Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

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

Parametric down-conversion is not magic and when you split an incoming photon of one frequency... energy is conserved and the outgoing entangled photons are at 1/2 the input frequency. The outgoing photons are phase related to the incoming coherent beam but obviously not the same as the incoming beam. A single photon works exactly like a lot of coherent photons. They do not split when they interfere and the wavelength or frequency of light is unaffected. I am sure that is what C2 means. The experiment is with one photon at a time and interference still occurs. I would stress the differences between the wave tank and the standing waves producing light and dark "frozen intensity patterns" on the screen.

The issues regarding entangled photons relate to the way in which a single photon is down converted and is able to produce two entangled and polarization related photons. These conjugate polarizations are able to affect each other along the expanding wavefront (perpendicular to the direction of propagation). In that direction the speed of light can be infinite (phase velocity not group velocity). The real secret of this is each photon which "could be" a vertically or horizontally PLANE polarized photon can be considered (and IS individually) as a superposition of two circularly polarized internal spin components... one is left hand polarized and the other is right hand polarized (each one can lead to optical activity in certain materials). Together they represent one plane polarized photon. Note ... one photon.

Two correlated photons are two of these at the same time. Ignoring time as a dimension photon spin is more complicated than simple planar spin. A three dimensional object can only spin in one plane at once (two dimensions), take a top for instance, but it has one extra dimension of freedom so it can spin in any chosen plane. Note... an odd number of dimensions. A six dimensional object, like a D6 Brane or a Black Hole (embedded in a three dimansional space), can spin in three orthogonal directions simultaneously without any mixing or turbulence effect, since each spin takes two dimensions, each of the spins are "spatially fixed" relative to each other leading to discrete quanta. Note... an even number of dimensions. Thus the six dimensional object is not free to move or spin once some spin plane is chosen then all planes are chosen. The "object" itself (as a whole) is free to move and have planar spin in our three dimensional space as well. Note ... an additioonal three dimensions... an odd number. Similarly the photon has two separate internal spins (noted above) this requires four spatial dimensions, these are also fixed and fall on the spreading light cone which can execute internally simultaneously. Note... an even number of dimensions. The photon also propagates in three dimensional space so these can result in other spins with a "free" dimension as previously noted.

The "fixing" of higher dimensional spin leads to spin quantum number "eigen states" as previously noted. The spin quantum numbers are natural functions of this higher dimensional "resonance". You have all probably seen the applet I have linked on many occasions illustrating the eigen states of these functions.

Cheers

Lisa,

I agree that we have 1 photon packet of energy being applied to the crystal.
It has a specific frequency and a fixed energy level. No problem with that.

My "argument" is with the interpretation of the resultant 2 photons
that exit the crystal lattice. Together they contain the same energy that
was originally applied, but they are at a lower frequency and longer wavelength than the original photon.

They are not the same "photon" that was applied to the crystal, but they are
the same net energy content.

There was an energy conversion event that occured. The crystal "transformed"
the original energy into 2 different photons, it split the energy applied and
re-emitted it in a different "dual" form.

I have no problem with the concept of parametric down conversion. This works.
The photon is not the same, but the energy content is.

Maybe it is only a matter of semantics or interpretation.

Yes, I agree that they are entangled, but each of the lower level secondary
photons came from a different electron in the crystal matrix. What I don't
know is if the 2 photons were emitted from the same atom, where 2 outer orbital
electrons jumped levels simultaneously, or a nearby properly oriented atom that synchronously split the EM energy applied.

Your thoughts, comments, corrections are appreciated.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 6 2006, 04:49 PM

Good Day!
I'm going to produce an interference/entangled conversation.
I want to hear TRoc. There seems to be an interesting explanation of the "fact".

Where will the accidental discoveries come from?
It will come from where I know nothing … Such as photonics/optics, nano-technology, quantum computing, etc
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm

I want to know why the 106 photons did not produce the interference pattern?
There should have been !00% conversion.
Look at my diagram. What need to be explained is why we do not observe everything that is suppose to be happening.
The answers are where we have not looked.
The elucidation of new physical phenomena that allow control of the spectral properties of generated entangled photon pairs is of paramount importance.

