Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Jal,
I am still reading your board. Pretty interesting. I'm trying to take it all
in, since your theoretical approach is new to me. So far, so good, but I am
still reading and digesting the information.

Off Topic-
I understand your point source, phase rotation relationship across 12 touching
points of the spheres that make up a unity sphere. What about the 12
sub-spheres that fill each of the 12 stacking spheres, ad infinitum? Seems like a
ratio within a ratio. This isn't the correct forum for an answer...just curious.
I'll continue to read. Perhaps you answer that further in.

Regards,
LL

C2-

So is the photon a particle or a wave? Previously you were sticking
with the particle scenario. The results of the DSE speak for themselves and
we are getting our arms around the mechanism of WHY they provide the
result.

I agree that the counts of the DSE are roughly 2x of any single slit alone.
I am still baffled by the total counts and graph given at the end of the experiment,
and the declining alternating mirror amplitudes of the waveform results of the single photon
DSE. These are the only things I am questioning with the results presented.
HOWEVER, correctly explaining the BASE nature of the discrete photon is
my primary goal at this point.

I say EM expanding (radiating) wave "pulse".

Comments welcome.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 29 2006, 06:14 PM

jal,

Thanks, I assumed and we know what they say about that, I was lucky it is the same as on other sites, dealing with physics, chemistry, & science on the www.

Got it, and thanks again.

Still reading, you and the others have much, must find the time to peruse!

Duality/Lisa

This post has been edited by Duality on Nov 29 2006, 06:37 PM

Hi all,


Just some responses to questions for me. I will have to "leave" the conversation for a week or so. I have enjoyed everyones' ideas, and questions. I will "catch up" when I return.


C2

No problem with that, I'm not sure why the question?

C2

"every time"?, too vague. Again, I'm not sure why you said this.


WN?

I agree there.

WN?

I hope that I didn't suggest that it would. The point of the post on AM, was to point out that MODULATING the AMPLITUDE downward to give lower "photon" counts, is just SUPERPOSING a "sideband" low frequency over the fundamental frequency of the laser. This "pulse" of "1 photon per second" says nothing about the Energy present in the wave.

The Energy present, at any time during this experiment, is expressed by E=hf ; the "pulse" Energy is not the frequency that the laser is emitting, so it CAN NOT measure the Energy present. Once again, our way of measuring, both "creates" and IGNORES the "dark Energy". What does E equal when the pulse is NOT present?

Frequency is a RATE. When this rate is COMPARED to the constant RATE of the velocity of an EM wave, you get c / f = wavelength = "clicks" of distance. You can't arbitrarily draw a circle, or envelope, around these FIXED lines and claim to have created a "new distance", to the exclusion of the FIXED lines. On the contrary, the FIXED lines, EXPRESSED as a RATIO, can always be "measured" in side the arbitrary "envelope". The RATE of DISTANCE per SECOND, Velocity, compared to the RATE of DISTANCE per CYCLE gives us THE CYCLES PER SECOND answer. You can "cut up" this RATIO however you would like, but you will not change its FUNDAMENTAL value.

MASS and ENERGY both have a roll in Resonance. As an interaction, both are required.

GE suggests that the resonances are ALWAYS present in any cavity, automatically. That is not false. However, if you are sitting in the amphitheater, waiting to "hear something", we know that you won't. The harmonic set of oscillators MUST be present to detect the CHANGES in equilibrium that we exist in.

Each musician in the symphony has access to roughly the same few octaves of notes (range of frequencies), and they usually have 4 fingers moving, and CREATING CHANGES to their SIGNALS. Lets say we have 100 musicians, making an average of 3 frequencies each. When your mind "interprets" this data (changing frequencies), it sounds beautiful (for arguments sake, lets AGREE on that).

Who here thinks that these SUPERPOSED frequencies, NOT in any random way, do ALL their "work" when they arrive in your ear? That is, the INTERACTION, that we all agree is happening, happens in your ear. What about anyone else in the room?

The fact is this: these 300~400 frequencies superimpose to create an "overall" change in frequency. It is not complicated, because the NUMBER of NOTES are limited. You will "note" here, that SO ARE OUR FUNDAMENTAL OSCILLATORS. We just have electrons, and their orbitals to contend with, and THEIR SPECTRA can be TOTALLY described and understood from around 2 "octaves" above or below the VISIBLE SPECTRUM.

