Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi All,

By the grace of the amazing Paul Falstad and his 2D applet ( http://www.falstad.com/wave2d/ )
we can count the rabbits. With this latest version we can switch between waves and intensity so no more problems there.

Count the rabbits here:-



As TRoc suggests .. most of the light seems to be projections of the invisible rabbits which live between the slits.

Source here:- http://www.falstad.com/wave2d/Wave2d.java . . praise and gratitude. I see he's using FFT's .. no flowchart unfortunately so we have to work backwards .. watch this space.

Best wishes - C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Sep 10 2007, 06:46 PM

By measuring far fields our only goal is to determine the properties of the source. The size, density and temperature of the original source is what allocates the wavelength and frequency to the field. Thinking logically i would have to say the interference is created by the unsynchronized phase of the superimposed wavelengths because their path lengths vary in length between source and slit. What happens if we move the source closer to slit 1 run the experiment and during the data recording session or energy capturing by our equipment we move the source closer to slit 2, does the interference change?

If moving the source does change the interference then the slits don't act as a source, merely a repeater of the field with its maintained properties.

If moving the source doesn't change the interference then the slits act as a source.

Hi Guest,

Set up the Falstad applet ( http://www.falstad.com/wave2d/ ) and change the 'Incidence Angle' .. this should give a good insight into what happens when you move the source .. and why.

Best wishes - C2.

Hi C2,

You asked for it.






Only one wascally wabbit.


LL

Hi all,


[edit: LL, GREAT!! ]


Great Java simulation, C2. Thanks for the link.

(tri-chromatic and holographic phase too!)






Guest_iseason,


I would also add my vote that you register, and join in.


I agree with the principles in your post, although, I agree with Good Elf that you need a lot more to begin a "Scientific" theory, rather than a sound "Philosophy".


I will respond more in another thread, that some participants from this thread have started, to specifically address the "start from one", or at least, some minimum distance (or other measurement). That way, this thread can deal more specifically with the details that emerge from interference (which, you can understand, start a few steps away from "One").
link to "structured spacetime"



GE,


Your link was great too. I like to see "integrity", which I would further define as "willing to PULL weeds", in a paper. Although, to get published, it's better not to pull everything in the garden! You've got to leave some of the "interpretations" on the table, and chip away at the problems a little at a time.


They avoid saying "monochromatic source", and instead, state their "center frequency" [center wavelength 822.7 nm] .

They state how many "photons" the source is creating per set unit of time [10^15 photons/0.05 s], because of the limitations of the detector [minimum exposure time: 0.05s, quantum efficiency 0.43 @ 800 nm, >10^4 grey levels, accumulating mode].

And then, they tell you how they "attenuated" the source" [set of calibrated filters (>10^10), number of channels (10^6), intensity profile (up to 10), in total 10^16-10^17 range],

so that you may better understand their statements:

So, they only "hint" at their being other interpretations of the "single photon". The single photon ends up with "particle" properties, if also following the logic that "single = 1". One what? Amount of energy. One~amount is a quantity of something.


If we give it a wave only definition (also embodied in bar h ; h/2pi), then their summary comment:

makes more sense. The single "photon" can not be a point particle. It is a stable area created by the geometry of resonant interference, analogous to a stable orbit/spherical harmonic.


What you may want to call a "single photon", must be viewed as having more than 2 "independently vibrating" cycles, together in a "packet", or "envelope". This does NOT violate the E = hf hypothesis, because :

A. The "center" frequency, which is the "fundamental" original source, ALSO exists at the "wavefront", or leading edge. The leading edge velocity is limited (by harmonics) to the velocity of the "center" of the packet; both the constant c . There is "zero" Doppler shift, from that frame of reference. This is the "fundamental axis", derived by this "bow shock" wavefront "point", and the "center point" (both are called nodes). Bottom line: the frequency of the emission starts at a node, the center of the packet is a node, and the wavefront (at a point on the axis) is a node, and finally, the absorption/measurement must be on a node as well, or not resonant with the receiver, which would be false by definition for absorption.

And we end up with our fundamental QM equation, E = hf working at the "beginning and end" of the experiment, verifying the definition of the distance between emitter and absorber, divided by an integer # of cycles (distance between nodes x2, or 1/2 wavelength x2) , will yield the frequency of those rates, that produces a constant ratio of the distance traveled, per time (the velocity of c ).


