Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi TRoc, Duality, Confused2 st al.

The velocity is the velocity of the electrons not photons, they are not "additive" in any conventional sense. They are all "full photons". The photons are not necessarily "combining" in any real sense "to form a full photon" other than the way multiple coherent photons might combine into a boson wave (see below) ... I do not see why you are saying that. The quantum states are "above the vacuum" state of the Copper Image Plane (I think!), there should be no bound states there. These electrons conventionally have the energy to escape. Anyway the captured coherent photons are all the same resonant frequency and have been apparently "absorbed by the electron". As far as I can see these photons have not entered into the structure of the metal atom shells. A single quantum state can absorb any number of single frequency photons simultaneously but this is not inside a copper atom. This is because they are bosons and any number of them can exist in that one state. The additional photons are not appreciably increasing the kinetic energy of the electron. Why? The electron should be "free" and separate but the additional photons are "bound". Where? Just do the sums, the photons share cavities with their associated electrons not with the atoms... "above the vacuum state".

I am currently discussing extra dimensions not resonance at this point TRoc. You need to explain why several coherent photons can be associated/absorbed by an apparently "substantially free" electron apparently cumulatively increasing the "Intensity"...

What are the alternative answers here?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 4 2006, 09:50 PM

Hi TRoc,

Single photon detection..

I'm not sure of your background so please forgive me if anything is trivial.

Cloud chambers
http://bizarrelabs.com/cloud.htm
Once you've seen one in action it is very difficult to deny that you're looking at an individual 'something' (see alpha, beta amd gamma radiation for what those 'somethings' are.)

Millikan .. individual electrons
http://www68.pair.com/willisb/millikan/experiment.html

Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier

As a bit of a surprise ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-M%C3%BCller_tube
Why the GM tbe .. only because the output is often fed to an audio amplifier so you hear the clicks as individual particles are detected.
The point is .. if we did the same thing with a photomultiplier tube it would sound the same.

To make the point .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/cricket/index.shtml

While we can't 'see' a single photon or electron there are trails that lead between the equipment that we can use and the pretty much undeniable personal experience of dealing with one 'something' at a time. There aren't any tricks .. there is no need for any tricks - it is bad enough without them.

Best wishes,

-C2.

TRoc
You must be well rested.... very informative links.
There is no doubt that the "experimenters" are finding out more than they are publishing.
From the same group I found an old (Thursday 2 March 2006) link.
http://www.ic.ac.uk/P7535.htm
Scientists capture the speediest ever motion in a molecule

All of their info will surely be of interest to the development of this thread.
jal
edit: insert
from http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
p. 78

This post has been edited by jal on Dec 5 2006, 03:22 AM

TRoc,

You've got new mail.

LL

Hi all,


GE

Correct, I am talking about electron velocity. In the Photoelectric Effect, Energy in EXCESS of the work function ADDS to the VELOCITY (kinetic Energy) of the ejected electron. This is totally conventional, GE.

* In the “counter”, a photomultiplier or photodiode, of “photons”, at SOME point, the EM waves are converted to electrons in the photocathode via the photoelectric effect. I am saying that the Superposition Principle dictates that many photons can be in the same place at the same time, and that, at the photocathode, there are SPECIFIC superpositions that will create a type of Second Harmonic Generation that will CREATE a new photon of equal wavelength, and be added the the cascade process. A small addition at the beginning of this, BEFORE voltage controls are able to “clip” excess (from expectations) electron velocities. This is what LL had questioned me about earlier. The voltage controls, TMK, have NO effect on the initial ejection of electrons at the photocathode.

I mentioned your name in my reply to C2’s post :

and, from your saying:

GE

I just want to get everyone’s version of “resonance” straight.



C2,

As to “cloud chambers”, and Miliken’s oil drops, BOTH of these are counting ELECTRONS. (you said “Single photon detection.. “, which is also what I am talking about)

What we are talking about here is the interaction of light and matter, or more specifically: PHOTONS interacting with bound ELECTRONS (those electrons that are PART of the atomic structure of the entire experiment: walls, slits, screen, etc.) The equipment used translates this transaction into data. See above “*”.

As to “the Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors”, see above “*”. They can be fooled very easily.

Geiger Counters?

No individual “photon” counting there, sorry.

The link to “Teachspin” Two Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time, like all of these experiments, has the weakness of counting photons through a photoelectric exchange, which the principle of superposition, and interactions erode the accuracy of the system. See above “*”.


