QUOTE (Good Elf+)
For a particular photon and for a particular physical space and its geometry, show me where the light cone walls are for the photon wave and I will show you where the photon is... at least it's only presence we can possibly know without collapsing the wavefunction
I regret that we seem to be going round again..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone let us imagine the 'flash of light' comes from the DSE light source.
Looking at the experimental results here (for the umpteenth time)
We see (almost) no photons are detected at a point P if the path difference to P is an (integer + 0.5) wavelengths.
If the frequency of our light is f (something like 10^14 Hz ) then each cycle represents a time difference of 1/f (by definition). For (say) P_20.5 the flash of light (as defined in the light cone article) will be in the past of one path and the future of the other path for 20.5/f seconds. All we need to do is explain why the flash of light (via the shortest path) is never detected even though (classically) no information about the second path can reach P_20.5 for 20.5/f seconds.
Do we at least agree about the nature of light cones?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I regret that we seem to be going round again..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone let us imagine the 'flash of light' comes from the DSE light source.
Looking at the experimental results here (for the umpteenth time)
We see (almost) no photons are detected at a point P if the path difference to P is an (integer + 0.5) wavelengths.
If the frequency of our light is f (something like 10^14 Hz ) then each cycle represents a time difference of 1/f (by definition). For (say) P_20.5 the flash of light (as defined in the light cone article) will be in the past of one path and the future of the other path for 20.5/f seconds. All we need to do is explain why the flash of light (via the shortest path) is never detected even though (classically) no information about the second path can reach P_20.5 for 20.5/f seconds.
Do we at least agree about the nature of light cones?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
Let me reiterate... the "waves" propagating from the double slits are not "traveling waves" they are "standing waves", this is still a resonant chamber no matter how much you use the black paint mentioned before. It is true that energy is flowing toward the screen but waves are not "rippling" in that direction. I fully realize that many "authors" use illustrations that show traveling waves and this is wrong. A few moments to think about that should indicate why that is so. A single photon could not interfere with itself if it was only involved in a traveling wave yet our experiment shows that a single photon does interfere with itself and only itself. I see your point but it is not what is experimentally proven. Analysis in the previous papers mentioned above shows this is the result of optical solitons (with spin) resonating and spreading into the cavity, satisfying a semi-classical version The Dirac Wave Equation using spinors which is similar to Schrodingers Wave Equation but more accurate.
The illumination pattern is a feature of the nodes and antinodes in a cavity (damped or undamped). The difference between the crests are not wavelengths of the light they are wavenumbers related to the Fourier Dispersion which are unrelated directly to the wavelength of the illumination... they are related reciprocally (reciprocal centimeter or 1/cm in cgs units... a kind of reciprocal space compared to the "conjugate domain") and depend on the angular dispersion so they are not very "evenly distributed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber
t just so happens that in your favorite image you have restricted the angle of dispersion to a very small one (a couple of degrees) so they appear to be almost even. Have a look at this interference patterns.
Check out the high angles.
This is what a "real world" double slit experiment actually looks like...
Taken from Hyperphysics:Double Slit Diffraction
Check out the relative spacing between the red blobs... The "path lengths" are important to the DSE because they represent resonant intervals and the appearance of the nodes and antinodes despite the amount of damping applied with black paint.
Take another look at Cymatics and realize in a really complex resonant cavity the wavenumbers are quite interesting as a pattern and differ with location and direction. The "patch quilt" are standing waves with nodes and antinodes. This is also two dimensional and in the real world it will be three dimensional (maybe more?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
Admittedly this is an illustration of "sound" not "light" but optical cavities have a similar mostly unseen response.
Cheers
Let me reiterate... the "waves" propagating from the double slits are not "traveling waves" they are "standing waves", this is still a resonant chamber no matter how much you use the black paint mentioned before. It is true that energy is flowing toward the screen but waves are not "rippling" in that direction. I fully realize that many "authors" use illustrations that show traveling waves and this is wrong. A few moments to think about that should indicate why that is so. A single photon could not interfere with itself if it was only involved in a traveling wave yet our experiment shows that a single photon does interfere with itself and only itself. I see your point but it is not what is experimentally proven. Analysis in the previous papers mentioned above shows this is the result of optical solitons (with spin) resonating and spreading into the cavity, satisfying a semi-classical version The Dirac Wave Equation using spinors which is similar to Schrodingers Wave Equation but more accurate.
The illumination pattern is a feature of the nodes and antinodes in a cavity (damped or undamped). The difference between the crests are not wavelengths of the light they are wavenumbers related to the Fourier Dispersion which are unrelated directly to the wavelength of the illumination... they are related reciprocally (reciprocal centimeter or 1/cm in cgs units... a kind of reciprocal space compared to the "conjugate domain") and depend on the angular dispersion so they are not very "evenly distributed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber
t just so happens that in your favorite image you have restricted the angle of dispersion to a very small one (a couple of degrees) so they appear to be almost even. Have a look at this interference patterns.