B. In between these nodes, we have "phase velocity" that CAN "travel" at faster than c , but within the limits of the first, and last nodes. This distance (from source to sink) is the "primary mode", and has a constant relationship to c .

These nodes (and the ever present, 'in between the nodes', anti-node peaks) have a relativistically Doppler shifted (RDS) frequency, that has curvature that will be symmetric to the timing of the absorber phase (node location), will self correct, due to this delay, and "off phase" arrival.

http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Resear...t/FundPhys.html

In the two frames in relative motion, the experimenters measure the same electric force between two charges


Time dilation for a moving atom:
In the rest frame, the transition frequency of an atom is f. If it moves with a velocity v with respect to the laboratory, its fluorescence is reduced when it is irradiated simultaneously by two laser waves of frequencies f‘ and f‘‘ that propagate against and in the direction of the atom‘s motion, respectively. Special Relativity predicts that the two laser frequencies obey the relationship f‘ f‘‘ = f2 . Experiments that test this prediction are performed at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik in Heidelberg (Gwinner et al.)


While in the absorption process, the atom is in the moving frame, however, not in the opposite direction of the RDS, but with symmetric curvature to the recoil. Note that, unless physically "blocked or absorbed", the other side of the wavefront curvature will be arriving "inversely off phase" to the above example, and those velocity shifts will cancel.


These RDS frequencies, rather than the usual "time" methods, can be measured "cycle by cycle", as a change in distance between nodes of the fundamental wavelength, which gives the definition of "beat frequency".


Resonance Theory suggests that the same method of solving the constant ratio of inversely changing quantities, such as frequency and wavelength of any wave, can be used to answer fundamental questions like:


Why absorption and emission happen in specific quanta.

What kind of frequency ratios "spread",

and

What kind of frequency ratios "maintain locality" in the moving frame.

Why is the frequency of a major chord (a manipulated shape, non-spreading sound wave packet) the same as the "fundamental" frequency?

Why does the Inverse Square Law not apply to these wavepackets fundamental frequency, and only the density of that frequency, off axis?

Why didn't Euler's method succeed at answering the question of consonance in musical ratios?

Why (and how) do dispersed wavepackets "regroup" to converge upon one absorber?

-restated: How does interference happen, and why.


Possibly the best question, specific to this thread:


Do the "invisible bunnies" between the slits in the DSE represent "a new kind of x-ray", that works off "phase beats", like a "black light sandwhich"? Meaning: do the caustics, or phase node singularity, go RIGHT THROUGH the barrier, in an electron tunneling/braking & re-radiation process?

OR

Does the medium, based on the average distance between potential absorbers (nodes), and the inverse symmetric curvature of RDS beat frequencies (easily verified by real lines of RI scalar velocities), create a local non-linear effect at the phase singularity, which favors summing of the monochromatic vector beat frequencies towards the fundamental axis due to inverse symmetry of the phases as you move off axis? (transverse modes)





regards,

T.Roc


This post has been edited by TRoc on Sep 11 2007, 03:21 AM

Hi TRoc,

Some interesting ideas.

Consider the idea that the E field and the H field components are orthogonally
90 degrees off axis, but are "in phase" as far as timing and OAM are
concerned.

Quick question(s).... a bit off topic from your discussion points, but food for
thought.

1. Is the OAM specific to each frequency/wavelength?

Doesn't the OAM limit the "extent" that the E and H field boundaries (volume) can
expand from an average centerline value photon? If not, then the rotational
speed of the OAM must increase as a wavefront expands, or else the accepted
EH field wave "model" is somehow inconsistent.

2. If the energy of the wave expands/dissipates over distance, per the ISL, how
does this relate to a source to sink relationship.

Wave expansion radiates omnidirectionally from a "point source".

According to that conceptual model, any resonant atom located anywhere along
the spherical wavefront will collapse the wave, and any subsequent wave fronts
that "touch" it or atoms in the general "neighborhood". This would imply that there
would be an absolute limit to the extent that omnidirectional waves could radiate.
They would always be collapsing at any resonance point along the wavefront
"surface" of the expanding "sphere".

