Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight,

I dunno... I think we are doing quite "well" so far! OK... If you do not accept that experiment is showing us higher dimensions then I can't "prove" that to you. I do not know how many more times I have to show where conventional theory comes up "blank" without an explanation and I am supplying the reason why. If you can forgive the analogy... This is like trying to convince Adolf Hitler through argument that Communism is "right"... He he he... I am not even going to try. Without the Scientific Method I cannot prove anything. I "bow to the mob", who am I to pit one voice against millions of "true believers". IMHO the way this issue was resolved in the past was the minority dissenters were burned at the stake. The Scientific Method is the only bolt I have left in my quiver and I face a "sea of opposition". If this is unsatisfactory, then like many others, it will not be possible to prove anything to anybody and we can stop right now... Shake hands and agree to differ. As the "elf" on this site I respond only to questions since I am not about defending the "indefensible". I still say it is up to you to show where experiment fails with my theory and the maths and predictions I am proposing is not about to oppose your "god". I can tell you right now I do not accept a "god", man made or otherwise, that is in conflict with its own creation.

No hard feelings... eh?

PS: You should refresh your browser about the last post since you missed the updates.

Cheers

Hi "THEY",

The "mechanics" of the DSE and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment are well known and proven. The subheading of this thread is "... observing later", clearly a reference to the DCQE Exp. I realize that I often come to this point in a discussion and those who hold fixed ideas will go no further. I will back down now and leave the discussion. I have more profitable things to do.

Cheers

I had a whole thread asking the question ... HOW???
I'm left with waiting to see what they will find at CERN.
I'm sure that the "boys" at CERN have discussed and layed out plans.
Right now, I think that k-k and Lisa Randall with her exp. curve are the leading candidates.
Hey! They could all be wrong... right Good Elf!
I'd like to have more tech./math knowledge to guide our quest.

jal

Hello "THEY",

Where do I begin???

NO!

The experiment has been done thousands of times, the results are always
the same, but the reason WHY remains unanswered. The definitive
description of what a photon really is, is the riddle/conundrum of the experimental
results.

There is no sense repeating the experiment ad nauseam, the results will always
be a derivative of the original. What good is that? The answer to the riddle
lies in the very nature of the existance and topology/anatomy of the photon itself.
If we can quantify and explicity define what a photon truly "is", then the answers
to most of quantum physics will have a solid foundation that everything else can
be constructed from.

We may never be successful, but the exploration of the various concepts,
theories, and even "out of the box" ideas may provide the spark for deeper
understanding......perhaps even an answer!

Bear with us, and contribute. Who knows, you may provide that essential
spark that ultimately answers one of the many riddles that requires a true
solution.

Regards and get well soon,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 2 2006, 01:30 AM

Good Elf, dear friend,

LOL!... I am not proposing that some higher mystical entity is responsible for
anything. Quite the contrary. I was merely pointing out the fact that,
that which we cannot easily explain by proof is easily explained by the
unprovable. I am a philosophical agnostic that relys on HARD DATA
to convince me, though I am prone to "project" abstractions if they have
a basis in available data/informatiion. Extra dimensions are also abstractions.
I think that we both agree on this idea. I have, of late, read several different
theories on this PhysOrgfourm. All are proposing a theoretical solution to
the mysteries of the universe, and all have some interesting and compelling
arguments and "proofs" but, how do you prove the unprovable? That is my
point.

Personally, I have been "enlightened" by many different posters who offer
different perspectives, opinions, and "solutions" to the mysteries to which we
have no definitive answers. I reserve the "right" to filter and accept or reject
the various hypotheses and proofs offered by so many. That is the essence of
dialog. We exchange ideas, thoughts, information, perceptions, and concepts,
while hopefully communicating in both directions.

There are many sparks. Which one will ignite the flame of truth?

I want to believe, but show me irrefutable proof!

Until then, agnostically yours,

LL

Please NOOOOO! I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone. But I know Santa keeps you busy at this time of year, so if you are just busy I understand, but don't back down you are a major contributor!

I just think all of you folks have become stuck on who won the game instead of describing/finding the donkey together. Just seems that the great constructive arguments that had been going on have just turned unconstructive the last few days. Lets get back to the where how why things work and don't work. Break each theory into bite size pieces, toss the pieces that don't work and keep what does. Stop take a breath, shovel some coal and get this train rolling again!

