Let us say that we have the source which is producing coherent photons , photon A and B.
Photon A goes in one direction through double slit barrier and continues toward the detector.
Photon B goes in other direction, passes the barrier with slits, to be reflected toward the detector, without change of it's polarization.
(Both photons are traveling the same distance )
Now, this is the question. What would happen if we would replace the detector with a film for holographic photography?
Copenhagen interpretation of QM assumes that photon A passed the both slits simultaneously, to interfere with itself, and to make an interference pattern of hits on the detector.
If that is really the case would the A photon ( a "sample" photon ) be able to interfere ( lucky shoot is needed, of course but it is not impossibility ) with photon B
( a "reference" photon ), to record a bit of holographic image of the slit/s looking from the point of view of the film ( detector )?
If yes, if we would would be lucky to record a holographic interference between pairs of coherent A and B photons would we be able to reconstruct that bit o of a holographic image with additional "reference" photon/s B?
If yes, would holographic point of view from the film-detector give us the information of the momentum with which the photon A approached the film-detector?
In general. If this scenario is possible, what kind of an information might be extracted from this?
Anton
Hi Anton,
I get the impression you want to make a hologram of the two slits of a DSE .. I can't see any problem with that. To an extent it would be an interference pattern of an interference pattern.. but so are a lot of other things.
I think I understand why you are interested in momentum .. but I don't know any answers .. only guesses. . I suspect a photon can exchange momentum without being 'detected' .. a mirror does this all the time. As to whether a black surface would also affect momentum without absorbing the photon .. my guess would be a rather less certain 'yes'. If my guesses are correct then the final momentum would be the product of 'everything'.
There is a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle interpretation of diffraction (momentum/position/wavelength) here:-
http://www.sc.mahidol.ac.th/scpy/penthai/l...20principle.pdf
.. which might or might not help.
Best wishes - C2.
I get the impression you want to make a hologram of the two slits of a DSE .. I can't see any problem with that. To an extent it would be an interference pattern of an interference pattern.. but so are a lot of other things.
I think I understand why you are interested in momentum .. but I don't know any answers .. only guesses. . I suspect a photon can exchange momentum without being 'detected' .. a mirror does this all the time. As to whether a black surface would also affect momentum without absorbing the photon .. my guess would be a rather less certain 'yes'. If my guesses are correct then the final momentum would be the product of 'everything'.
There is a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle interpretation of diffraction (momentum/position/wavelength) here:-
http://www.sc.mahidol.ac.th/scpy/penthai/l...20principle.pdf
.. which might or might not help.
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 20 2007, 09:04 PM)
Hi Anton,
I get the impression you want to make a hologram of the two slits of a DSE .. I can't see any problem with that. To an extent it would be an interference pattern of an interference pattern.. but so are a lot of other things.
I think I understand why you are interested in momentum .. but I don't know any answers .. only guesses. . I suspect a photon can exchange momentum without being 'detected' .. a mirror does this all the time. As to whether a black surface would also affect momentum without absorbing the photon .. my guess would be a rather less certain 'yes'. If my guesses are correct then the final momentum would be the product of 'everything'.
There is a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle interpretation of diffraction (momentum/position/wavelength) here:-
http://www.sc.mahidol.ac.th/scpy/penthai/l...20principle.pdf
.. which might or might not help.
Best wishes - C2.
C2,
yes, I am interested in the momentum of the photon in DS, are not we all interested? After all that is the one ever elusive characteristic of particles in DS in correlation with interference. Apparently it seems it is impossible to get the information about the momentum of particular particle without disturbing an interference. The question which has no decisive answer is what is happening at the slits when some photon is passing through. We can speculate what is happening but at the end conclusions are based on a deduction instead on an observation. So, if by using a hologram/holographic information we would be able to detect the exact momentum of particular photon while maintaining an interference, well, would that be one gigantic headache for all "followers" of Copenhagen interpretation? : )
Let me clarify what was exactly my initial idea/goal with this proposal( of course, every other kind of information which could possibly be extracted from this set up is welcome ).
I assumed that particular photon which is passing a slit or slits would behave in the analogical manner as a sample beam which is reflected from some object for which we want to make a holographic photography. It seems to me that particular photon passing a slit or slits would "carry" an information of the shape of the area through which it has been scattered by passing through.
If that is the case, and if we would be able to interfere the "sample" photon with "reference" photon then we would have a holographic information of the slit or the slits through which the sample photon passed through, regardless are we destroyed an interference or not ( of course, "not" is the most preferable outcome ). So, if that photon passed though only one slit or through both slits I assume that we would be able to extracted that information from the hologram, specially if one slit would be of the sightly slightly different shape than the other one.
Therefore, perhaps a hologram ( in this proposed set up or in some improved variation )could give us the information which was elusive so far. The information what is happening at slit/s when photon is passing through.
Worthy possible achievement with this proposal?
Anton
I get the impression you want to make a hologram of the two slits of a DSE .. I can't see any problem with that. To an extent it would be an interference pattern of an interference pattern.. but so are a lot of other things.