It would be like expanding bubbles being popped whenever they encounter a sharp point.
They could never expand beyond a certain radius because they are being
"collapsed" at fixed points along the leading edge of the wavefront, where ever
there is a sympathetic resonance/detector.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Sep 11 2007, 04:26 AM

Hi Laserlight et al,

A conceptual model that gets round this obvious difficulty is to propose that a spherical wave has a probability to interact with (say) a point. If the point were moved to a distance equal to twice the original distance then the probability of interaction would be reduced by a factor of four .. just as the inverse square law predicts. This rather unlikely conceptual model gets round the difficulty of the photon spreading out 'spherically' by proposing that it is only the probability of interacting with the photon that 'spreads out'. .. the photon itself always has the same energy.
Best wishes - C2.

(I liked the wabbit )

Hi TRoc,

OR
could it be the waves just 'add' (superposition)?
Best wishes - C2.

Hi C2,

Doesn't your idea violate the source to sink model, which is an "absolute" theory
that eliminates probability. According to that theoretical model, the photon is
only generated when there is a "handshake" between two resonant atoms that
represent a transmitter and a receiver, which is the ultimate "selectivity".

The omnidirectional wave theory seems to have critical "flaws", IMO. It would
seem that for a source to sink theory to work that there must be a type of
directional particle effect at play.

LL

Hi TRoc,

I will try and address a few of your points if I can.

It is certainly true that nothing in the universe is a "point particle" and this fact is where everything must go wrong. The reason for String Theory was to address just this point. Whatever may happen in the future this point is where standard physics fails critically. At a "point" everything "explodes" because you have division by zero and infinities popping up and naturally this is not handled by standard physics. The problem is everyone who wants to measure things "assumes" that you can continually measure things with greater and greater precision ad infinitum. You know what they say about "assume"... "Assume" makes an "a-s-s" out of "you" (u) and "m-e".

The photon is a special "spreading particle", this is clearly different from the "less spreading particles" like electrons. Fourier Theory does "construct" particles out of harmonics but do not think that these harmonics are separately vibrating independent phases inside the packet. It would be better to view this packet as a scaffolding on which a structure can be built. The photon is not just a "wiggly line" it is a spatial fuzziness where the electric and magnetic fields loop back on themselves, the edge of which is more and more defined the more harmonics that are added. Add an infinite number of harmonics and then and only then the packet is fully localized with a very distinct "edge" to it. The basic packet is E = hf and it is a formula that includes all that fuzziness and is quantized. The packet has a quantum size defined by Planck's Constant which is experimentally determined and is . Classical waves with a single frequency use a value of zero for Planck's Constant and so carry no packeted energy.

The photon can be absorbed as a whole or not at all. If the packet has been "shaped" it still contains a quantum of energy equal to hf but it may also contain more enrgy in the form of Orbital Angular Momentum. If the photon is absorbed it is absorbed as the E = hf packet of energy .... the rest of the energy that was used to shape the packet will end up as some other kind of energy .... potential or kinetic. Obviously to absorb a photon packet with OAM the specific electron transition will occur and the OAM will transfer as spin energy to the atom actually imparting some force to the particle as a whole.

In the case of certain other transfers of packets the spin energy is also transferred and the spin of all photons is the same. The photon carries spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency. The magnitude of its spin is and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be . The OAM is a separate spin quantum number that takes values from 0 to infinity... the way it has been classically been manipulated was through the use of tiny holograms to modify the packets.

Returning to the problem of single photon events... It is possible to reduce the intensity of a LASER beam to such a degree using filters that you can positively guarantee that single photons are all that the benchtop experiment is being supplied. In that situation we are observing single quantum events. I know what has been said by some authors but IMHO they are wrong. I fully accept that single photons are being created and propagated and they are source correlated even though there are many wavefronts separating one photon from others that come before and after it.

During the absorption event it is not a node but an antinode. This is the time reversed event of emission which you would clearly identify as a source and an antinode.... a dipole source (turned sink). The sink is also an antinode but phase reversed compared with the source.

