Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Mom,

Pretty hard to crack passwords.... this is an easier option you may need to arrange with some computer friends.

You need to boot using a Knoppix or Ubuntu Boot CD. If you are on a Windows network start Samba shares. Go to a separate networked Windows Computer and find the Knoppix Computer on your local network and copy the files you need off the drive to the second windows Computer.

If you only need to "read" a file or two, then you can do that from within Knoppix desktop environment. Knoppix can be downloaded as Freeware off the Internet (suggest version 3.6 or 3.7). Burn the ISO image using Burning Software.

This is a Physics Forum and not a Computer Forum.... this is "off topic". Please use the appropriate venue.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=10

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 29 2006, 05:29 AM

Hi Laserlight,

Nothing is "impossible"... The pieces are not "scrambled" just 'jumbled". You can only do what is reasonable. That is what I have tried to do. I use existing experiment and current theory and this is what you can come up with. The pieces fit and the maths exist already. What people do with it is up to them. Who is to say that "Elf Theory" is not already being used?

Cheers

Good Elf -

I agree totally with those statements. Can you explain why the wavefunction
of a single photon does not collapse upon striking the matter of the perpendicular
walls and post of the slits? Obviously, there must be reflections back toward the
source (or absorption) of a portion of the energy of the photon wavefront that does
not pass thru the slits.

I am also questioning some of the theoretical aspects about single photon
wavefunction collapse since the energy level and symmetry of the EM fields of the photon is split by the 2+ slits, and the reflection off of obstructing wall surfaces.

In my mind, it seems that if the photon's full wavefront energy intensity is diminished by "losses", then the intensity of the photon striking the target is diminished.

I'm still grappling with the theoretical "mechanics" of elements of this experiment
and quantum interactions.

Regards,
LL

mom

Just assume the worst and get over it. If the child is worrying you then talk to him or have a good shout at him - even if you don't know exaxcly why you're doing it - I'm quite sure he will.

Best wishes,

-C2.

A fairly basic DSE

There are two slits between the thing we call the light source and detector

'Something' happens in the light source
'Something' happens in the detector

We count the somethings that happen in the detector.

The number of counts the something counter gives is shown here

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

We read the wavelength off the side of our source

This accurately predicts the overall distribution of counts
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../imgpho/sinslit

This equation accurately predicts where most and least counts will be detected
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html

It has been shown that the total number of counts with both slits open is the sum of the number of counts with each slit open individually (within about 5%)

The experiment has been performed many times. If the rate at which events in the source were happenening had any influence on the observed distribution of counts then it would have been headline news, no such headlines are known. The effect is stable and therefore is probably not influenced or caused by the phase of the moon .. etc. etc.

IMHO it is helpful to look at the results before attempting to explain what is happening.

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 29 2006, 09:56 AM

Fellow travellers can set up their own DSE using this applet
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm

To explain the observed distribution it is clear (to me) that more than one 'wave' is required to explain the number of peaks of intensity which appear in the experimental result

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

Having looked at the result for as long as is required fellow travellers are invited to reach or dispute the conclusion that the distribution appears to be best predicted by the steady state excitation by a single frequency, from such analysis I suggest impulses, shaped impulses etc. simply won't do.

-C2.

[Sorry.. I seem to be in God mode this morning .. it will wear off shortly .. strong black coffee will probably do the trick]

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal et al,

For a start the graphic that Zephir has is "good" but not perfect. For individual photons... If a node just happens to fall on a wall it is highly likely that if the photon is not absorbed at other points where there are anti-nodes then it will reflect off that screen wall. We previously discussed the "eye of the little hurricanes" concept .... we do not know and cannot know just where that point will strike. Next issue this is just one photon in the "weak" case". Eventually it will probably be absorbed, when that happens all wavefronts "globally" will collapse for that one photon. Naturally an electron wave is a totally different beastie. While it has "waves" it also has charge and the waves cannot be collapsed since the fields are "evanescent" and come from "inside the particle cavity" through tunneling (from our point of view). The reason this particle cannot collapse is because it is "knotted" through "parity" (symmetry) and Time (causality) and this is also linked to charge .... CPT conservation.