So, the INTERACTIONS of these waves, MUST HAPPEN on the way to your ears. It is also VERY important to note that, our ears are SLIGHTLY out of tune with each other. THIS IS A BEAT FREQUENCY MODULATOR. Our ears take the signal, create a beat, or RATIO scale, and send the beat frequency (NOT any single oscillation from the orchestra) to the brain.

Do the "acoustics" matter? Of course, the size and shape of the cavity set up CONDITIONS for specific interactions. But you still need music to be played, and heard to understand the fundamental event that is happening when Energy MOVES.


WN?, I will do more to explain the photoelectric effect, later, and elsewhere. You can see where I am going, and how I will do it though.

The mathematics of Resonance are simple enough to be applied to basically anything. The atom has an overall frequency, this has certain harmonics, changes to these harmonics can be measured if frequency. SHG is "clickable" Energy, and its' Beat-frequency is the Fundamental: this means if you hit the harmonic with an equal frequency, the INTERACTION of the beats RE-creates the original frequency. That simple musical (and now optical) fact, describes atomic transitions. IT IS THE REASON WHY for Quantum Mechanics, that they have been seeking from the beginning.

At the other end of the scale, you have the "ionization level", where the harmonic (orbital) can NOT exist with the (now too far out of the Zone) Fundamental. Guess what is in the CENTER frequency position? The "work function", which always "hangs out" at the first harmonic of the NEW Fundamental. This is simple, recursive, Scale Function. Exactly the same reason, and rules that apply to a musician scales.

This measure as a "dip" in the count rate (resistance). The real QUESTION (as usual) is not what QM has asked. Did an "electron" interact with a nearby electron, or did a photon exist in between them? Or did the rule for "ionization" level get broken? (it happened prematurely) Keep in mind this is PRIMARILY a "metallic" phenomenon, with their LOOSE outer electrons. You could begin with a THREE part casmir force (describe a center plate by the forces that exist between the other 2 around it) .

The simple Resonant change: at the ENDS of the reach of interactions (RIZ) a "new force" comes into play. The DISSONANCES begin to ATTRACT each other. This is the other side of Resonance. The frequencies FAR from the Fundamental, DISASSOCIATE with the original Fundamental, and JOIN to form a new one.

This DOES NOT work in REVERSE, unless you BREAK up the "standing wave" resonances. This is conservation of Energy, and simple HEAT per MASS unit flow from Hot to Cold. Stability, equilibrium, etc.

[the "answers" you get from "breaking up"/colliding these are not Fundamental]



ciao!

T.Roc

Hi LL, All,

I'm sorry if you feel mislead and confused by the ripple tank. I did not intend to suggest that the ripple tank explains how photons travel .. the ripple tank only explains the result of the DSE .. which is another matter altogether. If you keep your eye on the ripple tank (and the DSE equation) you can see where the bright bits are going to be. As soon as you take your eye off the ripple tank you start seeing wave-packets and various wishy washy ways of trying to make a wave packet look like something other than a wave packet.

Since your epiphany I guess you have flipped into a wavepacket/spike/impulse way of thinking and I would guess the DSE looks 'wrong' .. too many peaks .. why THAT equation ... what is the relevence of the ripple tank and its beautiful patterns.. and so on. UNLESS you look at the DSE it is entirely possible that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wavepackets, physics is riddled with them.

Maybe the C2 solution only gives the right answer IF and only if you look at the DSE. The photon instantaneously (or nearly so) solves the continuous single frequency excitation response of the whole DSE .. possibly the Universe. It is (I'm pretty sure) incidentally and not uncoincidentally the same result as Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' but stated differently. Both require belief in magic. I prefer my words to Feynman's .. it is more magical and the right person could explain it using a ripple tank which is also a thing of great beauty and no small amount of magic. I'm sure Good Elf would confirm that I have been pregnant for some time. The baby is still only a few days old and I need time to work out just how powerful it is .. or whether it might have to be .. er... 'sent away'.

I leave it on the table for discussion if anyone wants to discuss it.

For what it's worth - I think a photon is a particle - no more than a particle with an attitude problem.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Troc,

"every time"?, too vague. Again, I'm not sure why you said this.

You put another DSE in the path of the first what becomes of your beat frequencies? The DSE is itself a frequency analyser.

Best wishes,
-C2.

