Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

T.Roc,

We are in philosophical agreement on many fronts.

I am curious how you explain the single photon "interference" pattern, where
discrete photons individually traverse the cavity of the slits but produce a second
order and 3rd order, etc., harmonic "beat" result . IMO, there is insufficient
time coincident signal mixing to account for a harmonic interaction or
signal recombination as we know it.

I think we have been beating around the bush, but are finally zeroing in on the
right direction to proceed. We are asking the right questions, and analyzing the
evidence, but IMO we are interpreting the evidence incorrectly. We are
quantum sleuths, seeking the answer from the evidence.
We could equate this to Quantum Forensics.....


Up to the challenge? LOL

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 22 2006, 08:00 PM

TRoc, LL, C2, GE, JAL, YQ, WN?,

TRoc, due to the fact I just read sites of interest I felt that maybe it was time to get involved in a few.

Because I am a late comer, I do not expect anyone to really give much attention to my comments which I feel is just.

One explanation it seems to me is we are dealing with a superposition state, but if you just think about this aspect of the experiment it seems to give some indication to the complexity that Young has presented.

Everyone, trying to express in 3D terms something that I feel goes to a deeper level seems futile, but if you think about just the geometry of this DSE, you can see that the greater the spacing between the slits, the smaller is the spacing between the bright bands of the interference pattern.

POINT: is that the interference pattern spacing depends on the slit spacing. So the interference pattern shows that the light wave ----MONOCHROMATIC which can and is done over a long duration--- if that is what is being used has to come from both slits.

As far as the Beats, again thinking in 3D terms which is all I can do, is that the wave nature or crests and troughs are just lines, not beats--- if you can imagine looking down on the experiment using the concept that has been presented by some on this post.

This is just based on my understanding of the term BEATS & all that it implies as far as the fundamental characteristic's of its usage, please correct me if I am wrong.

Dual

Hey C2, GE, LL, TRoc, Duality, 5D, jal, yq, et al.

I’ve been trying to catch up over the last few days, excellent stuff all around!

If I can offer an observation or two... It seems to me that the current issue revolves around everyone trying to come to grips with (explain) what the photons do in a single photon DSE. Everyone agrees with the experimental evidence; each photon will land at or close to the maxima and avoid landing at or close to the minima and do so according to the interference pattern that can be derived from the maths of wave interference. The disagreement seems to be whether the individual photon follows all paths and lands at a determinable location as a result of following all paths, or if it follows only one of the probable paths determined by the wave function. The former suggests that the "collapse" of the wave function at a particular location is determined (that is, not subject to HUP) because all paths are traveled. The latter suggests that only one path is traveled and while we can determine the possible paths (as a result of the wave function) we cannot determine which of the possible paths any given photon will take (randomness governed by probability). Regardless of the approach chosen, if we know the geometry of the experiment, we can accurately predict the outcome of the experiment without ever sending photons through the slits. Agreed? If so, then it seems that the geometry (in 3D+T, or more if you are so inclined) is the important factor, especially the T part. As evident in the DCQE experiment, the experiment must be run from start to finish and any alteration of the geometry of the experiment in between the start and finish must be taking into account when computing the time independent probability. Bohmian Mechanics addresses this with pilot waves, W-F Theory with advanced waves, and QM with a psi... Is there any empirically independent evidence for any of these? Can we “see” a pilot wave, advanced wave or a nothing wave? No. They are all constructs to explain the same empirical evidence. That being the case, is there any empirical evidence that weakens the claims of any of the three?

LL, if I could add one more to your list of possibilities…

5. The actual/real/physical geometry of spacetime though which the photon can travel is determined by the actual/real/physical geometry of the experiment. Photons tend toward the maxima and avoid the minima because those are the allowed (and not allowed) paths through the geometry of spacetime that they can travel.

Hi All,

Just a "quick" one .... Be very clear... wavelength is measured perpendicular to the wavefront (along the direction of propagation) and in no other direction. It is that measurement that determines the "individual color" of a photon. A photon can have many internal frequencies that make up a simple packet but as shown by my construction previously a sequence of packets in time 'stitch together" to form Continuous Waves suppressing the other higher frequencies in the packet but contributing to the boson waves "influence".. This is the principle of least action being involved...

click on link...