Check out the high angles.
This is what a "real world" double slit experiment actually looks like...
Taken from Hyperphysics:Double Slit Diffraction
Check out the relative spacing between the red blobs... The "path lengths" are important to the DSE because they represent resonant intervals and the appearance of the nodes and antinodes despite the amount of damping applied with black paint.
Take another look at Cymatics and realize in a really complex resonant cavity the wavenumbers are quite interesting as a pattern and differ with location and direction. The "patch quilt" are standing waves with nodes and antinodes. This is also two dimensional and in the real world it will be three dimensional (maybe more?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
Admittedly this is an illustration of "sound" not "light" but optical cavities have a similar mostly unseen response.
Cheers
Hi GE, C2, et al,
I really disagree with this statement. Standing waves are merely travelling
waves that are synchronous in timing and only appear as being stationary even
though they are advancing.
In radar waveguides, standing waves set up periodic standing wave patterns
but I can assure you that the waves are moving from their own point of
reference. We are merely observing a harmonic timing phenomenon, similar
to what is observed when a synchronous strobe light "stops" the blade rotation
of a fan. If you don't think the fan blade is moving just try putting your
finger where the blade appears not to be.....
The wave is moving/propagating from its own timing perspective, what we are
observing are merely "stationary" harmonics of the advancing waves caused by
geometry and timing.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Let me reiterate... the "waves" propagating from the double slits are not "traveling waves" they are "standing waves", this is still a resonant chamber no matter how much you use the black paint mentioned before. It is true that energy is flowing toward the screen but waves are not "rippling" in that direction. I fully realize that many "authors" use illustrations that show traveling waves and this is wrong.
I really disagree with this statement. Standing waves are merely travelling
waves that are synchronous in timing and only appear as being stationary even
though they are advancing.
In radar waveguides, standing waves set up periodic standing wave patterns
but I can assure you that the waves are moving from their own point of
reference. We are merely observing a harmonic timing phenomenon, similar
to what is observed when a synchronous strobe light "stops" the blade rotation
of a fan. If you don't think the fan blade is moving just try putting your
finger where the blade appears not to be.....
The wave is moving/propagating from its own timing perspective, what we are
observing are merely "stationary" harmonics of the advancing waves caused by
geometry and timing.
Regards,
LL
Hi All,
If we really think about the ramifications of my previous post, regarding
how "standing" waves are merely a relative timing phenomenon created by
a geometrical phasing relationship when observed from a "stationary" point of
view, it seems that perhaps we have been overlooking a very basic issue
that lies at the heart of the DSE and all standing wave phenomena.
Standing waves are harmonic artifacts of wave overlap. They are the resultant of
the geometric spatial locations where wave energy adds or subtracts. It is the
superposition of energy and time relative constructive or destructive
wave interference at specific points in geometric space.
In that respect, the idea that C2 has been supporting is exactly correct, as far as
it goes. The pattern that is observed on the detection screen is the harmonic
point of mixing of the overlapping waveforms that cross at that "plane location" in
space.
I think we all agree with that concept as the math supports and can predict this
result.
Yes, there are "standing" waves that generate the nodes and anti-nodes of the
resultant observed waveform, but these are merely mathematical mixing
progressions that result from different time synchronous waves that propagate from separate source points.
The sine wave signal mixing starts in the area between the slits, at the slit wall, where
the expanding waves initially overlap and mix. The individual wave fronts
propagate from their initial source locations and radiate outward from those
points and obey the rule of the inverse square law. The further that they
radiate from their individual sources, the longer it takes for their signal timing to
become coincident and overlap and form standing waves. The individual
propagating wave frequency remains the same, but as the spatial distance from
the slit wall to the screen increases the synchronous wave timing interval is also
increasing, so what we get is an increase of timing that doubles with distance and
an expanding standing wave pattern that increases as a function of distance from
the sources.
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
If we really think about the ramifications of my previous post, regarding
how "standing" waves are merely a relative timing phenomenon created by
a geometrical phasing relationship when observed from a "stationary" point of
view, it seems that perhaps we have been overlooking a very basic issue
that lies at the heart of the DSE and all standing wave phenomena.
Standing waves are harmonic artifacts of wave overlap. They are the resultant of
the geometric spatial locations where wave energy adds or subtracts. It is the
superposition of energy and time relative constructive or destructive
wave interference at specific points in geometric space.
In that respect, the idea that C2 has been supporting is exactly correct, as far as
it goes. The pattern that is observed on the detection screen is the harmonic
point of mixing of the overlapping waveforms that cross at that "plane location" in
space.
I think we all agree with that concept as the math supports and can predict this
result.