Be very certain about this... the photon is not diminished at all by all that "bouncing around". An individual photon is either absorbed or scattered (particle interactions), everything else is pure and simple propagation without loss inside the space that it is confined to. The way I am able to understand this is "literally nothing is actually happening between the events creation and its ending"... the event and its outcome happened in a single instant when the photon was created and absorbed. Quite frankly there is no time for anything to happen to the photon... so nothing "dynamic" can happen to it without any passage of time (think about it!). Everything else is "smoke and mirrors" and a mirage in which this phenomenon may as well not be happening... indeed this is exactly what Quantum Mechanics actually says aboiut it (I do not believe that though)... it says the photon actually does not have any existence at all until its "wave-function" collapses. This is what Yquantum means by "waves of nothing". My view is once you believe that you will believe anything at all and I can tell you about the faries at the bottom of the garden and you will say "Really?"

Photons cannot be partly scattered. Once the qubit is lost that is the end of the coherent interference game for that one photon. The interactions are "all or nothing". Loss of brightness is due to a loss of photon numbers not due to photons losing energy a little bit at a time. This is nothing more than wave reflections and do not involve any actual energy processes. We know that individual photons can travel millions of light years through space and arrive at Earth with exactly the same original energy they left with. We know this through spectroscopic analysis of distant stars and aside from proper motion of the source, the frequency matches exactly the emission or absorption lines of the same elements here on Earth or on our Sun. If the frequency is the same then the energy is the same...
E = hf ... for all photons regardless of source. They do not "get tired" or run down in energy since they do not have any time, in their own rest frame, to do anything at all.

The photon when it is finally absorbed, only then is the energy of the photon 'reallocated" through loss of the qubit. The absorption of the photon into a particle or cavity involves possible reallocation of energy such that a photon may be absorbed and some kinetic energy might be left over after an electron is ejected in a photoelectric interaction in certain materials for instance.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 29 2006, 10:57 AM

Hi Good Elf,

The Zephir applet shows a blob with a physical width and length (spherical). If you give it infinite length then there would only be one frequency present .. and if you gave it infinite width then there would be no need to line it up with the slits.

Could the difference between my description of reality and your explanation of it be a matter of degree rather than form?

If we had very narrow slits we might see (say) fifty peaks * .. would this change the form of your photon?

-C2.

50 peaks is the description not the explanation. 1/Observe 2/Explain.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 29 2006, 11:36 AM

Hi Good Elf,

Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

and comparing with

I think it would be helpful to show that these apparently very different processes are either equivalent or make clear that 'Wavefunction collapse (Elf)' is indeed a very different process from 'Wavefunction collapse (QM)'.

-C2.

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Jal et al,

We are probably the only two people reading this stuff you realize...

I did not see a caption with that blob... did you? Is it a photon or a particle like an electron. Electrons do not spread very much do they? But they can... look at this... You have seen this animation before. This does not show psi squared. Why do you think that is the case since only psi squared is used in almost all classical quantum mechanics?

These are "realistic" concepts regarding trapped matter waves in cavities. Like I have said before, there is only one way to measure frequency that is perpendicular to the wavefront. That will always give the same wavelength (the distance between successive wavefronts with CW). The spatial frequency due to spreading does not matter. Collapse in that direction perpendicular to the wavefront can occur at an "infinite" speed. You still are not looking at it my way... that's OK though. When you "square"... inner product... a complex quantity you no longer able to "unsquare the function" since it has become a "projection".

The width of a packet can depend on the number of internal modes... For instance a laser pointer reduces the spreading wavelets to a single spatial direction with only a small amount of spreading. Still along that wavefront the same arguments apply. All waves do not spread on the surface of a complete sphere. Dipole radiators will spread on the surface of a sphere. Most natural sources of light will spread on the surface of a sphere. Please note ... a sphere not a hypersphere.

I think it would be helpful to show that these apparently very different processes are either equivalent or make clear that 'Wave-function collapse (Elf)' is indeed a very different process from 'Wave-function collapse (QM)'.

Like I said also before.... The Quantum Mechanical wave, as even quantum mechanist's will tell you, are "waves of nothing". Ask them what it means? I will not be saying that the QM Treatment gives the same level of self consistent interpretation that my concepts can only that my concepts does not cast away valuable data at an early stage of the analysis. It may be that the answers may be more difficult to arrive at and the results in certain calculations might be indistinguishable, but what I am attempting to find is the underlying Physics that conditions the statistics. In some areas I believe that the answers can be slightly better than with standard QED. In other areas it will give answers in regions where standard QED have no answers such as in "higher dimensions". There is no one mathematics to solve all problems, it is not my intention to do that. In the same way you may choose to use two dimensional equations of motions to solve for intersecting geodesics in spacetime with the earth surface I choose simplified arguments to arrive at "good enough" versions of the same problems with tools developed for other physics questions. The physics of three dimensional spaces is always the same be they our three dimensional space or "somewhere else". The only point I would call to your attention to the fact that the Hamiltonian is confined to one three dimensional "space" at a time... Other than the resonant processes which communicate "across" those "gaps", this results in energetically stationary states waiting for a collapse. These waves you are "seeing" (actually not seeing) are not the primary "particle" they are states in which no interchange of energy is occurring with our Universe. The "collapse" is when a "particle" enters into our three dimensional environment after a "sojourn" in energetically separate dimensions of a separate "quantum space" which is presented "on demand" when a "particle" is promoted into that realm... a quasi-stable state at best.

