Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi everyone,

If you might be thinking in terms of particles or waves there is a question I would like to ask.

First I do not have the answer, sorry can anyone really comprehend the size of this particle? You could use mm, etc. but truth be know, I am afraid it will all come to the consensus that we must approach this as Good Elf has stated if you need some answer.

I am ashame to say that we are no better off than we were thirty years ago in understanding QM, but it works and it also develops better technology in which I hope makes a better world to live in.

I give others a hard time on other post, but all it seems is for them to use some data to support there theory or how else can we make an intelligent assessment. It is only in fun, not to harm.

Everyone has a right to there opinion, just give us something to work with is all most would ask. This is what T. Young has presented to us, would you not say...

In the case of Young's DDE, all I see is what I saw so many years ago as a teenager growing up in this field. Speculation's, so go with David Bohm if you need closure because I am afraid we do not have the technology to really answer this question.

There, I just tossed out the baby with the bath water.

Duality/Lisa

This post has been edited by Duality on Nov 25 2006, 02:22 AM

Duality!

You answered my question.
I'm going to put my bet on the bath water.
jal

jal,

Please do not underestimate the ability of the human mind. You or anyone else can reach far greater goals than the technology we have as of to date. You do not have to be a physicist, or a expert in a field. Just have some data, concepts that have been proven, and some brilliant way to test your theory.

How does it go?

We will not even bring up, A. Einstein & what he did without the technology. A.E. gave us a warning --remember the concept should be able to be understood by a child-- he also gave us some way to test his ideas, which gave validity to his concepts.

There is a disclaimer here, he forgot to tell us how to understand QM. I think I understand better now than ever why he considered it incomplete. That one is for you C2, & Good Elf.

The real test of a first-rate intelligence for everyone is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. Not sure I am have reached this place.

Best,
Duality/Lisa

Duality/Lisa,

Good point! Anything we can imagine, that has a basis in reality, we can
construct or explain easily. The main issue is understanding what is reality, and
keeping it pure and simple.

LL

Hi everyone,


What a great job! Very good posts from everyone, and all "hovering" around a common point (or 2).


I'm going to address LL here, from a question of his a few pages back. He asked for feedback on this:

I agree with this in principle very much. I was trying to leave some things "off" of the table right now, especially given that to PROVE this requires a new & special set-up. So, for the sake of this conversation, that seems like "too much". Taken as a WHOLE, any term of Resonance will always include all the other parameters that are NOT producing the resonance. You cant have one without the other; this is Nature's Bayesian logical reduction of the "impossible" (dissonant). Those signals are excluded from the effect, but not the cause.

As I mentioned before, I don't give the "photon" independent existence. It always exists as a transaction between masses. So, for my idea of wave mixing, the cavity must be a part of the equation, because it dictates several key behaviors of the movement of energy. Just as we thought that lightning "struck" the ground, until super-slow-motion cameras revealed that the Earth sends a charge out to "greet" the bolt of lightning, which never technically touches the ground.

Definitely, in the 1 at a time photon runs, the cavity "ringing" plays the key role in imparting "predictably random" bits of angular momentum, which translates into the random build-up of the screen pattern. Each new "photon" enters into a slightly different, but limited set of modes of the cavity (pre-slit side). The end result is predictable (and consistent.. never showing some "quantum wrong turn"); how it gets there "seems random" because of NO monitoring of the cavity modes. No information means "magic" to those who don't realize what's missing.


ciao!,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 25 2006, 05:51 AM

TRoc and All,

Thanks for the honest feedback. I'm sure there are more fine "details" if this
is really a workable quantum+physical mechanism, but the concept seems
like it should theoretically work. I think that the width, geometry, and proximity of each
slit is significant, both in how the quantum fields interact and also in how the
side walls act as reflectors to sustain and amplify the atomic "ringing" or signal
mixing.

It seems somewhat apparent that a single slit cavity has an effect on a
serial stream of individual photons because a small wave arc pattern is generated
by each slit intdividually, and they are displaced or offset from each other, but
both exhibit a similar wave shape. There is a fixed photon count thru each
individual slit when the other slit is closed, which is consistent over the sampling
time. However, when both slits are open and the same sample time is registered,
there is a squaring of the total photon count and the interference pattern becomes
a mirror image, full interference pattern, with nearly symmetrical opposing photon
placement on each 1/2 of the pattern. Keep in mind that this is still a serial
photon stream, however the individual photons can travel thru either slit cavity.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif

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

There appears to be at least 3 effects ongoing with both slits open, there may
be more.

1. There is signal "amplification" as evidenced by the increased size of the
interference pattern, when compared to either single slit pattern.