If I sounded like I was pointing fingers, sorry. I was just trying to use some light hearted humor to get things going in the right direction again. But I guess light hearted humor on the internet is a brick huh?

ps LL- I am here to listen and learn, not contribute. But you guys taught my daughter "they"2 something about the DSE a few days ago! This is the best thread, lets keep it that way.

Good Elf,

I am not a true believer....as stated previously, I am an agnostic. Why are
you so ready to climb upon a stake of your own making, while holding a
can of gasoline and a box of matches?

You are beacon for ships foundering in the storm. There is no need for
you to douse yourself in gasoline and light the match. I am listening to your
theoretical proposals, they pique my curiosity and offer some logical concepts that
other theories don't. Yes, there are abstractions, but I am not disregarding
your hard efforts, experience, and thoughtful explanations. Some are
difficult to accept, but like I said, I am keeping an open mind.

We are listening to your message, but may challenge some of your concepts
because they are "foreign" to us and our prior educational "brainwashing",
and preconceptions. Don't be so easily exasperated.

Are you up to the challenge?

LL

Hello THEY, and THEY2!

Please do not be discouraged by our recent "squabbling"! We have been
discussing and arguing this experiment and what it means for quite a while
now. There will always be different points of view about what this experiment
is showing. This experiment was originally conducted a LLOOoonnnggg
time ago, and it has "baffled" scientists as to what it means is since then.
Is a photon a particle or a wave, or both? That is why we are "arguing".

Hopefully, you have started from the beginning of this board. Much of what
we are rehashing, or fine tuning now, has deep roots back to the beginning of
the discussion of the DSE. We have only been analyzing it for a few months,
science has been analyzing it for over 200 years and still does not have a
final answer, only clues, but the technology and innovations that have been
developed from the concepts of this simple experiment have brought us to
a better understanding about the nature of matter and light. Science progresses
1 step at a time and often stumbles along the way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngs_double-slit_experiment

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 2 2006, 03:24 AM

Hi Laserlight,

You certainly won me back. That is a very good point. I would say that we have all the data we need already. Nothing about Quantum Mechanics gives any physical explanation at all for the results it derives. It escapes all scrutiny claiming "a priori" (being first) rights. My view is wave theory was there before Quantum Theory but it was a truly primitive "exceedingly classical" view of "Optics". Being "first" is not a reason for acceptance IMHO. I know a lot of people would say that it is but do you accept the Ptolemaic System just because it gives good results and because it was there first? No... the Ptolemaic System does not answer ALL the questions. Quantum Theory gives excellent answers to maths problems, not because it embodies excellent physics, but because it was "first" with any answers at all.

Let me say any theory that contains only three dimensions plus time "cannot", almost by definition, discover higher dimensions. No fault of a theory but it is a very strong limitation. A theory in higher dimensions such as mine relies on strong existing principles based on "Optics" which has been known for much more than a century. What I am saying is Quantum Electrodynamics works "brilliantly" in three dimensional space plus time but owes much more than "passing" similarity to theories of Optics. If you assume that three dimensional space plus time defines the boundaries in which you can determine the Lagrangian then it comes as no surprise that aside from quantum processes nothing can escape this "box" as an energetic process. We know this is the exception since quantum processes can penetrate any boundary so we have certain processes which by definition define the Heisenberg Limits in which functions outside this box can exist.

That is ΔpΔx => h/2Π

These processes do not surprise us one bit that they can violate the impenetrable barrier of the "box" or cavity that three dimensional space and time define. Yet these are the very processes that define "harmonic"resonant boundary conditions and are exceptions to our physics because they represent "quantum leaps".

Therefore it comes as no difficulty that every three dimensional space plus time we are familiar with, the integration from +∞ to -∞ with closed boundary conditions will admit transient quantum events that energetically violate this boundary. In fact the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics absolutely require that this is indeed the case otherwise it would bot be possible to quantize this space. The interesting thing about formal treatments of Quantum Electrodynamics is that it is entirely possible to recover the Electromagnetic Classical Theory from the Quantum Theory with the introduction of these wavelets with the appropriate phase but in treatments where this is done the claim is these extra components are not physically significant. I disagree.