Waves can reflect around cavities especially where there are perfectly reflecting walls and the Poynting Vector will also follow that normal around so does not always follow a perfect sphere of expansion. Remember this is a "cavity". This does not change the way we measure the wavelength in a vacuum which is always perpendicular to the local wavefront and this parameter remains constant in a vacuum. Of course in material mediums with differing refractive indices such as glass, you need to account for changing velocity of light and thus changing wavefront heading.

I really thought that everyone understood the basics about waves... Oh well... back to the drawing board.

Cheers

WhyNot and all,

My argument to this is that the "collapse" (or deformation/stretching) of any
component of the wavefunction should immediately change the photon to some
other less energetic form of photonic energy. That implies that there would be
a frequency change as C2 is suggesting. The result should be a "loss" or
transfer of energy as it is converted to IR. This would present a real dillema
unless the geometry of the DSE acts as a quantum "transformer" or signal
splitter.

This still doesn't address the mirror interference pattern unless the quantum energy
content of the incident photon "splits" and diffracts into 2 lower energy photons
that travel at 2 different angular vectors as they depart the tuned cavity of the
slits. This would suggest that from 1 photon of x energy that 2 photons of lesser
1/2x energy were generated and their integer spins are in opposite directions.
Is this even theoretically possible?

Edit added: This could explain the unexpected squaring of the number of
photons detected when the number of slits doubled.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

OK, we should add this.

Back to my basic questions. Why is there a geometric wave pattern "mirror
images" generated by the passage of individual photons thru the slits? Why do
individual photons, without any physical or timing relationship to each other,
respond to some unknown phenomenon to generate symmetry?

Any comments or ideas welcome.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 23 2006, 12:15 AM

Good Elf,Please forget theory for a moment or two.
Looking at
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You need to look at the difference of path length caused by the separation of the slits and the angle to the screen, nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree that most photons are counted where the wavelengths add up to an integer and the least are found where the wavelengths add up to an integer + 1/2. If 'yes' then you are looking at the same thing as me and apparently a few others.
Hi LL,
I apologise if I appear to have suggested the frequency changes in the DSE. I have suggested that the wavelength is no more than the distribution of the most likely place of finding the photon. I do think the DSE has magnified the wavelength greatly and enabled us to see where the photon lives in it .
Part of my reasoning for suggesting that the photon frequency is pretty meaningless and we should look at photon energy is that we can spread the wavelength (distribution of the photon) out in this way without changing the properties of the photon in any way.
Why Not?
I'm still trying to take in what I'm looking at .. too soon for me to have any idea of 'why'.
Troc,
Yep, I seem to be a particle man, it had to come out sooner or later.
Best to all,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 23 2006, 12:31 AM

Hey LL, et al.

From what I have read in the DSE experimental data, the frequency of each photon does not change. A photon is emitted from the source at a certain frequency and wavelength and some time later is absorbed at the screen. The energy of emission is equal to (within the bounds of h) the amount of energy at absorption. As such, the photon does not split in half. The mirror symmetry is a function of the wave mechanics. Each photon does not hit the screen in two different places.

In the case of photons, I believe the collapse in this case is a conversion of energy. The non-local (at least within the size and time constraints of the frequency and wavelength) gets converted into momentum of the absorbing electron. The "frequency" literally collapses in the conversion process. The speed of the collapse can be nearly instantaneous - the whole phase velocity thing.

I am not entirely certain I am tracking your question correctly… But it seems to me that the symmetry is a result of the geometry of the apparatus. If source is not centered between the two slits, the mirror symmetry will be lost.

C2, see my added edit to my prior post...re: the squaring of the photon count
by doubling the area....

LL

Hi LL,
I was rather hoping nobody would notice this effect .. if I suggested that the photons in the interference regions hop over into the bright zones you'd probably think I was crazy. I'm only saying what I think see. The same data is in front of all of us.
-C2 .