Yes, there are "standing" waves that generate the nodes and anti-nodes of the
resultant observed waveform, but these are merely mathematical mixing
progressions that result from different time synchronous waves that propagate from separate source points.
The sine wave signal mixing starts in the area between the slits, at the slit wall, where
the expanding waves initially overlap and mix. The individual wave fronts
propagate from their initial source locations and radiate outward from those
points and obey the rule of the inverse square law. The further that they
radiate from their individual sources, the longer it takes for their signal timing to
become coincident and overlap and form standing waves. The individual
propagating wave frequency remains the same, but as the spatial distance from
the slit wall to the screen increases the synchronous wave timing interval is also
increasing, so what we get is an increase of timing that doubles with distance and
an expanding standing wave pattern that increases as a function of distance from
the sources.
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Let me reiterate... the "waves" propagating from the double slits are not "traveling waves" they are "standing waves", this is still a resonant chamber no matter how much you use the black paint mentioned before. It is true that energy is flowing toward the screen but waves are not "rippling" in that direction. I fully realize that many "authors" use illustrations that show traveling waves and this is wrong.
I really disagree with this statement. Standing waves are merely travelling waves that are synchronous in timing and only appear as being stationary even though they are advancing.
In radar waveguides, standing waves set up periodic standing wave patterns but I can assure you that the waves are moving from their own point of reference. We are merely observing a harmonic timing phenomenon, similar to what is observed when a synchronous strobe light "stops" the blade rotation of a fan. If you don't think the fan blade is moving just try putting your finger where the blade appears not to be.....
The wave is moving/propagating from its own timing perspective, what we are observing are merely "stationary" harmonics of the advancing waves caused by geometry and timing.
I am well aware of unstable situations where the actual cavity is changing it's properties. For instance when a bar of metal heats up it changes it length so any cavities made from a bar of metal will alter in the way the standing waves are formed if allowed to warm. Another case is unstable sources and transition phases between switch-on and stable continuous crystal locked running using optical and radio frequency sources. These are problems in systems and do not represent any change in what I am saying. Some cavities are more susceptible to small changes in their dimensions than others and this is different at every different frequency (remember this cavity technically has a extremely large superposition of states one for every possible frequency of the quantum oscillator). What I am saying is that stable operation of a "cavity" for fixed source wavelength, fixed cavity dimensions and stable conditions is "always" guaranteed. One individual photon of fixed spatial phase emitted one at a time from a single source placed at a fixed position, even emitted at irregular intervals of time are "correlated", produces the same outcome as the same source driven into continuous wave operation. I know this because this is the experimental fact as derived not from hearsay but through experiment. C2 has also been emphasizing this point ad nausium and I am not about to forget that one photon at a time has the same outcome as a trillion photons a second continuously. It is a fortunate thing that the design of the double slit experiment at optical frequencies leads to only "slow" changes in the patterns on the screen... drop that frequency down from the optical frequencies into the radio band and you will soon lose control of those "neat" bands on the screen.
This is related to the problem in holography when you want to take a hologram of a very dark room using a single photon at a time from a quantum dot placed somewhere in that dark room. It will work as long as everything in that room remains "very still", most especially the source itself.
Move the quantum dot source by a couple of nanometers and you will produce a completely different hologram and if this had occurred half way into the exposure it will "overwrite" what is already there leading to a mostly unusable plate. Take the case of the Interferometer... Extend the length of one arm of an interferometer a tad and a completely different set of fringes will be seen and the actual number of those fringes is significant not just the position... exposure of photographic plates using these fringes is different depending on extremely small differences in the length of the tube. This relates to the phase of the standing wave.
There are consequences that flow on from this idea. Have a read of the Gondran Papers and the significance of the source in the final outcome of the experiment. In standard quantum theory the source plays little or no role and the actual individual paths are indeterminate, but in deBroglie-Bohm Trajectories for individual photons or in this case electrons, it is of crucial significance (as it is in making holograms). A single photon (or ballistic electron) in a system responds to the shape of the entire cavity through resonance with it's deBroglie wave, an external property independent of the actual photon, and produces standing waves which leads to the interference fringes. I am very careful to emphasize this is a quantum wave phenomenon not a particle phenomenon so the electrons used in coherent experiments must be "prepared" to exhibit this effect since not all electrons will produce interference fringes as you may already know. I have already cited many instances of this and I was really hoping people will have understood this point. Phase does matter.
Cheers
PS: In passing from the "external realm" to the internal cavity, the wave undergoes a Fourier Transform. This means that optically speaking we have moved from the spatial and temporal domain to reciprocal space (wavenumber) and frequency domain (reciprocal time). These are now the new "natural units". It is the reason why a lot of math procedures cannot be used across this boundary because reciprocals can lead to functions "blowing up" because of division by zero. Yet nature can handle this transform without any problems or singularities because the Fourier Transform in any number of dimensions is 100% conservative and invertible. This "simple optical machine" illustrates the principle...