The entanglement should be happening where I have put the question mark, at the top of the diagram.
There should be SIX entanglement POINTS for an EXPANDING photon field.
I do not expect an answer because the answer is where we have not looked.

jal
I see that others are posting at the same time and entangling even more.

Laserlight, jal, Confused2, Good Elf, TRoc, all,

I have never wanted to really interfere on this, [guys, could have fun with that last word?]

I am going to check with someone who has expertise in dealing with this problem you have presented in many post. I do not expect much has changed, but I will confess that maybe my blinders are on and need some adjustment. YQ, has help me in this area.

I am leaving now and it will take awhile, I going to have a bite to eat, and I am not paying.

Duality/Lisa

LL,

The null point, if I understand your question correctly, is the MOST dissonant mix of ratios possible. The opposite of the MOST resonant.

This means none of the beats are equal to (or integer multiples/divisors of) ANY of the 3 waves.

All the beats are dissipated into the environment. This can be any of the terms used by Science: heat, solitons, magnons, spinons, phonons, etc.

The environment must be included in the mix. In sub-atomic terms, we are dealing with sets of oscillators. (not general terms like "wall", "slit", "area")

EVERYTHING we have is electron based technology.

Whatever electron state is being used to determine the energy change, is part of the equation. The electron state that produce the Vibration is part of the equation.

What happens "in between" can only be measured by another oscillator. The Vibration is absorbed, measured, and re-emitted. Things like "transparency", and "true reflection" are ILLUSIONS.

So, what happens "in between" can be inferred from the empirical data that we have accumulated. Because WE CAN NOT measure it. This means we can not KNOW (for certain) what happens "in between". But if there is a pattern there, and results in consistent, specific (discreet) values of interaction, then we have a good idea, AND we have GOOD SCIENCE. Predictable, testable, accurate.


At the Fundamental level, the LOWEST energy state is the Universe itself, which contains (the sum of) ALL Vibrations (oscillators). Everything that we are dealing with is a higher harmonic of this frequency (energy).

Because I postulate that it is a RATE, and that we can not go "that low" to measure, the value becomes VARIABLE, and HIDDEN. That is why I have NO problem with Bohm. He did not go far enough though.

It is VARIABLE as a rate because the OTHER data changes. The rate is CONSTANT, and the results are variable. The error of QM to treat these Vibrations as independent, and able to reach "NULL oscillation" is clear. NULL is NOT reachable: That would fly against ALL the "most sacred" laws" of Conservation (thermodynamics).

So, Plancks' "zero-point" is NOT zero. Should be no surprise. But, why did they assume it to be <1 ? What happens to ENERGY there? How does 1/1^2 work? If the ISL fails, it fails here. If ISL fails, we have BIG problems with our "collection" of data!

Ratio interactions AVOID this "singularity". ONE (like zero) IS NEVER reached. The ONLY reason I am having to explain all this now, is that Pythagoras was AFRAID of IRRATIONAL numbers. Don't ask me why, I don't really care. I'm just saying that the fellow who SAW all of this 2500 years ago, by working with simple ratios, and geometry, missed the mark from lack of ability to EASILY work with these numbers.

This has PLAGUED our understanding ever since. Euler was VERY close, but his tendency for the COMPLEX made him miss the SIMPLE truth of resonance.

Planck and Einstein were VERY close.

Had Planck had MORE empirical data on SUPERPOSITION, he might have made the hypothesis that the INTERACTIONS of the waves in the "perfect" cavity/absorber/black-body reduce to a limited set. That energy is conserved by "the sum of the differences" when integer divisions are allowed. The cavity frequency is the Fundamental frequency that the excitation frequency will ultimately fall back into equilibrium with. (the wave can only "find the exit hole" when it is at its' maximum length/lowest frequency)


So, LL, even when "dissonance" is at its' maximum, the same end result happens: all the oscillators relax to their fundamental frequency. But, WITHOUT the "large" clicks that make an electron JUMP a full harmonic amount. These are electron "wiggles"; SOMETHING is happening there, contrary to the "quantum leap" hypothesis. Energy (frequency) is CONTINUOUS, it is THE ABSORBERS and EMITTERS that are quantized, and INTERACT in bits/quanta/"photons".