More reading (besides what I have already given):

Optical Filters for Multiphoton Microscopy
by Dr. Craig Hodgson and Dr. Turan Erdogan, Semrock Inc.
Advances in filter technology enable improved multiphoton microscopy performance.
BioPhotonics, November 2006 , page 32

And, in a related imaging technique,

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 15 SEPTEMBER 2006
Laser-Assisted Photoelectric Effect from Surfaces
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/kmgroup/papers/LMA_PRL_0906.pdf

Eberly College of Science
Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms
http://www.physorg.com/news74272106.html

Single-mode heat conduction by photons
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0605/0605678.pdf

from photonics.com - 11/30/2006
Electron Study Could Lead to Better Lighting, Electronics
http://www.photonics.com//content/news/200...r/30/85193.aspx

(emphasis added)

Nanoparticles Viewed in 3-D

DAVIS, Calif., Nov. 28, 2006 -- A new x-ray microscope has been devised that can, for the first time, examine nanoparticles -- materials smaller in scale than one billionth of a meter -- in three dimensions. The device could be used to make better materials for electronics, optics and biotechnology applications.

Subhash Risbud, professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of California, Davis; John Miao of UCLA and colleagues from Japan and Taiwan published a paper in Physical Review Letters on Nov. 21 describing the new microscope and technique.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has traditionally been used to study nanomaterials, but because electrons do not penetrate far into materials, the sample preparation procedure is usually complicated and destructive. Another disadvantage is that TEM only provides two-dimensional images.

The new method shines a powerful x-ray source onto a nanoparticle and collects the x-rays scattered from the sample. Then computers construct a three-dimensional image from that data. The microscope can resolve details down to 17 nm, or a few atoms across.

Using the new microscope, Risbud and colleagues were able to take detailed 3-D pictures of a quantum dot of gallium nitride, and also to study the structure inside it at a nanometer scale. Quantum dots are tiny particles that change their optical and electronic properties, depending on the particle size. Gallium nitride quantum dots could be used in blue-green lasers or flat-panel displays.

"The present work hence opens the door for comprehensive, nondestructive and quantitative 3-D imaging of a wide range of samples including porous materials, semiconductors, quantum dots and wires, inorganic nanostructures, granular materials, biomaterials, and cellular structure," they wrote in the article.

from photonics.com - 11/28/2006
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2006...r/28/85149.aspx
(emphasis added)


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 5 2006, 09:58 AM

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Duality, Jal, TRoc et al,

If people want to discuss my ideas seriously I take some slight at calling them "elf theory". When I quote others work it is not "elf theory", it is simply a reference and it is up to you to interpret. I give you my ideas freely and I expect sensible answers otherwise what am I here for other than your amusement?

TRoc... are you suggesting that in the experiment cited that there is "parametric up-conversion" going on within the "free" electron? I realize that certain crystals do in fact perform this trick but a single "free" electron does not seem to be the place where this may occur. Up-conversion is a very rare condensed matter process involving "virtual photons" within lattice structures of crystals (a place that elves simply trust others with). The extensive references you give are not applicable to the problem we are discussing here. I can't see where you are coming from. You must help me with more direct statements please. As to my version of resonance?... It is clearly standing waves induced in systems (mostly cavities). I hope this is the only version of resonance being used? I am not in any way discussing the so called "resonances" of Quantum Field Theory of particle production and subsequent decay ... These are "particle interactions".

Are people familiar with the fact that the electron is considered "primary" and not technically "composite" and that it has no actual size that has been able to be determined thus far? HEP has determined that it is an apparent point source of charge not a distributed object like a proton or neutron with internal structure (quarks).
Diameter, Radius of an Electron
All dimensions shown are "upper bounds" on electron size since it behaves like a point source. Technically a point source could not have any "inner" quantum states yet this object can apparently absorb electrons into an inner quantum structure. TRoc... these points regarding quark compositions have always been available for you to look up and, yes, the possibility of electrons having quarks in some otherwise unavailable space is a possibility that others have commented on not just "elves".

This "point source" is contradicted by the fact that a point source of charge is not logically possible (no apparent binding forces) nor is the magnetic dipole moment that it exhibits is logically possible either from a real point charge. Magnetic Fields require dipolar sources of charges or at least dipolar fields, no magnetic monopoles known so where is the electric dipole of the electron? I have often shown this "Mud Map of electron and positron" which is "higher dimensional" which shows the source of an inner dipole electric field and the resultant external magnetic field.