It now responds to the internal geometry of the "new" cavity and this influences the dispersion. A single pinhole in a cavity wall will still cause an "image" of all external sources to form on the opposite cavity wall (Da Vinci's Camera Obscura) but according to correlation and proximity of sources you may have interference as well. So the information of the outside Universe is carried into the inside cavity Universe (for one source or for many sources). The fact that many holes may be in the cavity means that each one carries some information of the external source(s) into the cavity... Just like organ pipes or a flute with many holes responds to the changing "boundary conditions" of the internal cavity. Interestingly the information about the cavity itself is obtained from within the cavity, this is independent of the photons (or deBroglie Electron Waves) that are dispersed in it and this is an added layer of information. This is a Russian Doll Set.
In radar waveguides, standing waves set up periodic standing wave patterns but I can assure you that the waves are moving from their own point of reference. We are merely observing a harmonic timing phenomenon, similar to what is observed when a synchronous strobe light "stops" the blade rotation of a fan. If you don't think the fan blade is moving just try putting your finger where the blade appears not to be.....
The wave is moving/propagating from its own timing perspective, what we are observing are merely "stationary" harmonics of the advancing waves caused by geometry and timing.
I am well aware of unstable situations where the actual cavity is changing it's properties. For instance when a bar of metal heats up it changes it length so any cavities made from a bar of metal will alter in the way the standing waves are formed if allowed to warm. Another case is unstable sources and transition phases between switch-on and stable continuous crystal locked running using optical and radio frequency sources. These are problems in systems and do not represent any change in what I am saying. Some cavities are more susceptible to small changes in their dimensions than others and this is different at every different frequency (remember this cavity technically has a extremely large superposition of states one for every possible frequency of the quantum oscillator). What I am saying is that stable operation of a "cavity" for fixed source wavelength, fixed cavity dimensions and stable conditions is "always" guaranteed. One individual photon of fixed spatial phase emitted one at a time from a single source placed at a fixed position, even emitted at irregular intervals of time are "correlated", produces the same outcome as the same source driven into continuous wave operation. I know this because this is the experimental fact as derived not from hearsay but through experiment. C2 has also been emphasizing this point ad nausium and I am not about to forget that one photon at a time has the same outcome as a trillion photons a second continuously. It is a fortunate thing that the design of the double slit experiment at optical frequencies leads to only "slow" changes in the patterns on the screen... drop that frequency down from the optical frequencies into the radio band and you will soon lose control of those "neat" bands on the screen.
This is related to the problem in holography when you want to take a hologram of a very dark room using a single photon at a time from a quantum dot placed somewhere in that dark room. It will work as long as everything in that room remains "very still", most especially the source itself.
Move the quantum dot source by a couple of nanometers and you will produce a completely different hologram and if this had occurred half way into the exposure it will "overwrite" what is already there leading to a mostly unusable plate. Take the case of the Interferometer... Extend the length of one arm of an interferometer a tad and a completely different set of fringes will be seen and the actual number of those fringes is significant not just the position... exposure of photographic plates using these fringes is different depending on extremely small differences in the length of the tube. This relates to the phase of the standing wave.
There are consequences that flow on from this idea. Have a read of the Gondran Papers and the significance of the source in the final outcome of the experiment. In standard quantum theory the source plays little or no role and the actual individual paths are indeterminate, but in deBroglie-Bohm Trajectories for individual photons or in this case electrons, it is of crucial significance (as it is in making holograms). A single photon (or ballistic electron) in a system responds to the shape of the entire cavity through resonance with it's deBroglie wave, an external property independent of the actual photon, and produces standing waves which leads to the interference fringes. I am very careful to emphasize this is a quantum wave phenomenon not a particle phenomenon so the electrons used in coherent experiments must be "prepared" to exhibit this effect since not all electrons will produce interference fringes as you may already know. I have already cited many instances of this and I was really hoping people will have understood this point. Phase does matter.
Cheers
PS: In passing from the "external realm" to the internal cavity, the wave undergoes a Fourier Transform. This means that optically speaking we have moved from the spatial and temporal domain to reciprocal space (wavenumber) and frequency domain (reciprocal time). These are now the new "natural units". It is the reason why a lot of math procedures cannot be used across this boundary because reciprocals can lead to functions "blowing up" because of division by zero. Yet nature can handle this transform without any problems or singularities because the Fourier Transform in any number of dimensions is 100% conservative and invertible. This "simple optical machine" illustrates the principle...
