Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

All,

I forgot one mechanism in my model. If a photon is indeed an EM wavefront,
then the portion of the wavefront that is absorbed by the blocking walls and post
of the DSE will excite the wall and post atoms to a higher energy level. This
energy should be converted from kinetic energy, to potential energy, and then
back to kinetic energy, in the form of IR (heat), and may contribute to the
localized atomic energy that is present.

If the wavefront is reflected back by the walls and slits, there will still be some
small quantum energy contribution during the rejection (reflection) process, IMO.

Edit:
I may have found a flaw in my logic that may change the dynamics of my model
which may actually support C2's wave model, TRoc's harmonic mixing
model, and GE's photon wave model, and my harmonic cavity model.

If a photon is an extended EM wavefront then, there being 2 slits, each slit must
transmit (pass) an equal portion of the wavefront thru their respective cavities.
This gets us way back in the conversation where C2 questioned whether the photon
is split and passes thru both cavities, like a water wave does. This
seems entirely plausible, if a photon is indeed a wavefront. This would also
explain the mirror image interference pattern and the signal mixing as it
tries to reassemble past the geometry of the slits. This is the interference
of the photon with "itself. Actually it is the interference of the separate energy
fields interacting as they try to restablish a phase timing relationship.
This would work with a single
photon wavefront equally well as with a continous photon flow. I still believe
that the slits themselves are also a part of the resonance energy amplification
scenario, or no variation or pattern would emerge in the single photon experiment.


Lets discuss it. Comments welcome.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 27 2006, 06:55 PM

Hi all,



LL, maybe you missed this question from me at the end of the last page. I'll repeat here. I know it has the possibility of being a "dumb question", but it could be the "right answer" too.

Overall, I think that the DSE is just NOT a very good experiment. It is SO old, predating our technological ability to understand it. Adding the laser to it didn't help much. Other changes, and versions can and should be done, but haven't. Two lasers should be brought together through the slit, both a fairly close (in frequency) pair, and a pair about 1/2 an octave apart (50%). The entire "box" containing the experiment should ran with different materials, and specific monitoring as well. Some "acoustic" absorbing material vs mirror sides should produce a measurable difference. The "bare bones", no walls, out in the middle of the desert at night version would relax a few concerns as well.

Another thing, that MANY other experiment similar enough to the DSE (but very NEW in design) use Active Vibration Canceling Systems to cancel out normal vibrations inherent to the building. The Earth's Schumann Resonance is ever present, a natural harmonic, and large enough to have affects on lens, alignments, and pre-existing standing wave patterns. And totally ignored in the DSE.


We have our disagreements, which is fine, but I also think that, since we are having a "scientific" conversation, trying to change each other's views is very acceptable, and even required. Anytime someone says "I don't think this is true", they should give as full of a reason why as time will allow.

I'm going to recap some of our differences. Just 4 names here, there are more people involved, but not giving these distinct opinions. More are welcome!


C2: Photons are particles, and do NOT interact with each other.
GE: Photons are waves, and do NOT interact with each other.
LL: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other.
TRc: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other.

These next ones, I'm not positive about, so correct where needed.

C2 : One at a time particle is happening in the DSE.
GE : One at a time wave packet is happening in the DSE, but "other connections" are possible?
LL : One at a time wave packet is happening in the DSE, but "other connections" are possible?
TRc : One at a time wave packet is NOT possible with a laser. There is NEVER a time where the "pilot wave" of an envelope is not interfering with the preceding wave packet. Cavity equilibrium is not reached between pulses.


I have taken quite a bit of time citing references, and links to demonstrate the photons CAN interfere with each other. I know what the Text says, but I would like some empirical sources to substantiate the idea that they CAN"T. I can show "TEXT" that says they do, but we don't need to have a "name" contest. Let's look at the data gathered over the years.


Again, trying to clear the air of semantics may be useful here.

What does "interference" mean to you? Give an example(s):

FOR ME: Superposition, Doppler, Beats, Summation, Second (or more) Harmonic Generation, Raman Scattering, Stokes (& anti-) Scattering, Brillouin Scattering, Fluorescence, Rayleigh Scattering, Absorption, Reflection, Emission, ALL speak of an interaction.

You might say that some (or all) of these are MATTER caused, but I will ask for proof. There probably isn't any: in order to SEE (measure) these, we need to use mass. This does not guarantee that the changes are not taking place prior to the measurement. (nor does my theory of reducing mass and light down to their common denominator, VIBRATION, assure us that it IS) Fair enough?