This is effectively the EM wrapping "dumbed down" into a picture that can be illustrative of some kind of inner structure that can trap particles. This embodies the Williamson and Van der Mark Theory but in higher dimensions. You can see in the illustration just conceptually how the negative field intensities cumulate on or just beyond the boundary of our three dimensional space. The dynamic "dipole" is perpendicular to our spacetime. Magnetic dipole wull be orthogonal to the electric dipole of course and can be made to match the idea that it is equivalent to the electrons actual measured magnetic dipole. Field likes flow as before "between dimensions" looping" dimensional cavities.

Please have a read of this article and pick up on the finer points about the fact that "classical" electron radius just does not exist and it behaves like a point source even at high energies without any structure.
Wikipedia: Classical electron radius
Would anyone like to make a few comments about this anomaly or am I the only one able to make this observation? Free electrons or electrons far far away from atoms are not able to utilize atomic quantum states within copper atoms that are just not there "in the vacuum". Clearly a photon could not enter a featureless external object and "bind" in some quantum state unless there was some "inner quantum structure" inside an "undefined space"?

A point source is a singularity of sorts and that is what HEP finds in scattering experiments with electrons. Since a "classical" electron as indicated above is experimentally incorrect then the "mystery" is still not understood.

So there is still a question to answer there I think. QM simply shifts the problem
All attempts to measure the radius of the electron have failed! All we know is that the radius is less than 10^-18 m; that is, its radius is one hundred million times smaller than that of the atom. The electron carries a charge and significant magnetic dipole field which appears to have no measurable spatial distribution. This indicates "structure" even though it cannot be seen.

Alternatively this subject has lost interest for people and we can call it quits.... I doubt if anyone is following me on this matter anyway.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 5 2006, 04:33 PM

Hi TRoc,All,

If we assume these aren't single photon counts .. what difference would you expect?

The point of introducing the Geiger counter was that we are used to hearing the random clicks (are we?) from a Geiger Counter .. would it be a surprise if a photomultiplier (connected to an audio ampifier) made exactly the same random 'clicky' noise, photons being (of course) 'radiation' ?

Resonance (C2 style) ..
In general: any state or set of states that have a significantly higher probability of occurring than other (loosely comparable) states.

1 + 1 = 2 is probable but I wouldn't (myself) call it a 'resonance'. In the context of the DSE we see the most probable paths are where the difference between the path lengths is an integral number of wavelengths. It is difficult for me to put my finger on the problem but I have to admit I can't see how or why anyone would want to describe (A - B) = N as a 'resonance'.

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 5 2006, 05:10 PM

Hi Good Elf and All,

Actually, the theoretical aspects of your discussion are quite fascinating. IMO.
We have beat the DSE "analysis" to death and can still not reach a concensus
on the fine details as to the "mechanics" that cause the results. I feel that the
only way to garner a deeper understanding of WHY, or what, the DSE is
giving us as clues, we must look toward the SOURCE of the photons and try
to apply conceptual "physics" to the entire photon generation cycle, which
includes the structure of the atom and its components.

Once we have a conceptually feasible "mental picture" of the possible mechanism
that generates photons the rest of the DSE should become self explanatory.

If you feel that this forum is not the correct "venue" for such discussions perhaps
you will start a new theoretical thread to explore the intricacies and possible
mechanisms at play. Let me know, I would like to discuss this whole topic in
a forum where ideas can be mutually explored and conceptually developed,
OR, we could continue the discussion here. Either way is fine by me.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 5 2006, 05:19 PM

Good day All!
"particle interactions" photon.... electrons
Applications/new tech tools
They work .... they don't work .... economic sucess or failure
I recall reading the story of how they tried to send a signal across the atlantic though a wire.
They thought that an electron was being pushed from one end of the wire to the other. As the signal weakened they increased the number of electrons that they wer putting in the wire so that there would be some reaching the other side of the ocean.
The result was that the wire failed. They lost their investments.
It was only years later that they worked out what was happening/explanation.
We now have all kinds of electric "appliances".
Only by looking at the "new appliances" that work will we be able to "see" if somebody ACCIDENTALLY got the right "explanation" of what could be happening at the quantum level.
More tech and math???
jal

Hi All,

What I see in the DSE is no more and no less than a few cycles of EM radiation laid bare before us. The photons have been tricked into showing where they live in an EM wave. In the absence of any tame theory that says an EM wave looks like that we have no alternative but to ignore what we see. Once we have discarded the evidence, I agree, we might as well move on.