It now responds to the internal geometry of the "new" cavity and this influences the dispersion. A single pinhole in a cavity wall will still cause an "image" of all external sources to form on the opposite cavity wall (Da Vinci's Camera Obscura) but according to correlation and proximity of sources you may have interference as well. So the information of the outside Universe is carried into the inside cavity Universe (for one source or for many sources). The fact that many holes may be in the cavity means that each one carries some information of the external source(s) into the cavity... Just like organ pipes or a flute with many holes responds to the changing "boundary conditions" of the internal cavity. Interestingly the information about the cavity itself is obtained from within the cavity, this is independent of the photons (or deBroglie Electron Waves) that are dispersed in it and this is an added layer of information. This is a Russian Doll Set.
QUOTE
Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their back to bite ‘em.
Little fleas have smaller fleas,
And so, ad infinitum.
It's a Holographic Universe.
Upon their back to bite ‘em.
Little fleas have smaller fleas,
And so, ad infinitum.
Hi GE, C2 and All,
GE I don't disagree with your latest argument. One of the keys to the DSE
is the idea that the originating source signal(s) must have time coherency. If the
source signals are not coherent in some form, there will be no resulting
interference and no coincident standing wave timing pattern observed. Coherent
waves generate second order harmonics within the confines of a cavity when the
wave energy contained in each primary wave maintains a "fixed"
phase and tiiming relationship within a fixed spatial geometry.
This is phase timing coincidence over a fixed spatial domain.
The second order harmonics (and additional orders), that are generated by signal
energy overlap, follow the inverse square law according to distance from the
source. The energy available in the standing waves decreases inversely with the
square of the distance from the source.
In order for there to be "interference", and for standing waves to occur, there
must be a fixed coherency of the wave(s) across 4 dimensions... x, y, z, and time.
This wave "signal coherency" forms energy distribution interference patterns
that are harmonic orders of the original source frequency and this interference
forms the standing waves across some fixed spatial domain or distance. If the
spatial distance isn't "fixed" (is moving) we observe a doppler wave shift effect
because the timing of the moving signal changes relative to a fixed source
reference point. In this case, the second order harmonic waves become
second order traveling waves, but you already know how this doppler phenomenon works.
The point being that standing waves are the energy
signature of the original source frequency at fixed points in space. Ideally,
the original source frequency waveform is propagating unimpeded thru space, but
the second order(+) standing wave energy signature that it generates is fixed by
its relationship to the geometry of the space between 2 fixed points, which are
the source and the "sink".
In the doppler case, the original coherent source frequency remains the same,
relative to its own frame of reference, but the second order(+) resultant travelling
wave energy changes with the change in distance and relative time and we
get a red or blue color shift.
The points where time coincident standing waves superpose their energy signatures
in 4D space is where interference patterns can be observed. Two (or more)
phased and time coincident coherent standing waves that occupy the same space
at the same time superpose the energy that they contain at the fixed point of
observation/measurement, which can range between a node or an anti-node.
In the DSE we observe the energy superposition in 2 dimensions, y and z, at the
point of detection at a fixed relative point in time.
Comments?
LL
GE I don't disagree with your latest argument. One of the keys to the DSE
is the idea that the originating source signal(s) must have time coherency. If the
source signals are not coherent in some form, there will be no resulting
interference and no coincident standing wave timing pattern observed. Coherent
waves generate second order harmonics within the confines of a cavity when the
wave energy contained in each primary wave maintains a "fixed"
phase and tiiming relationship within a fixed spatial geometry.
This is phase timing coincidence over a fixed spatial domain.
The second order harmonics (and additional orders), that are generated by signal
energy overlap, follow the inverse square law according to distance from the
source. The energy available in the standing waves decreases inversely with the
square of the distance from the source.
In order for there to be "interference", and for standing waves to occur, there
must be a fixed coherency of the wave(s) across 4 dimensions... x, y, z, and time.
This wave "signal coherency" forms energy distribution interference patterns
that are harmonic orders of the original source frequency and this interference
forms the standing waves across some fixed spatial domain or distance. If the
spatial distance isn't "fixed" (is moving) we observe a doppler wave shift effect
because the timing of the moving signal changes relative to a fixed source
reference point. In this case, the second order harmonic waves become
second order traveling waves, but you already know how this doppler phenomenon works.
The point being that standing waves are the energy
signature of the original source frequency at fixed points in space. Ideally,
the original source frequency waveform is propagating unimpeded thru space, but
the second order(+) standing wave energy signature that it generates is fixed by
its relationship to the geometry of the space between 2 fixed points, which are
the source and the "sink".
In the doppler case, the original coherent source frequency remains the same,
relative to its own frame of reference, but the second order(+) resultant travelling
wave energy changes with the change in distance and relative time and we
get a red or blue color shift.
The points where time coincident standing waves superpose their energy signatures
in 4D space is where interference patterns can be observed. Two (or more)
phased and time coincident coherent standing waves that occupy the same space
at the same time superpose the energy that they contain at the fixed point of
observation/measurement, which can range between a node or an anti-node.
In the DSE we observe the energy superposition in 2 dimensions, y and z, at the
point of detection at a fixed relative point in time.