Ciao!,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc
Okay! I get your last post.
So while waiting for duality, would you bring you way of thinking out of “Z” land and into quantum physic?
As a help… get a web free page at http://geocities.yahoo.com/home/ draw your pictures with your “paint” program and put them there so that you can put them in the discussion.
Go sloooowww …. You are asking EVERYBODY to think in a new way.
What you end up doing will probably end up in a “text book”.
At this stage, I’m open minded that IT COULD WORK.
When appropriate .... you will have to link it to the Standard Model and the way physist do their calculations.
I'm listening.
JAL

TRoc, you may find this useful... they are a java spectrum analysis applets
and other applet references.

http://www.parmly.luc.edu/SpectrumApp/spectrum.html

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/beats.htm


http://www.earlevel.com/Digital%20Audio/harmonigraf.html

http://www.falstad.com/qm3dosc/

http://www.falstad.com/interference/

http://www.surendranath.org/Applets.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/string.html

http://www.falstad.com/fourier/

http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/ugrad/...iffraction.html

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 6 2006, 11:11 PM

The food was great, and so many scientist dealing with there own agenda!
You would never guess who showed up, yep the good guy, ?.

Hi all,

I do not even know where to begin, you people have covered so much in my absence, which is good.

Bad news first, no matter how low the (f) you still will get a ping due to E + remember Plancks/quanta. In other words nothing really has changed. And you cannot explain it, in a classical way.

From what I have read you really want to have a intuitive answer, no can do.

Entanglement, decoherence, superposition, wavefunction, and the weirdness of the QM world which you want to explain is not available. I could give you napkins, table cloths, & extra note paper full of mathematics and you would be in the world where it is no longer, Kansas.

Everyone has there own take on this problem, remember it has been awhile sense we have had to deal with, T. Young but as you could imagine everyone wanted to play and speculate.

We even put in extra dimensions, WHO KNOWS? If you want to go with a sure direction, then, collapse wavefunciton when detected, then you have to realize where the test is being done, and where the observation is held and how many is watching, in other words, who is doing the collapsing. Just something to think about?

That is just how we all feel that QM need improvement, but we have known this for some time. In all fairness it is the best predictive tool in town, and because of it, my food was rewarmed and this computer is sending this message to you.

We had a great time, which you guys could have come someone would have picked up the check for you, so you could have had anything on your hot-dog - just kidding!

Duality/Lisa

This post has been edited by Duality on Dec 7 2006, 02:42 AM

Duality!
Can you deny/confirm or give a link.

jal

Hi all,


Jal

I'm trying!

That is supposed to read 10^6 !

Next, you need to find out how long it takes 10^6 photons to be generated. I have a hunch it's around 3 per second that "converts" to 2 photons.


If you are "hinting" at Z , just look at this link that you gave:
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm

The laser frequency is 351nm.

In figure #5, you see the picture of the 2 entangled photons. This ratio is symmetrical, as is the area of "overlap". The filter that was used to create this "beat-frequency" (interference) was 702nm (2x frequency, 1/2 wavelength). The 1:2-2:1 RATIO.

In the other to figures (3 & 4) you see 2 non-symmetrical circle relationships. Just a "~1/2" step lower (Z=1.0267092999) by filtering with 681nm, and the "energy" (wave center) moves to the "left". A ~1/2 step up, with a filter of 725nm, and the energy is on the "right".

More "coincidences".


Duality,

It sounds like you had a nice time!

Can you rephrase this, I don't understand:

While I realize that it sounds "crazy", it is more accurate to say I HAVE the intuitive, classical explanation, and am trying to explain it to "quantumly familiar" people. It's like a German trying to convince a Frenchman to have a beer with dinner.

One of the tenuous "footholds" that I have is that EVERYONE agrees that there are "problems", and the "solution", once found, will be so simple that everyone will exclaim "how did we miss that?" Elegant enough to wear a Tuxedo to!


regards,

T.Roc

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

I really didn't expect that "quantum reality" would cut the ice. I notice that there are no explanations why it will not work, just that it is too comfortable to leave the old ways behind.