Best wishes,

-C2.

The DSE would work even with strong and weak nuclear forces and supposedly even with the gravity waves.
Don't forget the mechanical analogymechanical analogy of DSE, discovered recently



It's evident, your "explanation" of DSE should be "slightly" more general and not restricted just to the electromagnetic waves. Such requirement leads to the recursive foam concept of AWT naturally, where the same phenomena can appear at different dimensional scales.

Hi all,


GE,

Don't take offense to my questions, please. I agree that "elf-theory" can have negative context; I will refer to it as GET (pronounced JET, mate?) unless otherwise instructed by you.


I have said many times, that our theories are remarkably similar. The main differences being dimensions, and some fully re-interpretive version of QM. We both are "cherry picking" from QM (as it should be), and replacing things we don't agree with. The hard part is explaining things that A. agree with what NEEDS to be agreed with (LAWS), while B. demonstrating that MODEL (descriptions) changes can lead to errors in METHODS.


Your question:

No, not with the electron. Let me try a little of your "descriptions" to make this point.

The incoming photons CAN be superimposed in an area ON the detector. This is ONE side (dimension?) of the "brane". On the other side, due to the photoelectric effect, electrons are ejected from the photocathode. So, there are TWO parameters that need to be explained.

Everything is SET to measure a CONSTANT response: when the energy level (work function) is MET, ONE electron, with PREDICTABLE velocity (from ANY excess energy of the photon). These are the EXPECTATIONS of the experiment (assumptions).

I have shown that, due to the superposition of PHOTONS on one side of the "brane" (detector, and TRANSITION MEDIUM, dimension) an amount of energy NOT PREDICTED by standard means CAN EXIST THERE. (IE by constructive/destructive interference)

IF this happens, THE COUNTS ARE NOT VALID.

The LASER is NEVER turned OFF. Pulses are NOT separated by NOTHING, they are CONNECTED by a FLOW of ENERGY. THIS energy, existing in what I term Beat-frequencies, can SUM when superimposed, to make the "counting" FALSE. All the machine can do is count PULSES with high accuracy. When you ask it to "count" individual WAVES, you ask for UNCERTAINTY, because the photocathode is FIXED in place. Momentum and position problems due to HUP.


Yes, I am familiar with the quark models, and the "individuality" of the electron (not having quarks). This is why I asked the question. I wondered if you had different ideas there?



I can give a short example of the SIMPLICITY of Resonance, Geometry, and Beats. (and answer C2 at the same time)


1+1=2 is not Resonance for C2. OK, not directly. It does mathematically describe Second Harmonic Generation though, and I am including that in a new "family" of interactions, that all fall under the heading of Resonance.

1-1=0 is not the whole story either, although it IS BEAT FREE. That is "pure" Resonance. The 1+1=2 is due to 2-1=1 (a Beat). When the Beat = the Fundamental, this is also Resonance, AT the OTHER end of the SCALE.

My Resonance Scale exists as ratios that fall between these 2 phenomena.

Adding a third party changes the DIMENSIONALITY of the interaction.

A moving Vibration REQUIRES 3 points to describe the cycle. Very similar to the sine wave analysis. But Physics failed to FULLY study the phenomena that they BORROWED principles from: Music. NO ONE has ever mathematically proven the INTERACTIONS required by the existence of CHORDS. This is what I have done.

If you take Pythagorean studies to their logical conclusion, you find that Triangles can geometrically represent Triads of Vibrations.

The "perfect" case is the PROTON, with its' 3 indivisible quark make-up.

This is an Isosceles Triangle, with FUNDAMENTAL lengths. If each side has a length of ONE, then NO BEATS can exist inside this AREA. This strictly means that, with VIBRATIONAL MEASURING TECHNIQUES, you CAN NOT "penetrate" this "chord". (and end up with a "Beat", or something DIFFERENT to measure)

I have had some conversations about this with the Heim theorists. His protosimplex is nothing more than a "chord" of frequencies (energy) that CAN be divided, or MEASURED to produce a Beat (difference). They are (not surprisingly) not aware of this Method.