Comments?
LL
The slits (actually pinholes - not one of my best attempts) start about about 200mm from the detector and are advanced in a wibbly wobbly way along a screw thread .. a total of about 0.75 mm forwards.
Dim the lights, cuddle up with a friend - Watch the movie!
Best wishes,
-C2.
Dim the lights, cuddle up with a friend - Watch the movie!
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Can you explain the "drift" observed? The waves stay synchronized between them
selves but the entire scene moves. Is it the loss of sync between the standing
wave pattern and the time sync of the camera? It seems similar to how a
waveform travels when there is a mismatch of a sync pulse on an o-scope?
I'm betting that if you change the frame rate of the camera the drift rate will
change with it. Perhaps you can achieve timing sync by changing the frame rate.
Comments?
LL
Can you explain the "drift" observed? The waves stay synchronized between them
selves but the entire scene moves. Is it the loss of sync between the standing
wave pattern and the time sync of the camera? It seems similar to how a
waveform travels when there is a mismatch of a sync pulse on an o-scope?
I'm betting that if you change the frame rate of the camera the drift rate will
change with it. Perhaps you can achieve timing sync by changing the frame rate.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE (LL+)
Can you explain the "drift" observed? The waves stay synchronized between themselves but the entire scene moves.
Oh dear (again). The drift was (mostly) deliberate. Imagine a miniature lathe bed with the laser and slits sitting on it. Just winding forward looks like nothing happenning so I didn't try to capture it. The threaded rod on the lathe bed isn't perfectly straight so it introduces those 'wiggles' which unfortunately seem to have ended up looking like jumps after compression. The posted video has been compressed down from the original 4Mb down to 96k so's everyone can see it (and to save my bandwidth).
What I thought it showed rather nicely was that the pattern remains the same despite the changes of angle and a change of distance of over a 1,000 wavelengths. I don't think it would have been very convincing if I'd just showed two pictures that looked exactly the same. If you grab fames from the start and finish and compare the same region I think there is a fairly convincing 'no change'. I can grab from the original if you like.
I'll take some more images while I'm set up for it - anything you'd like me to try?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Oh dear (again). The drift was (mostly) deliberate. Imagine a miniature lathe bed with the laser and slits sitting on it. Just winding forward looks like nothing happenning so I didn't try to capture it. The threaded rod on the lathe bed isn't perfectly straight so it introduces those 'wiggles' which unfortunately seem to have ended up looking like jumps after compression. The posted video has been compressed down from the original 4Mb down to 96k so's everyone can see it (and to save my bandwidth).
What I thought it showed rather nicely was that the pattern remains the same despite the changes of angle and a change of distance of over a 1,000 wavelengths. I don't think it would have been very convincing if I'd just showed two pictures that looked exactly the same. If you grab fames from the start and finish and compare the same region I think there is a fairly convincing 'no change'. I can grab from the original if you like.
I'll take some more images while I'm set up for it - anything you'd like me to try?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi GE,
I have given some thought to your previous post and some of your long standing
scientific positions about the nature and characteristics of photons and I find
myself in philosophical disagreement on several points.
Your comment ala Feynman....."A photon seeks all paths througout the universe".
My thoughts/argument:
I think that an individual photon seeks all paths within the confines of its individual
"light cone" cavity extremes. I do not believe that the wave form extends ad
infinitum thruout the universe/space, this is illogical and highly questionable.
IMO, a photon exists and propagates within the physical limits of its own discrete
waveform, what you would call its light cone wall and what I consider to be the
extreme limits of expansion of the wave form over the peak to peak time
extremes of the wave form within its interactive "cavity" of existence. I believe
that a photon exists within the bounds of its own "cavity channel" which is
determined by its frequency. The higher the
frequency of the photon, the smaller the outer boundaries of the "channel" (light
cone) that the discrete photon quanta propagates within. Conceptually, this
supports the idea of the "particle" aspect of a discrete photon. It represents
the "particle" attribute of the discrete quanta of energy that is being transported....
the work function component that is being transported by the wave
energy. In other words, the photon wave form cavity channel has physical limits.
I think that individual photons do overlap into each other's discrete
"energy channel" since they are discrete quanta that originate from different
atoms but that, over distance from the source, there is a separation of the "channels"
over time/distance as it follows the ISL. "Space" expands over
distance from the source (ISL), but the individual light channel does not, which is
why each photon is able to infinitely maintain the discrete energy package it is
transporting until such time that it is detected and the energy it contains changes form.
Comments, other ideas, discussion welcomed.
LL
I have given some thought to your previous post and some of your long standing
scientific positions about the nature and characteristics of photons and I find
myself in philosophical disagreement on several points.
Your comment ala Feynman....."A photon seeks all paths througout the universe".