Now it is very important to clearly understand that these processes make no sense unless we think of it as a Wheeler Feynman Absorber "pair". The source cannot emit without the sink being able to absorb in the future. Time symmetry is essential for far too many processes and this is a reality that we must accept for individual particle interactions. The future of that particle at the other end is locked in and at the instant the photon is emitted in the "retarded photon" frame of reference from the source the "anti-photon" is launched in a mirror symmetric event from the future of the sink. The way this happens is through the passage of a advanced potential wave that matches the retarded potential wave.... photon by photon as if they were part of the one cavity excitation. Just forget the prejudice about the time asymmetry and possible distance between source and sink (which may be light years) and forget that you are unable to view this event in the far field, the emission and absorption is "prearranged" for that one event... this is essentially why the Feynman Diagrams actually work well.... they too are time symmetric. The photon is "non-local" and this is why it can do this trick, it is connected (entangled) to it's future self in the sink. It can go nowhere else and the photon is time stamped and coordinate stamped and it has a destination address as well. Quantum Theory is a non-local theory. Non-local Events in quantum theory in the earlier years were scoffed at it (that is why the development of the particle theory was so successful) is very clear now that recent developments (Alain Aspect et al) show that any number of "impossible things" now are actually "very possible" in real benchtop experiments. This is the reason why entanglement actually occurs in the real world and it is tagged onto quantum theory as if it was an oversight and is totally "alien" without Absorber Theory.

The absorber theory explains why absorption occurs and spreading is a function of the packet "mode". In the same way the mode of transmitting antenna can be modified a similar process modifies these packets. In the case of Bessel Waves they need to be passed through a special lens to shape the pulse just like shaped charges provide different kinds of compression waves so do these lenses.

I suggest that the energy of the Bessel Photons comes from a redistribution of the spatial energy to a limited extent by photon energy "pooling". "Perfect" Bessel Beams do not have a limited extent and extend axially as a series of concentric circular equally spaced standing waves to "infinity". A practical beam falls short of this ideal shape. The energy for the Bessel photons come from the fact that the axicons are optical resonators and transfer photon energy into the Bessel photons passing through the "lens".
Resonators supporting Bessel beams: P. Muys, E. Vandamme
The Bessel beam phenomenon is similar to the use of "resonators" used in radio antennas to modify the beam shape except we now deal with optical frequencies. Lenses are optical resonators, we just do not think of them that way. There is no substantial difference between Radar Plumbing and these optical devices except the scale.

All suggestions are accepted and will be considered...

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 11 2007, 03:02 PM

Hi All,

OAM:

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classe...ook/node99.html

Spin Angular Momentum:

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classe...ok/node100.html

Contents:

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classe...book/node1.html

LL

Hi all,



Laserlight Posted on Today at 4:23 AM

Well, we all know the areas that this is valid in. Relative to the "photon", however (co-moving frame), too many problems arise in finding the appropriate field lines. They are "emergent and dynamical"; they can get "twisted" so much that they "disconnect" from those original relative coordinates. Then you need to understand "reconnection dynamics", analogous to MHD & Alfven waves.


IMO, these "reconnection dynamics", give a causal explanation for the "after the fact" measurements, of the "single photon" interpretation.



Confused2 Posted on Today at 8:00 AM

Not really. We've covered all the reasons. Why do they NOT have the same effect everywhere? If you're going to "quote" QED "path length" method, then you must understand that "tinkering" with the wavelength dependent RI, and "contracting time", to calculate which "paths" will add or subtract (which ones form loops, or cornu spirals) is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than "tinkering" (for purposes of calculation) with the instantaneous frequency.


My method is dimensionless, and already is "scaled" to the metric that produces c, as well as having the right symmetry to integrate with the Doppler method, and the Relativistic Doppler effect.


I'll segway right into GE comments, they are all related.


First of all, there is a tragic flaw in the "one at a time, linear approach" that has historically been developed. Namely, the multiple quantification of the "field", and "the field" (saying the "photon" and the emitting electron, and the absorbing electron are ALL SEPARATE), giving "infinite" degrees of freedom, that do not exist in the "3D + time" model.


So, while I agree with GE about the "Wheeler-Feynman~Cramer" perspective being needed, in Resonance Theory (RT), it is "built in", and would be redundant to "re-include".


Also, let's not forget that the QM model states directly, that the "probability waves" can interfere, and sum, and beat. They want you to interpret this as the real part, NOT me. I'm telling you, that FROM these values, calculated by the relative frequency changes, I get the answer for resonance.


A very important distinction lies between me EXPLAINING the answer that I already have, and me trying to convince you of a "theory" that might be right. I am doing the former; as well as pointing out either flaws in interpretations, as I see them, and showing that IN EVERY MODEL that we are discussing, the EQUIVALENT to a change in frequency is ALREADY implicit to said model.