WhyNot,

There is a "progression" to the pattern. The photons are not just randomly
oriented or scattered, they are balanced in the vertical and horizontal planes, and
there are the same number of photons on each "lobe". Remember that
each photon arrived at a different time from every other photon and travelled
thru 1 or the other of the 2 slits, but they still generate a geometric pattern.
If they arrived randomly and had no interaction or phase relationship, then they
should be randomly scattered and not been balanced in their pattern.

They have what looks like a timing generated deflection coincidence, or a
uniform/balanced deflection offset, even though they arrived at completely
different times. Also, notice that there are photons in the direct centerline of
the center slit post.

I'm still mulling over the squaring of the photon count issue by doubling the
slit exposure area, even though when each slit was individually opened the
count was 1/4 that of both slits open. The count didn't double, it squared.

Come on guys we have some important clues but everyone seems afraid to
explore the unexplainable. Where is your sense of curiosity and adventure?

LL

Hi LL,

How are you getting on with my suggestion that photons hop over into the most probable regions?

-C2

Guys, I have a theory....so keep an open mind and comment accordingly.

The dual slit is a dual complementary tuned cavity to the energy of the photons.

What does this mean?

It means that as a single photon is passing thru a single cavity, the cavity harmonically
resonates due to the geometry of its shape. This harmonic frequency that is set
up in one cavity is resonantly coupled into the other cavity because they
are symmetrical in geometry. The second harmonic resonating cavity "recreates"
or duplicates the energy pattern being coupled to it and it generates a "twin"
photon that is out of phase and of opposite integer spin to the initial photon.

Crazy?? Maybe, but this would explain several clues that I have elaborated upon
previously. It would explain the photon squaring issue. It would explain the
mirror image issue. It would explain the energy "lobe" placement phenomenon
and it would explain the photon symmetry count issue per lobe.

Comments? Or should I be on the lookout for some men bringing me a white
coat with sleeves that tie in the back?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 23 2006, 02:02 AM

C2-

How do you explain the mechanism for how this should occur, and how do you
explain the apparent symmetry issue, and the squaring of the photon count?

I am having a problem visualizing how your suggestion could work.

LL

Let me offer a real life example of induced resonances.

Consider how a tuning fork works. If you strike 1 tine of the fork it vibrates and
sets up vibrations in the other fork tine and the 2 tines "harmonize" in timing
and form resonances that form beat frequencies. If you expose a tuning fork
to the specific harmonic frequency from an external source, it will start
vibrating at the same frequency even though it is not in direct contact with the
frequency source.

This follows fourier analysis and the resultant interference waves of Michaelson interferometry.

I'm proposing that coupled tuned cavities will resonate in harmony, like a
quantum harmonic "transformer".


Who can explain this better. Does it fit QM or QCD theory?

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

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 23 2006, 02:32 AM

Hi Laserlight,

I think we would agree that it is not easy to make an optical cavity .. by definition I think it requires multiple reflections. The apparatus usd to demonstrate the two slit effect varies from classroom walls to some of the ones we've looked at where lenses are used .. also some (DCQE http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) where the difference in time between detections is effectively measured .. this would seem to eliminate the possibility of any sort of optical cavity effect.

In this post http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141440 .. Why Not? gives a link to an MM where the time of flight of the photon is used .. unfortunately with entangled photons but even so I think it's clear neither photon has had time to make multiple passes through either leg.

I would certainly agree that even the possibility of multiple reflections might influence the outcome .. looking at a classic MM there are half silvered mirrors and multiple reflections involved .. the Q of any cavity cavity would seem to be 'not a lot' ((zero?) and I'm pretty sure any ghostly fringes would have been noticed before now.

A few years ago I was challenged to demonstrate the DSE and it took me very little time to cut two suitable slits in a piece of foil. With the aid of a laser pointer I successfully demonstrated the effect. Unfortunately a variation of the Peach Brandy effect caused me to lose control of the scalpel I was using and I cut myself rather badly while preparing the slits. I was conspicuously losing increasing amounts of blood as the demonstration progressed. The only time I tried to draw the attention of the audience to the physics involved it (for some reason) dissolved into fits of laughter which I felt was both unkind and unhelpful.

Best wishes,

-C2.