My thoughts/argument:
I think that an individual photon seeks all paths within the confines of its individual
"light cone" cavity extremes. I do not believe that the wave form extends ad
infinitum thruout the universe/space, this is illogical and highly questionable.
IMO, a photon exists and propagates within the physical limits of its own discrete
waveform, what you would call its light cone wall and what I consider to be the
extreme limits of expansion of the wave form over the peak to peak time
extremes of the wave form within its interactive "cavity" of existence. I believe
that a photon exists within the bounds of its own "cavity channel" which is
determined by its frequency. The higher the
frequency of the photon, the smaller the outer boundaries of the "channel" (light
cone) that the discrete photon quanta propagates within. Conceptually, this
supports the idea of the "particle" aspect of a discrete photon. It represents
the "particle" attribute of the discrete quanta of energy that is being transported....
the work function component that is being transported by the wave
energy. In other words, the photon wave form cavity channel has physical limits.
I think that individual photons do overlap into each other's discrete
"energy channel" since they are discrete quanta that originate from different
atoms but that, over distance from the source, there is a separation of the "channels"
over time/distance as it follows the ISL. "Space" expands over
distance from the source (ISL), but the individual light channel does not, which is
why each photon is able to infinitely maintain the discrete energy package it is
transporting until such time that it is detected and the energy it contains changes form.
Comments, other ideas, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi C2,
So if I understand you correctly, you were intentionally changing the distance
and viewing angle of the camera relative to the source....you should have
described what you were showing and attempting to do, it would have
put things into proper "perspective". Your lack of information left us/me
with the idea that the camera was stationary and that the image was moving
on its own over time.
LL
So if I understand you correctly, you were intentionally changing the distance
and viewing angle of the camera relative to the source....you should have
described what you were showing and attempting to do, it would have
put things into proper "perspective". Your lack of information left us/me
with the idea that the camera was stationary and that the image was moving
on its own over time.
LL
QUOTE (me+)
The slits (actually pinholes - not one of my best attempts) start about about 200mm from the detector and are advanced in a wibbly wobbly way along a screw thread .. a total of about 0.75 mm forwards.
What's not to like about that?
Best wishes,
-C2.
What's not to like about that?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
What I mean is that there are two kinds of coherence... spatial and temporal. In most cases we are dealing with both with lasers. I have indicated in the past that temporal coherence is a strong organizing influence but pure spatial coherence could also occur say for instance with a quantum dot source of individual photons emitted at random times. If spatial source phase was maintained within a fraction of a wavelength then photons emitted at any subsequent time from this very compact source could lead to identical interference fringing (if it was possible to observe) throughout the surrounding environment. This could lead to creating a hologram built up using individual photons, provided they were strongly spatially coherent by originating from the exact same point in space and had the same source phase on emission.
Lasers virtually "regiment" photons to be temporally coherent even though the photons do not share the same individual sources but they are synchronized by virtue of "stimulated emission".
Pure monochromatic sources can also "develop partial coherence" due to the self organizing influence of co-moving photons. We must still remember this was the first way in which the original fuzzy holograms were produced in the dim days before LASERS.
Cheers
What I mean is that there are two kinds of coherence... spatial and temporal. In most cases we are dealing with both with lasers. I have indicated in the past that temporal coherence is a strong organizing influence but pure spatial coherence could also occur say for instance with a quantum dot source of individual photons emitted at random times. If spatial source phase was maintained within a fraction of a wavelength then photons emitted at any subsequent time from this very compact source could lead to identical interference fringing (if it was possible to observe) throughout the surrounding environment. This could lead to creating a hologram built up using individual photons, provided they were strongly spatially coherent by originating from the exact same point in space and had the same source phase on emission.
Lasers virtually "regiment" photons to be temporally coherent even though the photons do not share the same individual sources but they are synchronized by virtue of "stimulated emission".
Pure monochromatic sources can also "develop partial coherence" due to the self organizing influence of co-moving photons. We must still remember this was the first way in which the original fuzzy holograms were produced in the dim days before LASERS.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Is there any evidence that would help to decide the standing wave issue? I've got pictires of DSE patterns taken at different distances and angles - they all look to be exactly as I would expect on the basis of path length difference and very difficult to account for in any other way. Would there be any point in my posting them?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Is there any evidence that would help to decide the standing wave issue? I've got pictires of DSE patterns taken at different distances and angles - they all look to be exactly as I would expect on the basis of path length difference and very difficult to account for in any other way. Would there be any point in my posting them?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Can you do an experiment with your camera setup? If so, it should be done like
this:
1. the camera detector should be directly perpendicular and centered between the
holes or slits with a starting reference point of 10- 20 cm from the apertures.
2. mount a ruler or some accurate measurement device along the length of travel
of the camera "carriage", and mark uniform spacing increments along the length of
travel to use as alignment marks where you will take a picture at each mark.
3. take at least 6 pictures at calibrated distances of at least 2 cm between each
calibration mark.