I have made clear before, my opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation, and to large degree, the arguments of Bohr. This does not mean I think that this guy was not VERY intelligent. There is limitation to what we can measure. Fortunately, this changes with technology, and newer theories to re-explain old phenomena.

The existing QM/QED gives an "explanation" that I do not agree with in many cases. However, it DOES the same thing: take starting data, and make predictions. What happens in between is not CRITICAL to the arguments' correctness. So, in this sense, what I am saying is NO different: give me some data, and I can make a prediction. Do not overly concern yourself with "what happens in between" at this point, would be my suggestion.


C2 has a very good point, which I will restate here. SOMETHING "similar" is inherent in the "1-at-a-time" photon, and the stream of photons. This similarity, I say, is ALSO present in the laser itself. This similarity is present in the long list of phenomenon that I presented above. This similarity is present in ALL things.

The similarity is Resonance (surprise!).

Three things can happen to a wave, or Energy: absorb and emit UNCHANGED, absorb and emit CHANGED, and total absorption. I have the suspicion that just as much SEMANTIC-ISM is present in defining those things, like reflect, refract, diffract, etc.

I have SIMPLIFIED this in my theory to a mathematical nature:

Quantity can only do one of 3 things: increase, decrease, or be the same at measurement, as it was when produced. My Fundamental quantity is rate of Vibration; translating all data into Hz is a CRITICAL step to seeing the pattern that is in ALL things.


So will "translating" each others perceptions, and definitions, into some common ground.


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 27 2006, 06:44 PM

TRoc,

That was a good post, and good argument. I agree with the majority of your
intent.

I would like to correct your interpretation my position.

My position: Photons are discrete EM waves of energy at a specific frequency.
Energy interacts with matter, which acts as an energy calatalyst, and is converted
to different forms of energy by it. "Massive" quantities of discrete photons
can generate large field interactions constructively or destructively.


Regarding your "question" or assertion of the photoelectric affect in a PMT.
What you assert could conceivably occur, but I would expect it to also occur
with only a single slit sample too. If it happens in both instances, SSE and DSE,
then there should be a proportional average of these spurious events that are
registered in the count. If they are indeed spurious secondary electron emissions
then they shouldn't necessarily fall exactly on the borders of the pattern generated
and should fall inside or outside the outline of the pattern and be recognized.
If you keep the threshold voltage high in the PMT then you do indeed get spurious
secondary electron generation and random noisy phosphor bursts all over the
screen. This was experienced in one of the earlier posted PMT experiments
and it was necessary for the experimenters to turn the PMT voltage down to
minimize this effect. JMHO.

Do you agree?

Edit added:

All of the effects in your 1st sentence are artifacts of some interaction with matter.
They do not occur spontaneously in free space without some influence caused
by interaction with matter. Because of matter we have photonic free energy
quantum conversion to timing and phase coincident interactive energy fields. I agree that it is wholly to do
with vibration/frequency/harmonic interactions. You are correct that we use
matter to resolve the effects observed. Unfortunately, that will forever remain
a variable. We should consider it a constant since we are using matter to
define and measure energy.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 27 2006, 07:42 PM

LL,

That was certainly part of my reasoning for saying that, if you take out half of the interaction area (by post slit BLOCKING or measuring), a NEW result appears: the single, centered "dot" lit up on the screen.

That did not occur with just one slit (diffraction), ONLY two slit interference, with the ability to interfere REMOVED, does that.

This is TOTALLY logical.

ONLY by ASSUMING that "photons" do NOT interfere, are any "quantum weird" explanations required.

The single spot appears this way EITHER from 1-at-a-time, or a stream.

To me, this result is CLEAR:

The single packet can self interfere, the stream can "jointly" interfere, IF they are SEPARATED, and then ALLOWED to come together again. If they are not allowed to come together again, we can NOT expect interference.



ciao,

T.Roc

PS. sorry, I have to go. I will respond to your last post later.


This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 27 2006, 07:57 PM

Hi jal,Good Elf, Laserlight et al,

jal,GE,
Space memory .. firstly the problem with the MMX .. next .. light from distant stars gets to us with the same energy it left the star (ignoring red shift), hence we can tell how hot it is and what elements are on the surface. I suspect it would take energy to set up 'space' ready for the next photon... same goes for resonances that persist after the photon has passed... photons don't seem to get tired.

Troc,

Reflections .. check mirror .. mine shows all frequencies present and correct, no new frequencies. Lots of mirrors might selectively absorb some frequencies but do not make any new ones.

Absorption .. absorbs frequencies .. often selectively but does not make any new frequencies. Some very special materials under special circumstances can make new frequencies. The DSE detectives have combed the building where the DSE is located and found no suspect materials.