TRoc,

Good argument. You are talking resonance "keys", like the key of C or G. All
tones of the key note are harmonics of the fundamental? Yes/No
I would imagine that you could easily prove your point by measuring the
bright bands and the dark bands and finding the ratio between their peaks
and widths. The reason that I say this is that, without doing anything else
to the experiment, if you change the gap spacing of the slits the number of
and distance of the bands changes. Kind of like a flautist changing the
hole pattern that he is covering with his fingers. The resonance frequency
of the cavity changes the pitch of the note. Same note, different pitch. Same cavity, different gap spacining.

If all the instruments in an orchestra play the exact same note you will not be able
to descriminate an individual instrument from the harmonic note being played,
they will resonate at the same frequency. We however have 1 frequency of
light. My point being that the only variable is the gap spacing, and the harmonic
tone that it generates.

Arivaderci!

LL

Hi C2,

Where do I begin?? To the contrary, the wave tank does not conflict at all. What
is 1 thing about any open area wave energy pulse in nature?
Come on, you know the answer to this! LOL!

They all radiate out from a center emission point and propagate radially
in all directions. Water is 2 dimensional (+time) so waves are "confined" to that 2
dimensional plane of reference and propagate as a circle. Sound
propagates in 3 dimensions+time. A sphere. How about a free standing
non-directional radio antenna it radiates as a circular 3D +time toroidal
wave.

The fundamental law of nature is that a wave pulse radiates uniformly
in all directions in the media that it is transmitted in. It can be directionalized or
modified by interference with matter, but in a free standing system, it radiates and
propagates in either a circular or spherical pattern depending on the planes it
can interact with.

Take the pattern of a single photon thru a slit. It forms a simple diffraction pattern
as part of the total energy of the original wave passes thru the slit.

Now without changing the setup, add another slit. Energy from the same
photon goes thru both slits and a periodic interference pattern is generated.

Now add a 3rd and 4th slit. The radiating photon goes thru each extra slit
(within the bounds of the arc area of the expanding photon wave. The number of
bars and nulls displayed on the background increases. (The ISL comes into play
as a function of distance from the source, and the angle of incidence to the
arc of the expanding photon, since the single photons in the experiment were
projected thru a couple of polarizing filters which effectively clipped their angle of
arc "projection". The more photons there are, the brighter the intensity of the
bands. The brightness of the bands is a function of intensity only, that is
the number of photons that strike that location over a given time. Whether you
have 1 photon wave "pulse" or a billion photon wave "pulses". The width of the
bands represents the distribution of the individual photon pulses as they
interfere going thru the slits.

My contention is that whether you have individual photons or a million photons radiating
thru 2 fixed postition slits, they will form the same number of bands. Just their
intensities will be different.

If light is a particle, how can it go thru two or more separated slits, and how can
it interfere with itself.

Keep in mind that all waves in free space propagate radially from a center point
of origin. That was even illustrated in the drawing of the DSE by Young, who
could only observe it in 2 dimensions which yielded circles. If you project it in
the z plane also, you get a spherical radiation pattern. If the back board of the
back plane were curved to match the arc of the circle you would get evenly
spaced lines projected in "3D" (I believe this is correct)

I think that even a laser beam divergence is measured in degrees of arc over
distance.

Comments/discussion welcome!

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 29 2006, 11:37 PM

Hi Jal,

Yes... because "Already Unified" Electrodynamics does not require manifold quantization, it is perfectly internally consistent without gravity and gravity is perfectly internally consistent without manifold quantization. Disagreement comes with particle theories which want to quantize the manifold to justify their own purpose. Do not be misled by people who wish to peddle theories that have no direct clear method of experimental proof. These theories are just that and are a very long way off from being experimentally proven. When I mean a "very long way off" I really mean millions of years from our present technology... if it can be proven at all. I am not led by any experiment to believe that manifold quantization is in fact occurring. I am also not a popularist... I am not seeking "funding".

IMHO therefore a continuum theory will work very nicely provided that quantization becomes a process in which quanta are generated perfectly naturally. You can explain all quanta using Fourier decomposition and all quantum numbers being the eigen states generated on the surface of harmonic spheres as continuous functions.

Why? Remember my theory is the reciprocal of AdS/CFT. The 'quantization" is on the surface of the particle.

Sorry... this is not simple "product definition", I have nothing to sell here. "More" is not easy to "quantify". For me "less" is "more". One contrary experiment can sink my theory forever. you just need to find it.