My suggestion is a critical reading of this statement says quite a great deal. IMHO quantum decoherence is what we mean when a particle interaction has occurred. After that the wave-function is indeterminate even if the photon still exists as a ballistic (... as in DCQE Experiment). My photon-particle interactions have physical meaning and work on an entirely physical realm such as the realm of Circuit QED. If you read the literature most modern treatments do not use scalar waves of probability when you are trying to describe real Quantum Phenomena... the description is just not good enough. As to equivalence there is no such thing since Quantum Mechanics does not deal with three dimensional space but a mathematical space that has no direct relationship to scale or to place. Also "probability" is not a measurable of our Universe. Electric and magnetic fields are measurables. I do not have to show "equivalence" Quantum Mechanist's will indicate to you in the most strongest terms that these are apples and oranges. I ask you to tell me what distances mean and what you are discussing about those photon particles. Quantum Atomic Processes are an "adjustable membrane" you stretch through "renormalization" over whatever surface you you want. The assumption is that using this ad hoc Conformal Field Theory you must get the right answers I suppose... but I would rather like to check things with a meter.

Just because I am not following the "party line" in quantum physics I am entitled to see things the way I do since that way they make more sense to me. Mine is a purely physical theory and it is self consistent. I believe that it offers the same level of information as other less "human understandable" systems of analysis. It is important to have "human understandable" systems for our own peace of mind... my peace of mind.

Hope this helps. Try some practical resources such as ....
Center for Quantum Information, and the Rochester Theory Center.
Atomic Gap-Soliton
Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 29 2006, 03:56 PM

Good Day all!
Just a few word …
Good Elf
…..on the lower dimensional surfaces of Universes ….meaning … 2D
….. So dealing with waves instead of particles will remove the current inability to Unify Gravity ….???
….. This way you have an "Already Unified Theory" without the ugliness of quantizing the manifold... All part of a AdS/CFT Holographic Universe …..I disagree, it must be a quantizied 2D suface
….. The photons do not "change" the standing wave pattern in space it is already there…. Yes, I agree, see my quantized model
….. The standing waves in cavities already exist there and the photon just moves over the three dimensional surface as an "illumination" of that existing pattern….. yes, , I agree, see my quantized model
….. Therefore I can confidently say that the interference pattern of standing waves "exist" simultaneously everywhere and it is only that the photon "envelope" that propagates around all those places in space "illuminating" the relevant paths of the pattern (seeking all paths)….. ….. yes, I agree, see my quantized model
…. If you are focusing on the "local" events too much then you miss the point of global events where this is not a local phenomenon. ….. yes, I agree, see my quantized model
…. since everything in the Universe is waves even the matter….….. yes, I agree, see my quantized model

…. When I say proofs ... what I mean is strong experimental basis…. I GOT MORE PROOF THAN YOU…., see my quantized model
….Mine is a purely physical theory and it is self consistent…. MINE HAS DETAILS AND IS BETTER

Why Not?
….An expanding universe, like ours, that comes from a big bang does not have such a well-behaved boundary. Consequently, it is not clear how to define a holographic theory for our universe; there is no convenient place to put the hologram…..SOOO… LET’S GET RID OF THE B.B. AND THE CURRENT EXPLANATION FOR THE EXPANSION , see my quantized model AND EXPLANATION

Troc
I’m preparing/making a link… DYNAMIC MODEL …. double tetrahedron structure
Maybe you can make music with this model and someone can adapt this to the 4S model.

Laserlight
I'm still grappling with the theoretical "mechanics" of elements of this experiment
and quantum interactions…., see my quantized model AND EXPLANATION

Duality
The LQ foam people are plodding through their math. Eventually, I am sure, they will get to the SPOT.
jal
ps I'm also reading

This post has been edited by jal on Nov 29 2006, 04:14 PM

Good Elf and All,

I awoke EARLY this morning with an epiphany.