The equations used to predict the result are hundreds of years old ..we need the width of each slit and the distance between them. I have never heard of any suggestion that there should be one diffraction equation for bright light and another for dim light. The fact that we only need one equation for bright AND dark may be a consequence of the way the DSE detectives remove megawatt lasers and active optical elements from the field of battle before the DSE experiment is performed. The other equation, the 'DSE equation' uses the distance between the slits. The results suggest that this distance will remain sufficiently constant during the afternoon that no special sound absorbing material or vibration cancellation is required. To a great extent the experiment is 'self checking' .. if it didn't work we would need to find out why it didn't work.. wipe the coffee off it, draw the curtains, find someone sober who is clever enough to fiddle about with the technical stuff so we don't make a complete balls up of it .. etc.

TRoc: Photons are waves, and DO interact with each other. Not sure what you mean .. Details/evidence please.

TRoc : One at a time wave packet is NOT possible with a laser. There is NEVER a time where the "pilot wave" of an envelope is not interfering with the preceding wave packet. Cavity equilibrium is not reached between pulses.

A laser is not required .. monochromatic (non-coherent) light will suffice. The only reason for using a laser is that they are an easy way (nowadays) to get monochromatic light. The experiment we have been looking at may well have been carried out using a light bulb with a green filter in front.

TRoc: I have taken quite a bit of time citing references, and links to demonstrate the photons CAN interfere with each other.
The DSE is the best evidence that photons do not interfere with each other .. the pattern does not depend on the intensity of light - only the width of the slits and the distance between them. That will hold good unless you vapourise the whole thing with a 500 kW laser.

TRoc: Interpretation: we don't seem to agree that what we are seeing is even there to be seen (C2)
Whatever appears common to all things may turn out to be the result of wearing tinted sunglasses.

...the photoelectric affect in a PMT.
The way to test this is to count the photons from the results of the actual experiment, you cannot check this by discussion. I have done this check (graphically) .. of the total number of photons detected .. it looks 'right'. Please feel free to repeat the process and report.

-C2.

There is an error in my analysis which I think Duality has already spotted. It is more interesting to see who else spots it than to admit it.
-C2

TRoc and All,


TRoc said:

I would modify this a bit....we are talking about energy phase, amplitude,
and timing here. Each "1/2" portion of each individual photon will interfere only
with itself, whether alone or "en masse" as an indivdual part of a large energy
wave. The issue is relative phase timing. I have written a separate scenario
that explains this as simply as possible and when the tiime is right I will
post it. Basically, it has to do with the latent "cycle time" for an electron in a
single atom to change energy states. Each individual electron displacement from its
normal energy level takes time, and each full cycle generates a photon energy
pulse that is delayed from the ones that occur before it.
All subsequent photon energy release "pulses" have this cycle time photon generation
latency. Now consider how the latency of 1 electron in a matrix or mass,
compares to the latency of its neighbors. They cannot be in a perfect phase
or time relationship due to the atomic distance and arbitrary uncertainty position
of the individual electrons that comprise the mass. They are all separated by
some finite distance and therefore their timing is different relative to each other.
The electrons and atoms are not "time synchronous", they are offset from a timing
perspective, if even by a femto-second. My point being that no 2 photons are
ever generated perfectly relative to their timing or phasing. There will
always be some time latency offset.

IMO, this is why a photon can never interact with another photon. To put it simply,
they are never in phase.....UNLESS they are "signal divided" by interacting with matter. The energy that a photon contains can be spit, but each
fractional part of the originating photon retains their mutual timing and phase
relationship, since they were radiated at the same time.

It is possible to take the same phase and timing relationship of a single photon
and by delaying and inverting it you can get it to cancel itself.

This is a fundamental technique used in radar to cancel out any reflections of
energy that are fixed (not moving), so that only objects that are moving can
be detected by constant phase changes from the transmitted pulse. If you make
the pulses time coincident and inversed in polarity, they cancel out in the
circuitry where the time coincidence and signal phasing and amplitude
is manipulated. Remember that the transmitted incident energy pulse will
maintain the same relative timing and phase relationship since it comes from
the same source and is synchronized in frequency and timing.

Comments welcome.

LL

C2 and All,

]

Same quantum energy state, but it arrives at a much reduced intensity/power
level, since there are fewer photons per unit area. According to ISL !