Let us "pretend" that there are an extra three dimensions (actually it is six) to our Universe which are compact about some point in space "like a particle". That these boundaries on the particle represent the limits of our spacetime (it is just a surface) as we know it and that this little three dimensional sphere "connects" with out universe across an impenetrable energy boundary... the speed of light. This would mean that all the power that CERN has at its disposal will ultimately be defeated because we are attempting to push particles by brute force across that boundary.... the light cone. Sure that deforming that "layer" results in the creation of charges on the membrane and with sufficient energy particle creation will occur. Even if you up the energy scale all you can achieve is the creation of even "heavier" particles but you will not "push" any particle across that threshold. It comes as no surprise that all energetic processes sum within that boundary using the Lagrangian and what is found is that the laws of conservation of energy are conserved. Now if this boundary is impenetrable to brute force I have indicated that it may be penetrable to resonant excitation. I can "push" a photon beyond that boundary into a space that as far as our Lagrangian's are concerned does not exist. While there the particles (including photons) will not partake in reactions (interactions) energetically with our Universe "protected" by the light cone wall. However they might react via non-energetic processes as waves of information. As long as interactions such as absorption or particle scattering do not occur a subtle influence is exerted in our Universe via the "spooky" force. These waves cannot be directly measured without destruction of the quantum state but it is OK if lots of photons are available to "sample" space to see what is going on there with coherent radiation. The reason I use coherent radiation is that provided the system is not time dependent the resonances in free space are standing waves and throughout the system a stable resonant condition leads to a succession of identical stationary events as seen in zephir's animation.

How do I explain this "pre-existing" situation? It is a resonance inside a cavity with a source that is distant from all points in the cavity along a "short axis" by a wavelength of the exciting wavelength. This leads to standing waves. The photons or their spreading shells are forced to spread along the other three dimensions in that space at the limiting speed of light. This gives rise to the picture we are seeing above.

We do not need atomic particles to create these cavities since we already build devices that create standing waves in space and we have radio transmitters and other cleaver devices. The wavelength of radio transmitters is far greater than the wavelengths emitted by atoms and is a "synthetic atom" built to the scale of man, yet we notice these cavities are purpose built and the compact spaces they create do not connect with our three dimensional space directly. The way we know they connect is through resonance and connect through reciprocal space or 1/R length and reciprocal time 1/T = f (frequency).

This is clearly dealt with by Fourier theory and with our existing understanding of sources and the way cavities work using the analogy of the Camera Obscura. All this merged with the simple idea of a packet based around the Sync function. Now how do I prove that this is what really is the case. I would say how do we prove that an electron exists or what a photon actually is? These are all taken on "faith". You have an internal idea of what this means but it certainly does not relate to the way Quantum Theory relates these objects to our space and time. You have them "internalized" as objects not the waves of "uncollapsed" probability that they are supposed to be... as Yquantum says "waves of nothing". I prefer to think of them my way to provide the real understanding of the nature of the events based on measurables. There is so much more to deal with than just simple non-classical electrodynamics.

There are mathematical proofs in place that prove that no theory of everything can exist in less than 10 dimensions. Now this is not my call but there are "possibilities"... you choose. One are parametric dimensions (added parameters... such as in our theory of particles where there are 24 parameters added "ad hoc" as it was added in the Ptolemaic System) that are simply mathematical artifice's to give results. There are added physical linear dimensions leading to Standard String Theory. These are not seen in nature so what has happened is they have been "pushed" down to the Planck Length where the Manifold must be Quantized for the theory to work. There is my theory which uses the additional extra dimensions "decoupled" to our dimensional space by being "reciprocal" forming closed three dimensional "bubbles" with light cone walls and traversable only though "resonance". Then there is the only other possibility .... there are no Unified Theory at all. There is really nothing else at all... you choose which one is right. Less dimensions is "incomplete" and will not Unify the forces of nature.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 2 2006, 09:06 AM

Sum over Paths. .. C2 style.

For real 'sum over paths' see QED by Feynman .. hopefully my version is reasonably OK and avoids copying chunks of text from the book.

The basic idea is that a photon can take any path and any path is equally likely .. it might sound useless but in reality the majority of the weird paths tend to cancel out to leave a 'probable path' which looks just like the classical result.

The construction method is to have a vector which varies sinusoidally with the wavelength of the photon. At any point the probabability of detecting the photon is given by the square of the sum of all the paths leading to that point. To make the process more graphic Feynman proposes having a little wheel with a circumference chosen to be the wavelength of the photon. On the outside of the wheel you write the values that a sinewave would have if you spread it out over the circumference of the wheel .. starting at 0 .. going up to one, back down to zero and minus one and then back to zero ready to go round again.