I guess your case like mine rests on "perceptions". Have you convinced Stephen Hawking of your "better" theory? I know I have not but I do not intend to. While you are invited to put forward specific places where you see experiment differing with my "model", I am not easily convinced that it is wrong with the argument you have given here. it is also not a "popularity contest" where people,lawyers or Judge Judy vote on the Physics they would like. I like the fact that the Universe is the ultimate arbiter on all matters through experiment. The level of our Understanding and our Technology will determine just how good we are at solving these problems and ultimately determines 'ranking" relative to other competing but "lesser" theories. A kind of "scientific morality" dependent on true understanding not on "brute" force or numbers.

There is no disagreement here, I see these things differently. I am solving a quite different problem and I use different tools. There is no one answer and there are no "ultimate answers"... that is an axiom of human knowledge. All anyone can hope to do is satisfy all verified experiments and that is what I am aiming for.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 30 2006, 12:40 AM

Good Elf

I agree... I prefer my detail approach
jal

Good Elf, Jal, & all,

I wanted to find a paper that was a easy read, but this might be a bit much. When you bring in topics like above you must include what has been tested with experiment and data.

This is the easiest paper I could find that might give some information that could be of help. Not sure after reading the last few post where this is going. But I have the feeling we are no longer in Kansas, Dorthy?

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...gr-qc%2F0606021

I am not even sure this applies to the discussion? I think I will read later post and then see where you end up. Yq, sure does not ask much of a girl that is for sure.

Duality/Lisa

Good Elf,

With due respect, I have some philosophical disagreements RE:

IMO, this makes no practical or logical sense. A photon exists in OUR spacetime
and in OUR planes of existence. They interact with us and we with them at
a physical level.
Just because we cannot detect a photon as it propagates, and during the process
of detecting it changes its form of energy at that specific detection point, does not mean that it does not exist.
Its speed has been measured, it has properties that we can "control" to some
extent. 200 years ago no one knew what electricity was, or the atom....we are
still exploring and trying to find answers to many natural mysteries. Just don't
tell me that the world is flat because no one has proved that it isn't.

IMO, there are some inconsistencies in the arguments you have made over the
past months that conflict with some of the statements above.

Using your description
of a hologram, where every broken piece of the hologram exactly records the
exact same full scene of the full hologram. Parts of the photon were everywhere
simultaneously as they interacted with matter, and yet the wavefunction did not
collase and register an event at only 1 point. The wavefunction was recorded
at all points in the matrix of the hologram. That implies that the wavefronts of the
photons were at all places in the matter matrix simultaneously. There is no other
way to explain the phenomenon any other way. That interval of time was locked
everywhere in the matrix at the same time by the same wavefront(s).

This was regarding the issue of the photon wavefront reflecting off the incident
walls of the slit and post while also separating and passing thru both slits
simultaneously. There is some inconsistency here, IMO. The truth is we don't
know what power component was lost due to reflections or absorption of the
wavefront that didn't travel thru the slits. By your definition of how a collapsing
wavefront operates, if walls and center post of the DSE were a blackbody material
then the wavefront would collapse and be absorbed by the blackbody walls and
post and wouldn't travel thru the slits. I don't think this would happen, I think
that the single photon would still go thru the slits.

Do you agree or disagree?





From Wikipedia:

Comments discussion welcome.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Nov 30 2006, 08:30 AM

Hi Laserlight,

IMO, this makes no practical or logical sense. A photon exists in OUR spacetime and in OUR planes of existence. They interact with us and we with them at a physical level.

Sorry you feel that way since all experiment does point to the result as I have stated. I really do not have to prove that at all. What makes sense to you does not matter since it is the way the Universe works... and it is how closely you are able to gain instruction from it that ultimately matters. Everything else is hubris. What you say about light is just not true. The quantum state is 'untouchable" and while a photon in that state the photon cannot change and that means there are absolutely no interactions... this is an experimental fact and it is the base nature of the quantum... you cannot measure it or interact with it and not change its state without scattering it or absorbing it. Specifically we are speaking about photons "en route" to the absorption/scattering event. The photon experiences "no dynamic" during this stage of its "existence" (creation followed by state collapse). Any change will tamper with the qubit and then that photon will no longer be capable of "coherent" action through its wave nature. It is no longer part of the set of photons that have that certain interference pattern. That is the nature of the quantum. Sometimes you cannot invoke "common sense" since "common sense" is not so common and "human logic" without science is the root of all human conflict. The "interaction" with a photon is strictly "outside" the limits defined by myself above. The photon travels (if this is what you call travel) in a state that cannot be detected without causing its collapse. That is not a matter you are going to win on. In that "state" it remains unchanged .... as long as it is undetected without change even "forever". No losses no alterations... etc.