I disagree with this, the act of absorption generates infrared by converting
higher energy levels (at the atomic level where they are excited to a higher
kinetic energy state and ) into a different frequency of energy that is radiated as
heat. The higher the energy level provided to an absorber the shorter the
secondary wavelenth that is re-radiated. Consider carbon, as energy is added
it radiates heat. As more energy is added the wavelenth changes proportionally
with the energy absorbed. That is why it goes from warm, to hot, to red hot, to
white hot, etc. Even black holes radiate energy (gravity) and you can't get any more absorbant than that.

Valid points on all counts... The experiment is "self relative" to its environment.
The wild card variable is the experimenter and his competency to conduct the
experiment scientifically.

LL

Just to put things into perspective...

Enjoy!
http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

LL

Hi LL,

Yes I agree .. what I meant was that absorption removes 'them' from the field of play that (for the sake of sanity) I would like to see restricted to the width of the slits and the distance between them. NOT whether the apparatus is on ball bearings or sat out in the middle of a desert.

When I joined this thread I had one way to approach this problem .. I now have two (I certainly didn't expect that).

When you bang a drum you get the whole shmooting match of drum .. Good Elf is 'sort of' there .. Troc is 'sort of' there .. I am not 'there' but I am doing my best to stop us getting lost in the desert.

Best wishes,

-C2.

C2-

Well you've gotta admit, there has been a tremendous amount of information,
conceptualization, interpretation, and different investigative techniques (and
motives) shared on our cerebral "investigative" journey. My curiosity has been
satisfied in ways well beyond what I ever envisioned, and I'm the better for it.

I feel that we are coming to closure on this DSE topic, but we have opened a
virtual "can of worms" in other areas of associated phenomena that can be
explored, developed, and interpreted.

Off topic- I just started reading Jal's board http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203]symmetrically%20structured%20spacetime
and I'm intriqued. Some very interesting stuff there, and I've only just begun.

So, where do we go from here? We have such a congenial, opinionated, and
smart group of individuals, it would be ashamed to disband once we all have agreed to the underlying root cause of the DSE results.

LL

Hi LL,

I agree about the quality of the people. Thanks to all for tolerating me.

We haven't even scratched the surface of the DSE.

A single frequency steady state should take about ... hmm ... forever? to evolve. And yet you hit the DSE with a single photon and what do you get?

Hopefully Good Elf will be back shortly and there may be others..

There is a lot more madness in this yet..

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi guys,

FYI, C2 I replied to Duality.

I just read a few post, but it occurred to me and it is just a hunch, but how does the photoelectric effect dynamics & the photon effect on the slits, play into this experiment.

I will let you Goggle the prospect. It is late and might not have any relevance just thinking out loud and looking for something that has not been looked into to my knowledge.

Disclaimer: There might be some research into this, but I have not heard of it? I know how much I do not know, so just consider the source. I like going out on a limb when it does not cost me too much. Besides I would like to know if it does, would that not be something. Eh!

BTW, here is a site you can do some experiments that will not cost you concerning a visual tool.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html

Carpe Diem,
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 28 2006, 02:35 AM

C2, LL, et al,

Now I know why it struck a nerve, had to find out before I leave. I must really be tired but here is a paper you might want to read, then you might have progressed beyond this. Hope I did not insult anyone.

This is what happens when you enter late in the game.

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/quantum.html

Carpe Diem,
yquantum

Hi all,


C2, I have already offered the information that you are requesting again. In a gentleman's' argument, the rules are: if you haven't refuted it, you bought it. No more going back, eh?



In all of this, we have the parameters of the experiment, and the compilation of data from the results. Interpreting the results is indeed tricky, but logic will see its' way through this.


I am going to say again, the same thing that most people have, after a great deal of study. These are the facts:


1. The "photon" concept can not be measured more than once.
2. The "photon" concept can not be measured, in any way, between its' origination, and its' destination. Doing so ends its' existence.

This means, that what I am proposing can NOT be seen, and must be inferred.

It is extremely important then, to point out that NONE of the 3 QM explanations can be seen either: THEY MUST BE INFERRED.

Because MEASUREMENT interacts, or interferes with the thing being measured, the traditional form of measurement has reached its' zenith. We have no way of measuring what is going on without changing what happens.


Everyone must make a choice as to which explanation they believe is better. If I have not established that interference, or interaction (including superposition or modulation) does not occur on the way to measurement, it is for those reasons I gave above. It does not rule my explanation out, however.

So, here is the choice in explaining the interactions that we measure:

A. They happen on the way there, OR
B. They happen when they get there.

There are NO other alternatives.

My choice, "A. The interactions happen on the way there" is CAUSAL. It can be explained very simply, and logically, from existing, "classical" Science. Yes, it is a "new" way of looking at this, but it does NOT require any great leap of faith. It has a HUGE amount of experimental verification, and follows every day logic and experience.