I think I understand why you are interested in momentum .. but I don't know any answers .. only guesses. . I suspect a photon can exchange momentum without being 'detected' .. a mirror does this all the time. As to whether a black surface would also affect momentum without absorbing the photon .. my guess would be a rather less certain 'yes'. If my guesses are correct then the final momentum would be the product of 'everything'.
There is a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle interpretation of diffraction (momentum/position/wavelength) here:-
http://www.sc.mahidol.ac.th/scpy/penthai/l...20principle.pdf
.. which might or might not help.
Best wishes - C2.
C2,
yes, I am interested in the momentum of the photon in DS, are not we all interested? After all that is the one ever elusive characteristic of particles in DS in correlation with interference. Apparently it seems it is impossible to get the information about the momentum of particular particle without disturbing an interference. The question which has no decisive answer is what is happening at the slits when some photon is passing through. We can speculate what is happening but at the end conclusions are based on a deduction instead on an observation. So, if by using a hologram/holographic information we would be able to detect the exact momentum of particular photon while maintaining an interference, well, would that be one gigantic headache for all "followers" of Copenhagen interpretation? : )
Let me clarify what was exactly my initial idea/goal with this proposal( of course, every other kind of information which could possibly be extracted from this set up is welcome ).
I assumed that particular photon which is passing a slit or slits would behave in the analogical manner as a sample beam which is reflected from some object for which we want to make a holographic photography. It seems to me that particular photon passing a slit or slits would "carry" an information of the shape of the area through which it has been scattered by passing through.
If that is the case, and if we would be able to interfere the "sample" photon with "reference" photon then we would have a holographic information of the slit or the slits through which the sample photon passed through, regardless are we destroyed an interference or not ( of course, "not" is the most preferable outcome ). So, if that photon passed though only one slit or through both slits I assume that we would be able to extracted that information from the hologram, specially if one slit would be of the sightly slightly different shape than the other one.
Therefore, perhaps a hologram ( in this proposed set up or in some improved variation )could give us the information which was elusive so far. The information what is happening at slit/s when photon is passing through.
Worthy possible achievement with this proposal?
Anton
Doesn't that uncertainty principle state that's you only can define one attribute per time and that by defining one you 'loose' the other. Your thinking is built on a kind of 'action at a distance' when you expect that holographic emulsion to tell the truth right. I think that conclusion might be wrong. Even if you by clever manipulation allow a 'happening' to take place without you observing you can't be sure on that your result being 'objective' as in telling the 'absolute truth'. Do you follow my thoughts? Schrödinger's cat is very much the interference by consciousness as seen in time. I'm not sure what time is, except as seen as a expression of spacetime, and I'm also unsure of the qualities of consciousness, but those two qualities create our definition of spacetime, is that not so? So i wouldn't be to sure as for such an experiment being 'objective' even if successful :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 21 2007, 11:34 AM)
Doesn't that uncertainty principle state that's you only can define one attribute per time and that by defining one you 'loose' the other. Your thinking is built on a kind of 'action at a distance' when you expect that holographic emulsion to tell the truth right. I think that conclusion might be wrong. Even if you by clever manipulation allow a 'happening' to take place without you observing you can't be sure on that your result being 'objective' as in telling the 'absolute truth'. Do you follow my thoughts? Schrödinger's cat is very much the interference by consciousness as seen in time. I'm not sure what time is, except as seen as a expression of spacetime, and I'm also unsure of the qualities of consciousness, but those two qualities create our definition of spacetime, is that not so? So i wouldn't be to sure as for such an experiment being 'objective' even if successful 
Well, when you include a consciousness how you can be sure that solipsism is not the objective truth?
We cannot be absolutely sure about anything. Even famous ..I think therefore I am...may be untruth. Perhaps the whole universe is a dream, a dream which would disappear as soon the dreamer would wake up.
Regarding the proposal for the experiment.
The assumption is that photon can carry only the information about the space/area/slit/s through which it has been scattered by passing through.
I think that that assumption is not in contradiction with uncertainty principle.
Anton
Well, when you include a consciousness how you can be sure that solipsism is not the objective truth?
We cannot be absolutely sure about anything. Even famous ..I think therefore I am...may be untruth. Perhaps the whole universe is a dream, a dream which would disappear as soon the dreamer would wake up.
Regarding the proposal for the experiment.
The assumption is that photon can carry only the information about the space/area/slit/s through which it has been scattered by passing through.
I think that that assumption is not in contradiction with uncertainty principle.
Anton
Are you saying that my conclusion are wrong :) Awh sh***
Perhaps you should define what Schrödinger's cat imply then?
I say its the interference by consciousness (as seen in time, or if you like spacetime) on a defined location and outcome of a given experiment. And that 'it' might be applicable to results one gets localized even further away in time.
hmm :)
Perhaps you should define what Schrödinger's cat imply then?
I say its the interference by consciousness (as seen in time, or if you like spacetime) on a defined location and outcome of a given experiment. And that 'it' might be applicable to results one gets localized even further away in time.
hmm :)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.