With all due respect... You like the rest of us must accept that there are some things that just "are" and not under yours or my philosophical control. Once people accept that there are limits to what can be done in the Universe through the Universe literally telling us its own story with experiment, we can rest in acceptance of our lesser role in the things "seen and unseen". Later on "down the track" of human progress we learn more tricks and ask better questions and then we find "exceptions" and "extensions" to the hard and fast rules. This is happening with Quantum Physics, no broken rules but more exceptions and new applications of ideas. These exceptions and enlarged sets of rules are couched within the total experimental base that has gone before.

I view Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model like the Earth Centered Universe of Claudius Ptolemy.
Wikipedia: Geocentric model
Firstly he stole the idea from the Chaldeans (Ancient Babylonians... you know the guys we have invaded)... the Saros Cycle.
Wikipedia: Saros Cycle
The ancients showed conclusively that the Universe was a hollow shell with "fixed stars". They were fixed since no parallax was seen for these objects in the heavens. This was proof positive of "no extra dimensional space" beyond that shell and all fixed stars were on that shell. Inside that shell were the wandering stars (planets) which moved in "circular epicycles" with the Earth at its center...(The epicycles were "perfect circles" when the planets went back on their own "orbits"). Sort of like those Mechanical geared automaton models (Orrery) of the solar system with its gears. The system could be adjusted with additional "epicycles" of varying periods to correct for deviations from the perfect model. It was found that all observations could be accounted for by such a system. A wonderful theory but totally wrong. But the maths was exceedingly good. To argue from that "end" that the theory is right because it gets the right answer has always been the catch cry of "theorists" for many centuries. My view is do not fit the Universe to a theory fit our theories to the Universe.... the Universe knows best! Today we have a theory that is warm and comfortable but makes no sense but gives excellent answers (Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model)... one day people of the future will laugh at our ignorance. What they will point to is our lack of being able to look at facts objectively and see our world the way it truly is accepting it for face value without the "magic".

Cheers

Hi LL,

I liked that bit about intensity. Let's have a point source .. are we happy that they mean something like omnidirectional? We have our source at the centre of a sphere . It does not matter whether we are in the middle of the desert or not .. this is not a trick experiment.

Let's say our source is emitting light at a frequency of about 5 x 10^14 Hz.. From E = hf we can say the energy per photon is about 6.6 x 10^-34 x 5 x 10^14 = 3 x 10^-19 J .

We make our source give an output of 3 x 10^-19 Watts .. that's 1 photon a second.

We make a sphere 1 metre in radius and cover the inside of it with photographic film. .. we put our source at the centre.

After 1 second (that's one photon) we turn our source off .. take the film away and develop it and sure enough we find one spot. Hopefully we agree that this is not exactly 'omnidirectional' .. the whole of the output ended up in one spot.

Maybe that wasn't fair..
We repeat the experiment .. leaving the source on for 7 seconds .. that should be enough to get 7 dots equally spread over our film .. lets wait and see..

We repeat the experiment AGAIN.. leaving the source on for 23 seconds .. that should be enough to get 23 dots eaqually spread over our film.

We can go through the motions of developing the film but hopefully we can already see that the dots for the 7 second run are going to need a different distribution from the dots in our 23 second run. To get the dots in the right places the source would need to know in advance how long the experiment was going to last and it would have had to work out the angle to fire the photon at and it would have had to remember which photons it had fired so it didn't accidentally put two in the same place. Some people will claim this is exactly what happens.

We should notice, while we're here, that if we doubled the radius of our sphere then the amount of photographic film required to cover the inside of the sphere would increase by a factor of four. In every case the same number of photons would have been spread over four times the area .. the inverse square law still applies but not like it used to when we were in Kansas.

-C2.

Hi LL,

We've had a little look at intensity .. hopefully it's clear I'm the only one on this thread who doesn't understand what the 'intensity' of electromagnetic wave is.

Let us look at the DSE again. It is a machine for measuring wavelength. We can tell this from the equation given here ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ).

When the first photon lands .. can we tell the wavelength? .. clearly not .. we know they turn up all over the place .. two photons? .. the result here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) shows that we will need to detect a lot of photons to get an accurate measurement of the wavelength. In Kansas you read the wavelength off the side of the source and then you know exactly what will happen. The DSE suggests you don't know exactly what will happen even after you've read the label, maybe you get a different result in Kansas .. I don't know, I've never been there.

I could go on to look at frequency but maybe I've already done too much for one day.

Best wishes,

-C2.