Choice "B. The interactions happen when they get there" has no explanation for the results. Three different approaches have been developed, each shown to be "equivalent" to each other, yet NONE having straightforward logic. They have been continually "updated", to match new results that come in against predictions. This has been going on for more than 40 years, and still NO satisfactory answer. QM has no reason at its' foundation, and no conclusion at its end.


You will have to choose the way that fits you best.

I will try one more time, to establish undeniably, that the interactions happen ON THE WAY.

QM began around 1905, and was firmly established by the mid 1920's. Sure, more has come since then, but I am speaking of the beginning. It is important sometimes, to look at the World that existed at the time a theory, or experiment came about.

At that time, AM radio was the ONLY radio. AM is, as you know, "amplitude modulated". Sound waves are translated into the proper form, and modulated, or superposed over a carrier wave, of steady frequency. Varying the power with the variation in intensity of the sound wave is what makes the amplitude vary.

The basic AM signal (EM wave) has its power concentrated at a center, carrier frequency, and 2 side bands, each a mirror of the other. (just like I describe a "photon") For better transmission (less wasted power), they can suppress the carrier wave. Then they regenerate the carrier at the receiver (measurement) in a "beat frequency oscillator", and then, a demodulator is used to separate the 2 signals.

I must pause here for some HARD questions (to those who do not believe):

1. Modulation is an interaction between 2 (or more) waves. YES or NO ?
This will not work if you do not use just the right signal, so my terms of Resonance predict this interaction.

2. They can send this signal (a frequency) WITHOUT the carrier wave. READ that again. What is "carrying" the other wave then? So, BOTH waves are able to move at c to the receiver, with or without each other, and EITHER can convey the information sent from the station. (emission)

3. What is the purpose for the beat frequency? They are able to RECREATE the carrier signal from the interaction with a beat frequency. Hard to get around that one!

4. What is it that causes INTERFERENCE that degrades the AM Radio signal on the way to the receiver? Why doesn't the wave "collapse" (if your answer was "mass")? Does the conditions in the ionosphere (cavity) play a role in this?

5. What happens to an AM signal, if different stations broadcast too close in frequency together? The signals INTERFERE, varying directly in proportion to their degree of Resonance. Please explain this "on the way" interference.

6. What happens to a signal (wave) if the modulation index is 100% (the variation in the amplitude is equal to the original level) ? That sounds an awful lot (OK, exactly) like pure Resonance, and/or SHG. Modulation indexes give less "problems" from 100% down, meaning the INTERACTION is "graduated". Please explain in QM terms.


Later, around 1935, FM radio was presented to "radio engineers". It's a good thing that it wasn't presented to the Copenhagen crowd. They would have told them "that is not possible".

This new radio, and the special case of FM, phase modulation, use ANGULAR superposition to modulate the signals. Interesting.

It would seem that the DSE experiment is AM radio, all over again. Decreasing the intensity DOES NOT change the frequency. If the frequency does not change, then there are, for example in a 730nm wave, 4x10e+14 cycles, each spaced 730nm apart, from the laser to the screen. It does NOT matter then, if the secondary, modulated "phase" is 1Hz ("one photon at a time"). The carrier signal, the laser frequency, STILL exists INSIDE the envelope.

THE RESULTS:

Double Slit
The line between the 2 slits cuts the envelope in 1/2, AND each 1/2 gets cut again at the edge, by hitting the side of the slit. They (4 pc) interact with each other, and hit the screen in the INTERFERENCE pattern. More light/dark bands, decreasing in intensity out from the center. Increasing distance between slits creates a LARGER "tooth", and reflects back Energy into the cavity; decreases number of bands on the screen, until (with the slits far apart) ALL the Energy comes from the same angles (angular momentum) to a single spot.

"Observing" one Slit
Catching (measuring) one 1/2 of the envelope PREVENTS interaction. The other 1/2 envelope hits the screen in a single spot.

Single Slit
ONE slit does not "tear" the envelope in 1/2. It tears off the ends, and most of the envelope hits in the center, with 2 lobes, decreasing in intensity. The DIFFRACTION pattern.


ALL the conditions and results of the DSE. No counter-intuitive, non-causal, dualistic, illogical explanations are necessary. Unless..

you choose to still believe that INTERFERENCE CAN NOT HAPPEN on the way. (something that can not be proved, or disproved)

Change the term "one photon"; it is ambiguous, and not necessary as a conceptual "unit" for E=hf . We do not use "phase" in that equation!



regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 28 2006, 09:24 AM