2. There is a squaring of the photon count....where did the extra photons come
from? Were they generated due to the ringing of the second cavity that acted
like a tuned cavity signal amplifier by concentrating the energy and propagating a
slightly delayed spontaneous photon wave emission with opposite integer spin
to the original photon?

3. If the effect in step 2 did occur, it would explain the apparent "mirror"
symmetry and photon hit correlation of the resultant interference pattern.

Comments, opinions, disagreements, different mechanisms welcome.

Does anyone want to develop/discuss this further?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 25 2006, 08:52 AM

Hi LL,

Attempting a rough integreation over the pattern of http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml

From the downward pointing arrow curve..

Treating it as a triangle

Base = 6, Height = 700

Area (roughly) = 1/2 x 6 x 700 = 2100
Ditto for the other slit

Area under slit 1 + slit 2 = (approx) 4,200

Area under both slit curve

Base of each 'triangle' is approx 0.9

Starting at '3'
1/2 x 0.9 x ( 700 + 1500 + 2100 + 2400 + 2100 + 1500 + 700)
= 11,000 x 0.45 = 4950

Very roughly ..
sum of slits individually = 4300
sum of both slits open = 4950

I suspect the idea that the total photon count might be the same in both cases has already been rejected - if so then I won't attempt a better integration.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Ready or not..

A rather tedious square counting process gives a total of

106 for one slit
112 for the other slit
----
218 Total

209 for both slits open

I'd say the 5% error could easily be the result my poor square counting.

So it looks like photons migrate from the darke regions into the bright regions .. hence the the intensity is squared (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4!

At some point we should perhaps look at what happens if one of Good Elf's giant photons does not score a direct hit exactly half way between the slits. I suspect the littler photons go everywhere and yet everybody sees a nice pattern even without trying to line up all of the giant photons.

The point of experiment is not so much to preserve a theory as show what happens in reality - theory comes later.

In my mind we all reach ' Base Camp 1 ' when we realize that we don't know how the DSE works.

Best wishes,

-C2.

C2,

I would suggest that you check into the dynamics/characteristic's of the boson's/photon.

Just to give a better perspective/approach to counting of this element.

Duality/Lisa

C2- and ALL,

If you read the whole experiment again, you should find that the students used
a photomultiplier and a frequency counter to count the photons. The photon
graph at the bottom of the experiment shows photon count per second.


C2 said,

IMO, if you consider wavelength and amplitude of photon EM fields, each frequency of
photon is a different size, relatively speaking. You know that antennas are
designed to be some equal fractional portion of the photons that they are radiating
or receiving, either full wavelength, 1/2 wavelength, 1/4 wavelength....The
antennas inside your eyes (rods & cones) are designed to pick up photons in the
visible spectrum and are relatively tiny. They reject infrared, as can be
seen in "red-eye" photographs that have silver crystals sensitive to IR.

Consider the geometry of the DSE as a "tuned" receiving antenna with a built in
oscillator-amplifer cavity. It could be considered kind of like a photonic
version of a "cat's whisker" radio diode where a crystal is sensitive to radio
photons and acts as a cavity oscillator whose frequencies are detected by a
tungsten filament wire. In that example there is an interaction between
photons and matter where the crystal wall facets reflect the received RF signals
internally inside the cavity and set up an amplified harmonic oscillation that can be
detected.

I see some possible theoretical similarity in mechanisms between the two
examples.

Your thoughts?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 25 2006, 06:24 PM

Hi all,


LL,


Yes, let's just go through this. First, let me throw in my "usual" questions, because this experiment takes place on a University, and we know that words and statements can be ... exaggerated?

IE : monochromatic, one photon, there's no beer in here, I love you


So, before we do too much work "counting" their "counts", lets examine their WORDS vs THEORY LAWS, and ENGINEERED REALITIES. We shouldn't find any beer cans.


First, in case you didn't read this before, HERE is a link to my post to C2. This is the same web site that you are talking about. There are good reasons to doubt the description of the experiment, that is: WHAT it is they are doing is an interpretation itself.

First question: what is this "voltage to light intensity" RATIO? Would that be an additive process? Counting 1+1 doesn't need multiplication, so the only proportion that is solvable, by 1+1 method, is 1/1, or 1. Anything more than that wouldn't be a 1+1 count would it?


The "rules" of QM do NOT require a single interpretation of the "photon". Energy is a process; already itself, a complex ratio of information. What is single Energy? Is that even a valid question? Now, let's add superposition to the equation: this principle states clearly that more than one "photon" can exist at the same time, in the same place. What does that do to the Energy of any single place and time? How confident are our measurements of Energy to "photon" count conversion? My confidence in it is null.


