMENTAL to a previously existing method, CAN NOT BE LIMITED IN SCOPE to the "end uses" of said math. The inverse is JUST AS TRUE: Feynman IS NOT responsible for all the deaths caused by the atomic bomb, because he (helped) develop the math that "made it possible".

The 12th root of 2, developed to help instrument makers, can not be limited to "western music". In fact, because we have this "body of evidence" that WORKS because of resonant superpositioning of waves in an NLM, WE WOULD BE STUPID TO IGNORE IT.

Science HAS BEEN stupid, or at least ignorant. This is not surprising, noting the amount of EGO present in the "craft" that Science has become.

There are also GEOMETRICAL considerations for the EVEN distribution of 12 parts. I have already covered this. (so has JAL)

Again, from GE's linked paper:

Why is this requirement duplicated in EYES, BRAIN waves, and SOUND? ( I have reduced their analogy here, to reflect the FACT that given 3 waves in an NLM, they WILL produce a fourth)

(same paper)

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I"M SAYING. I have a hard time seeing why this is being "resisted" by you 2.


What I said/asked about the Planck "length" still stands: where is the "nicely divided, organized system" that this "fact", if true, would require?

Planck's ad hoc postulate works under statistical analysis, but fails at the "one by one" level. The micro reactions within micro scales.

The reason for "quanta" is Resonance.

MY QUANTA WORKS FOR MASS AND ENERGY, not just "the photon", or reaction between masses.


This DSE "reinterpretation" that I have tried to explain is a SIDE SHOW. If the very same method I'm trying to "overlay" onto the DSE, HAD NOT already been used to calculate resonant Nodes, like the elementary "particles", and the periodic table of elements, as well as mathematically uniting such disparate subjects as consciousness, sound, light, and mass, THEN I WOULD NOT BE WASTING YOUR TIME.

I realize that not a week goes by here without someone "showing up", and claiming "Eureka!" I know what I am up against. Please just respect my intelligence, and try to listen with ears NOT FILTERED by the above fact. I know it's hard to "trust".


Now, C2 is RIGHT about this: If I want you to except my basic, fundamental approach, to explaining the DSE "anomalies", then I must also explain the "basic" phenomenon as well.

The only way that I can see as valuable for comparison, would be for one of you to describe an agreed upon event (laser frequency, slit separation, distance to screen, etc.) and then I will present the "simple" approach. If they "match", then my point will be made.


regards,

T.Roc

C2,

I think you and I are like 2 of the blind men trying to describe different parts
of the elephant. You're describing the trunk, and I'm describing a leg. Because
we (blindly) look at things from 2 different vantage points (perspectives) we
describe the same beastie differently. I think the issue is not ours alone.

I think we are talking about the energy level (power) of each photon, and how
that energy interacts with matter. Different energy levels react with
matter in different ways, thus we have absorption, reflection, refraction, etc.
Intensity is determined by more than 1 photon. Intensity is an additive
quantity.

IMO, in order to understand what the definition of "quantum" is we must
consider it as the discrete energy level of each photon or particle of matter,
and we must understand it and describe it according to the interactions and relationships of the fields and properties that are the primary
constituents of its base physical nature. The mathematics and probability follows
the actual underlying physical process and gives it "value" and predictability.

Comments welcome by all!

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 15 2006, 11:16 PM

T.Roc,

Excellent and interesting argument!

At the photon quantum level, the harmonic resonance is due to the exact
periodic timing fluctuation of the EM field propagations. Each different frequency
photon represents a different energy level (a different quantum level) and
exhibits a different harmonic timing interaction between its propagating EM fields.

This phenomenon is an artifact of the "harmonic" quantum energy level of the
electron from which it came...Its color (harmonic oscillating frequency) determines
(or represents) its enery level and identifies exactly the atom and the energy
shell electron orbital from which it propagated, which are well characterized and predictable.

IMO, harmony is a fundamental relationship of the natural order of the universe.
Chaos, is merely distortion due to multiple harmonic nodes interacting in a
variable timing manner and generating random results.

Maybe detouring off topic but germane, IMO. Comments?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 16 2006, 12:21 AM