I don't need any "agreement", or permission. It is already taking place in every model that you already agree with.


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

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

starting with our "green hand shadow"





we will find our "magenta phase bunny", as we approach the LIMIT ©





but, it did NOT "go through the wall", or reproduce (by "real" frequencies) any new bunnies. We just "squeeze" things relativistically (without preferred dimension), and we get, through inverse symmetry, the "final answer" which matches our E = hf . It is the REACTION of an accelerated electron in the MEDIUM which plays the vital role in this "chain of transactions".



This is the Rainbow Bridge that must be crossed for us to unite.






regards,

T.Roc


ps. GE, I agree that the START of the absorbtion "process" begins on the anti-node, as you said, BUT, it FINISHES on the node. This is that last "relativistic adjustment" than takes place, and is now posible to measure with attosecond resolution. It is this time and space "in between" these events, that has not been able to be measured well enough to make predictions from.



This post has been edited by TRoc on Sep 11 2007, 07:23 PM

Quick summary (hope it's not too far off)..

In the LL,GE,C2 huddle we have some lack of clarity about spherically expanding wavefronts (dipole if you prefer).

LL (still?) favours corpuscles which make the Talbot/two slit interference patterns by a mechanism that does no involve two (or more) slits. Corpuscles fired at random? Corpuscle size not specified.

At present GE offers a photon of size ? which is big enough to 'see' two (or more) slits at once and small enough to go through them. From the pattern it would seem photons normally go through both slits and never just the one slit. No mechanism yet offered to explain this. No obvious method to find anything to make the Feynman-Wheeler exchange with.

C2 favours a probability function which makes the probability of detecting a photon proportional to the area you're looking for it in (modified by vector sum of all paths to that region). Two slits or twenty slits work in just the same way in the C2 camp. Photon size .. probably a point.

TRoc .. ongoing. (Einstein took years to get anywhere .. no criticism intended).

Best wishes - C2.

Hi C2,

You stated:

You have truncated, simplified, and mangled our disparate conceptual approaches
with your "summary" statement.

Perhaps I should provide my own simplified "summary", as should TRoc and GE,
but remember to keep it BRIEF....it is after all a summarization of our position(s).



1. Photons are energy impulses, emitted when an electron drops into a lower energy band/shell.
It is a potential energy to kinetic energy conversion process that propagates as
an "enclosed" wavefunction.

2. Elemental atoms are resonant "systems" that have their own energy
signature, according to their net energy levels, and have multi-frequency
characteristics. They emit specific frequencies, and they respond to the same
frequencies due to their inherent resonance characteristics caused by their atomic
structure.

3. Photons have finite volume (extent), that is determined by the frequency and
spatial density of the E and H fields. Fields can only expand at a rate of ©, so their
"extent"(range) is limited by the frequency at which the photon is propagating.

4. The energy "content" of a photon is directly proportional to the area (volume)
over which it is spread, according to the frequency and "field" concentration.
Smaller volume photons have higher energy levels, and higher frequencies.

5. Corpuscular photons can be considered enclosed energy "bubbles", that travel
via wave dynamics. This photon bubble can conform to accomodate different
physical geometrical shapes, and can "ooze" (for lack of a better word) around
small obstructions that do not interfere with, or "break", the complementary
EH field relationship. The "bubble" form can be distorted up to the point of
breaking wave symmetry, which would cause a collapse and photon detection.
Like water, the photon bubble will seek the path of least resistance to its forward
progress along its propagation centerline energy vector.

6. Coherently emitted photons (bubbles) combine their fields to create a
"cohesive" wavefront that spreads via the laws of the ISL. The coherent photons
will retain coherency to all other photons of the wavefront, regardless of the
distance between them, caused by spreading or dispersion, since coherency is a
point of emission, timing, and phase relationship.

7. A photon's directional propagation vector ("flight" vector) can be altered if it
encounters a change of refractive index in the space thru which it travels. This
includes gravity, energy "wells", refractive media, and "shaped" transparent
media.

8. Coherent corpuscular photons, having wave properties, can interfere and
form energy density patterns, if they have interacted with a geometrical
shape with refractive properties.

Brief, but poignant.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Sep 12 2007, 01:54 AM