However for those who like to still think about these matters and a modern "semi-classical" approach and see a rather rare treatment of the semi-classical method... look here....

The near field (evanescent field) is a source of wonder for some of us and it is not spoken of much. It has been known for a very long time these facts and the nature of thse measurables is not accounted for by quantum theory. But as a doorway to possibily higher dimensions I think this may hold answers. This illustrates how sources "work" with graphic illustrations.

Cheers

Hi all,


In the news:

Optical clocks strike again
6 December 2006

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/12/4/1?rss=2.0

"precise absorption frequency" = classical 1:1 resonance

"a feedback mechanism" stabilizes the resonance = beat-frequency sum regenerates resonant frequency

"a femtosecond comb" = a way of measuring frequencies so that they are an equal RATE apart. (this requires an expanding size or scale... just like the frets on a "classical" guitar!)


The movement of atoms (the electrons in the device, not just the screen) disturbs (interferes with) the measuring process.



regards,

T.Roc


PS Great link GE. I'm too tired to read it now though.
Is that the original source for the graphic (of Zeph) that you've been posting?


This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 7 2006, 09:30 AM

A very general proposal - may be it helps while JAL is in open mind mode:

In practice, there are no processes in Universe where mass is conserved. The only case would be a mass closed system;

However, such a system in my opinion can not exist in our Universe. Mass conserving system in our Universe would be something without any form, some vibrating ocean. As soon as form appears, mass conservation is not possible.

The problem is that mass additions are very small and very slow; in most real life cases the effects of changing mass are lost by using expansion in series, as phase information is lost by using concepts like energy and temperature.

However, these small mass change effects tend to be multiplied if the phases are right and grow into macro processes we observe. No wonder we can not explain where they come from.

Continuous math hides the importance and existence of universal clock frequency , hides the fundamental discreteness of Nature.

Arrow of time is lost when instead of non-associative math we use associative.

Luckily some time we use non-commutative math- so we can discern left and right. But not in school.

We should not be wondering some things like double slit experimetn look unexplainable - what we get is the result of constraints we have put on ourselves.

Hi Good Elf,TRoc,D/L, jal, Ivars (welcome!) et al,

After looking at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf

I must admit that when I saw group and phase velocity being used in a linear system excited by a single frequency ... I thought "Something has probably gone wrong here."

Anyone who has ever shelled peas will know that you can fire peas out of the end of the pod by squeezing the side of the pod .. obviously the pea is fired at right angles to the direction of squeeze with a much higher velocity than the speed at which your fingers are squeezing the pod.

Possibly the best way to analyse these superluminal waves is by ripple tank
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm

Set up one source .. then another a half wavelength away from it. Shift the 'phase control' slider to the right so the sources are 180 degrees out of phase.

The sources are point sources of 'waves' at a single frequency and we are looking at one superimposed on the other. Speeds measured in directions other than the direction of propagation can be 'superluminal' simply because the wave isn't propagating in that direction.

In a linear system (ie superposition applies) the addition of sinewaves of the same frequency ( eg adding one of amplitude A and phase p1 to one of amplitude B and phase p2 ) ... the result is still a sinewave of the same frequency.

Good Elf will almost certainly recognise phasors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor_(electronics) ).

For a simpler approach http://www.udel.edu/idsardi/sinewave/sinewave.html (set both frequencies to the same value)
http://www.udel.edu/idsardi/sinewave/sinewave.html

Comments welcome.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Superposition principle .. http://www.answers.com/topic/superposition-principle

Ivars, all,

Just something to think about Ivars, what we get because of ourselves, is that it keeps us from the results.

Confused2, Let me check into something and will get back with you on a few points.

jal, let me check into your request.

T.Roc, sounds like a plan and wish you the best.

Good Elf, need to think on this one a little.

Where is the Laidbacks take on this.

Duality/Lisa

Never drink and eat when you want to do serious physics, just a hint guys!

Yq was in town, & still wants to attend the party when you make the connection on all concepts, even if he has to pay the check.

This post has been edited by Duality on Dec 7 2006, 02:49 PM