At the other "end" of the scale, we have the right angled triangle, where a^2 + b^2 = c^2 , the 3-4-5. This form is DOMINANT in our sine wave based math, and models. With this analogy, the 4 is the "amplitude", which is symmetric to the start point 3 , and the end point 5 .

The BEATS of this triangle SUM to 4 [ (a-b ) + (b-c) + (a-c) = b ] (delta, not subtraction). This is the "connection" from energy = amplitude, which is misleading. ALL quantum effects are translated through this model. The problem then arises when "intensity" (quantity) does NOT equal "amplitude", or "energy".

So, continue the "turn" of the circular model: at the next basic integer triangle, 4-5-6 , we have >90 degrees. Now the differences in path lengths (legs) create a NEW geometry for the same ratios (plus an additional ratio).

The Beats of the 4-5-6 triangle also SUM to 4 , but now, this value is THE STARTING POINT, or Fundamental. A TOTALLY different outcome, from a "continuous" "plus-one integer" measurement.

This 4-5-6 triangle IS the TRIAD ratios found in Music, AND is responsible for SHG in optics. THEY ARE EQUIVALENT. Musicians, or anyone with access to information, take note:

G + B + D = G "symbolically"

392 + 494 + 588 = 392 "mathematically"

This is NOT what I learned in school, eh?

Use my Beat-frequency Method:

392-494 =102
494-588 = 94
392-588=196
-----------------

The "beat-sum" = 392. This works for all major chords, throughout the frequency spectrum. If you ADD the Beat-sum to the Fundamental, you get 2x the Fundamental, this is the "SECOND HARMONIC" being generated.


At least, I hope I have explained why "counting" waves that can be both DIVIDED (grated, refracted, beam-split, etc), and SUPERIMPOSED ("added") can be problematic.

And, that you can begin to see my view on the "movement" of energy. When you break all values down to their basic ratios, there are a small set of "harmonic rules" that dictate which way the energy will go.

This explains more of QM than anything that I have seen. From the ground, up, Resonance can be seen "behind the scenes" in the problematic "fluctuations" of Boltzmann, and the "unpredictability" of QM. ALL paths are NEVER traveled, because NATURE is TOO efficient for such a waste of energy. The "reduction" in path possibilities is CAUSED by the "dissonant" eliminations. There ARE places IT WILL NOT GO.

No experiment has EVER produced one of these "QM anomalies" that ARE PREDICTED by QM. (IE the hand through the brick, etc.) They use "virtual" particles to justify this, but you can see it is NOT true. The "virtual" resonances are transitory because of "geometry" changes: the interaction zone depends on the geometry, and the length of resonance time depends of the size and shape of the zone.


The interactions of Vibrations are the CAUSE for everything. This is a large statement to make. I have not determined "all" of the answers, but I have determined MORE than QM, & The Standard Model have done. I can produce ALL particles and elements from the same recursive interaction of a base (Fundamental) Vibration. (ask for a sample )


ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 5 2006, 08:31 PM

H Z.

I might as well follow two crazy posts with a third..(Vote for the craziest)

Edit: -Sorry TRoc .. you slipped your post in while I was thinking .. ignore that comment

Numbering Wavefronts by Wn, Bright bits by Bn

For the middle peak , both path lengths the same
B1: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W1
Moving to the right
B2: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W2
Moving to the right again
B3: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W3
Moving to the right again
B4: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W4
Bn: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on Wn
More generally (any wavefront m )
Bn is the result of photon on W(m+1) constructively interferfering with photon on W(m+n)

But there's only one photon so that must be wrong .. mustn't it?
We now have conclusive proof that we are not seeing what we are seeing.

-C2.

Edit.. in the case of the KT experiment n can be metres/wavelength of light .. so that doesn't work either. MM only shows one fringe .. this is a new discovery... and so on.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 5 2006, 09:42 PM

Whoever attempts this is going to hit the same multiple wavefront interference problem. In fairness it is possible that a Megadodo Laser might help .. but we see the experiment carried out with (possibly) a dim light bulb with a filter in front .. it would certainly give the same result.

Best wishes,

-C2.

I've just read yquantum's post on another thread. He's right .. this is a struggle for all of us. I apologise for my lack of patience that might seem to be creeping into my posts.
Best wishes (again)
-C2.