This little wheel thing can travel along any path from the source (doesn't have to be straight) and when you arrive at the destination you're interested in you read off the number on the little wheel and add it, bearing in mind it could be a negative number you are adding (that would be a subtraction really) to the rest of the numbers you've got so far. Too much wandering would stretch my patience to write and your patience to read so I'm just going to say the 'most probable path' between points ends up being pretty much of a straight line (Read the book for a fuller/better description)

So now we look at the DSE. So far I've tried to restrict the analysis of it to two dimensions.. partly because I like ripple tanks and partly because (hopefully) we can see that for any number of paths below the 2D surface there will be an equal number above it and so worrying about them won't get us any further forward. Hopefully we still get a 'reasonable' answer by looking at the paths in two dimensions.

Looking here.. http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html .. we see we get the bright bits where the path lengths add up and the dark bits where they don't. .. as predicted by wave theory for a continuous source of a single frequency or by Feynman's 'sum over paths' method for a single photon. If two methods predict the same result there is a reasonable chance that they are in some way equivalent.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 2 2006, 12:55 PM

Good Day all!
Let's not forget that we agree more than we disagree.
(ref.: http://www.astronomycafe.net/vacuum/vactext.html )

Let's go back, 1,000 years, ... they did not have the engineering knowledge that we do... yet they were able to build churches etc. that withstood the ravage of earthquakes etc.
All that they used was a "measuring stick". If they used it properly in the execution of the work the building survived. All measurements were proportions of that "length".

Today we use the speed of light as a measuring stick.
It is a Ptolemaic System that gives a lot of right answer.
Like you... I say there has to be more.
Where do we look for clues?
I'd like to have more tech./math knowledge to guide our quest.
Our measuring stick has produced a fantastic technical society.
Yet.... we don't understand/know what is the mechanism that makes a wave.
jal

Ahoy,

Moreover we don't know whatta wave is! .... 5-D speculation suggests it may be a transitional manifestation between singularity states; as for the mechanism of self sustaining transdimensional prop, this crank has his endo event horizon wave duality sh!t.

Bored .... no new delusional material .... must abuse PHD types and other "heads so far up their backside" brethren.

Good Elf .... excellent! .... love to read your posts

Hi C2,

I think you will find that the little number thingy is not a simple real number add and subtraction but a complex vector summation and subtraction (in reality). In Feynman's popular Book on QED it has been simplified for the general audience (including being only spin zero particles... no "eyes" in those Hurricanes!). I suggest you look at the programs I linked you with before (see below) and the accompanying instructions. Some simplification is required and assists when you choose only a two dimensional problems. Even there the little "stopwatch" thingy is a vector not a scaler as you indicate. This is still good but caution is urged in not being "too" simplified.
Quantum Mechanics Software: Edwin F. Taylor
You must be "fair" and explain that Feynman himself admits his explanation is glossing over the details. The section at the end of his book called "loose ends" deals with some of these issues. In chapter 3 he describes on page 120 what he has left out to assist in the quick understanding. Then there is this teaching document...
Teachng Feynman's Sum Over Paths Quantum Theory
Much of recent Optical Theory (called Photonics) cannot be explained with this simple exposition. This is OK as long as readers understand the limitiations.

Cheers

Hi Good Elf,

I'm not sure it is possible to explain everything at once. I'm trying to get us back to looking at the DSE .. it may be more comprehensible than Elf Theory and the result may shed more light on Elf Theory rather than vice-versa.

I think writing the value of the sine function on the wheel allows us to do the vector addition without pain - it might be a C2 addition to the original - I was doing it from memory as my QED has gone AWOL. Edit .. Maybe my vector addition is not so good .. ADD THE VECTOR when you arrive at your destination - thanks GE.

So far we've just fired our photons and counted them - at the moment that is the thing to be explained. I did suggest looking at e-p-e interaction but I think D/L was against it so I've dropped the idea.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 2 2006, 04:57 PM

The main point I would like to establish is that in both the Feynman analysis (sum over paths) and the continuous excitation wavetank analysis .. the wave of whatever it is we're looking at appears to be on all wavefronts (to infinity?) until/unless it is detected. One of the odd consequences of detecting a photon at any particular point would seem to be that you can't (then) detect it anywhere else. All these waves of 'whatever' that were happily heading out of (say) the solar system immediately vanish if/when you detect your photon.

Good Elf might be trying to explain this .. but I'm not sure he has explained WHY he is explaining this. If we are looking at a light bulb .. we find that detecting a photon on one side of the room will immediately reduce the intensity of the light on the other side of the room.

Comments/suggestions most welcome.

-C2.