I hope this last paragraph has an effect on you. E=hf is stating this: the CHANGE in Energy = an integer # of cuts, each 6.626e-34 parts of the ratio of the speed of light to the cycle distance. In order to get f , you need to divide 299,792,458 by the wavelength. Then, you multiply this typically large number, by the very small value for h . This is the same mathematical statement as saying "divide the RATIO of cycles to velocity into 6.626e-34 parts. That statement does not speak of "singleness" to me.


That is the "photon" side of the argument, now lets' go to the electron point of perspective.

Down in the "bowels" of the measuring device, we have a p-n junction. The incoming EM wave is said to force an electron from the valence band to the conduction band, where it can be measured (by voltage across the p-n). Atomic transitions are MUCH more rigorously defined than the handful of metals that display the photoelectric effect. So, I'm going to stick with the idea of a requirement of a specific quanta of Energy being needed to make the electron "jump". There is no kinetic energy being employed in this calculation, and we must ALLOW for superposition of "photons". This quite clearly means that the counter can NOT distinguish superimposed Energies. It just "clicks" when E=hf. IT DOES NOT SAY, NOR CAN IT SAY, ANYTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF "PHOTONS".


Science does NOT have ANY explanation, or clear mathematical rules for Resonance. It is commonly defined as either the 1:1, or 1:2 ratio. Nothing else. Pythagoras paved the way for a further explanation, but a satisfactory one has never been given. This is why I am suggesting my method for further understanding. There are a clear set of mathematical, and geometrical rules that can be applied to "beat-frequencies", or differences in ratios. This explanation is required for an understanding of Energy superpositions, which will explain the affect that we are describing. How Energy can combine its' force on a given area, at an arbitrary moment in time. (without being permanently coupled)



That should suffice for a start.


T.Roc





This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 25 2006, 06:41 PM

TRoc,

Good argument! Keep in mind that a PMT amplifies the energy of a photon
by 1M+ times and individual photon "hits" appear as bright flashes which
can be counted by detecting the voltage increase at the detector from some
threshold ambient, non-stimulated, voltage plateau.

It is true that there could be coincidental photons impacting at near simultaneous
time intervals, but that should appear in the average of all measurements or
voltage increase "counts", whether it be only 1 slit or both slits open. My point
being that there will be a close correlation to the accuracy of counts in both
cases since both are being done in the same fashion. Consider it "averaged"
counts as opposed to absolute counts.

Yes we, as outside observers of their data, can only try to interpret what they
are reporting. There is a finite information set and we do not know how
accurate or complete their interpretations are, but we can also apply correlating
information from other similar experiments to attempt to validate their methods
and results.

Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of circumstances beyond our control and must
make subjective conclusions or predictions based upon the evidence presented.
Such is the quest for knowledge as we seek the truth.

Regards,
LL

Hi Duality,

I suspect that dealing with things that do not explain the DSE may be every bit as difficult as dealing with the DSE itself.

Maybe we'll see that the 'wavepacket' has many of the properties of an entire wavefront .. maybe even more than one wavefront .. maybe we'll see a lot of things .. maybe we won't.

If we continue to apply simple concepts and they continue to fail .. then maybe we might try a more complicated concept.. or maybe not.

If anyone thinks I've miscounted the squares or that the 'extra' events are not in some way related to the 'missing' events .. we may learn something. I assure you the square counting is 'honest' (and tedious).

Best wishes,

-C2.

C2 and All,

Are we absolutely certain that the wavefront and wave tail "oscillations" observed
in a pulse on an o-scope, aren't just artifacts caused by the "ringing" of the atoms
of the matter of the detector itself as they are stimulated out of their normal
orbits by the leading edge of the incoming pulse? The tail oscillations might be
"relaxation" delay ringing as the electrons fall back into their steady state orbits
after the primary energy pulse passes and transitions back toward zero at the tail?
"Ringing" is a natural phenomenon of atomic movement in the presence of
energy.

My quesiton is posed because a sin wave is a pure undistorted mathematical
representation of pure energy as it relates to pi or a ratio of lenths and angles of
a circle.
A pulse should also be pure energy, until it interacts with matter that has
a different energy wave frequency signature. The combination of both energy frequency signatures
would cause some distortion as the differing energy frequencies mix.

Just a thought, but I think I'm right about this.

Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 25 2006, 07:25 PM

LL, C2, TR, and all,

I think this is getting to the enigma of the problem now, we know that what ever we measure with, it is made up of atoms that are very active, energy of some source, etc.

This has always been on my mind how to make this test sterile in the sense you would not have entanglement but then you would have to deal with so many other aspects of this DSE and that is just on or 3D surface, what is going on in the QM world is to make one, well not there yet.

From my view this is were you begin to have a better understanding of the QM dynamics.

D/L