There is a fundamental issue with our inability to comprehend the true nature
of a single photon. Either my interpretation of a photon, or the way the standard
2D models depict a photon as a waveform, is wrong. We are all trained by
the same classical concepts, but some have more extensive and varied
training than others. We have been misled or confused by the water wave,
which is a ripple on a 2D surface, and the simplified EM sine wave diagrams.

A single photon is not a "wave" in the conventional sine wave sense. It is a
pure energy pulse "spike".Don't come unglued yet! Hear me out. Think
of it like the noise shock wave radiating from a firecracker thrown up into the
air. The shock wave radiates 360 degrees from the explosion. In the context
of a "wave" it is actually a radiating pulse, which is the simplest form of a
basic wave. A sine wave is a sequential repeating series of time delayed
energy pulses of equal amplitude and equal duration, it is just divided by a
mean zero signal value. This gives it the cycle values, frequency, amplitude, and
wavelength over a time interval. A sine wave is the mathematical representation
of cyclical spherical EM radiation emissions in 3 dimensions and time at a fixed
reference point in space.

It is my contention that, in its purest form, a single photon is an energy pulse
radiating in a 360 degree sphere from its point source atom of origin.
This somewhat follows the dipole model, but not exactly. A dipole is
concentrated "polarized" matter from which energy radiates in a toroidal
shaped pattern from a centerline axis. A single atom is a point source.

Ok, let's assume a single atom of hydrogen is confined in an evacuated glass sphere
in a lab. Now if it were possible to supply a single energy pulse of sufficient
power (a single high energy photon) to the single hydrogen atom it would
temporarily "absorb" some of the energy pulse being applied. Its electron would
be displaced from its steady state "uncertainty" orbital energy level as it gained
potential energy from the applied pulse. After the applied pulse passes, the
electron drops back into its normal energy orbital and releases a single photon
pulse of kinetic energy. That single photon "light pulse" can be seen (detected)
by all observers from all 360 degree spherical locations, as long as they have
an unobstructed mean free sight path to the radiating atom. This can be verified
by the dual slit and multi-slit experiment where the single photon passes thru
all slits oriented perpendicularly to its arc expansion "path". Water and sound
follow the same mechanics. (There is a null point between slits on the output
side of the blocking wall)


The implications of this seem obvious.

1. A single photon energy pulse is an expanding (radiating) spherical
displacement of energy in 3 physical dimensions along a timeline which is c.

2. Since it is a sphere, the 360 degree mathematical relationship to pi is
consistent.

3. If viewed properly at any point along the advancing wave pulse, the
energy/intensity of the pulse is an arc curvature shaped wavefront of the energy
displacement.

4. The amplitude and power factor of the photon wave arc is determined by the
cross sectional area of the sphere at the measured radian distance from the
center of the sphere. This fits the ISL for power/intensity as a function of distance from the source.

5. Since the pulse energy wavefunction is an increasing sphere, it "fills" all space
equally as it expands thru it. In a crossection of a given volume there is an
expanding z axis arc wavefront energy pulse that traverses perpendicular to the
cross sectional xy axes of the volume.

6. The energy pulse wavefront can be divided, reflected, absorbed, refracted,
or diffused by interacting with matter.

Disagreements, different opinions, alternative perspectives or interpretations
welcome. Let's discuss it and develop it if it warrants further scrutiny.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 29 2006, 05:06 PM

To all, thanks Good Elf, yes about YQ,

For what is is worth --> he hopes this is the hottest post on the forum because of no interference from those who invade so many others.

Question? I want to put in some equations, how? & Who post what? I keep getting MY Website...

1. I need to read a summation of your concept in full, do you have a page explaining?
Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, jal, THor, and anyone else on this post.

I do not like just to jump into a discussion till I first go over in full, the model that each person presents. I hope this is not asking to much!

Oh, I will not use to much mathematics, Yq, advised not to seem esoteric, I believe that is how he express his concern.

Thanks,
Duality/Lisa

Good Elf,

Well, if you can believe in elves, then I can believe in fairies. LOL!

Hmmm, I agree with most of this. I'm talking amplitudes/scaling. You can have
different amplitude sine waves at the same frequency. Same frequency, different
amplitude or power level. Isn't that how attenuation works? Correct me if I
am wrong.

Comments welcome.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 29 2006, 05:16 PM

Hi Duality/Lisa,

If you click on a members name you can select a listing of all of their
posts. In the case of Good Elf, there are thousands of posts. Perhaps he
has a board of his posts with a compilation of main points/theories and
references.
Jal and Zephir sponsor such boards.

LL