4. Post the pictures and provide your observations, opinions.
Is this asking too much?
Regards,
LL
Can you do an experiment with your camera setup? If so, it should be done like
this:
1. the camera detector should be directly perpendicular and centered between the
holes or slits with a starting reference point of 10- 20 cm from the apertures.
2. mount a ruler or some accurate measurement device along the length of travel
of the camera "carriage", and mark uniform spacing increments along the length of
travel to use as alignment marks where you will take a picture at each mark.
3. take at least 6 pictures at calibrated distances of at least 2 cm between each
calibration mark.
4. Post the pictures and provide your observations, opinions.
Is this asking too much?
Regards,
LL
QUOTE (LL+)
Is this asking too much?
Of course it isn't asking too much. I will do my best.
-C2.
Of course it isn't asking too much. I will do my best.
-C2.
20:-
18:-
16:-
14:-
12:-
10:-
Apologies to anyone on narrow band.
More to come
18:-
16:-
14:-
12:-
10:-
Apologies to anyone on narrow band.
More to come
Now individual pinholes with low then high gain
These are at about 16 cm frm detector
These are at about 16 cm frm detector
C2,
Nice job! I understand the first set of pics, but don't know what to make of
the second set, except that there are no observable interference fringes/bands.
The high gain pics are showing some ghost image artifacts, perhaps standing
waves or in phase components of the Airy ring.
The first set:
As expected, the interference fringes and gaps increase/spread with
increasing distance from the source and resolution degrades.
The patterns seem to be following the ISL. There appears to be an increasing
image projection pattern that tracks with increasing distance.
Your thoughts, comments, and anyone else can comment also.
LL
Nice job! I understand the first set of pics, but don't know what to make of
the second set, except that there are no observable interference fringes/bands.
The high gain pics are showing some ghost image artifacts, perhaps standing
waves or in phase components of the Airy ring.
The first set:
As expected, the interference fringes and gaps increase/spread with
increasing distance from the source and resolution degrades.
The patterns seem to be following the ISL. There appears to be an increasing
image projection pattern that tracks with increasing distance.
Your thoughts, comments, and anyone else can comment also.
LL
Hi LL,
The last four pictures were intended to show the diffraction pattern of each slit. My pinholes don't seem to be very good hence my Airey rings are a bit hairy fairy.
My camera thing seems to ignore things it doesn't think are important unless I get the gain just right. Here is a single pinhole taken at about 14 cm after playing about with the gain
Hopefully it shows that the single hole diffraction pattern is much more extensive than was clear in the last four pictures.
In my corner I'm pretty keen on the view that the DSE effect is no more (!) than the superposition of one diffraction pattern on top of another .. it can't add anything that wasn't there before. My camera has a bit of a life of it's own which hasn't really helped to prove this. I must admit I've only just worked out how to block one slit at a time. Ideally I'd prepare yet another set of pictures which show one slit, then the other and then both.
FWIW .. here is a 3 pinhole picture
Best wishes,
-C2.
The last four pictures were intended to show the diffraction pattern of each slit. My pinholes don't seem to be very good hence my Airey rings are a bit hairy fairy.
My camera thing seems to ignore things it doesn't think are important unless I get the gain just right. Here is a single pinhole taken at about 14 cm after playing about with the gain
Hopefully it shows that the single hole diffraction pattern is much more extensive than was clear in the last four pictures.
In my corner I'm pretty keen on the view that the DSE effect is no more (!) than the superposition of one diffraction pattern on top of another .. it can't add anything that wasn't there before. My camera has a bit of a life of it's own which hasn't really helped to prove this. I must admit I've only just worked out how to block one slit at a time. Ideally I'd prepare yet another set of pictures which show one slit, then the other and then both.
FWIW .. here is a 3 pinhole picture
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
Just a question, are the two blobs with internal fringes produced by two sets of pinholes (ie: 4 pinholes?) each set separated by some distance?
Or is this one pattern produced by only one set of pinholes and they are interfering over a relatively very great separation distance?
In the three pinhole picture... in your post above... are these pinholes arranged in an approximate triangular pattern?
Is this image only one quarter of of a single diffraction airy disk, is that 2 irregular airy disks I see there?
Previously you said...
Is the "bog roll" still producing that outcome above or something like it? Are you still using that blue tack with two tiny pinholes in it? What really interests me is are you reducing the various higher modes yet by using a "spatial filter" on your laser and are you using "diverged laser illumination" in the Fresnel Zone?
Ideally you should have the laser initially a "large" distance from the slits and the source should be "spatially filtered" with another largish pinhole that "crops" the "edges" of the laser lens.. This should improve things.
Just trying to understand why it is currently so "messy"? Otherwise it is interesting. What are you intending to discover here?
Have you got an explanation for the unusual colors... ?? Shouldn't they all be the same color (ca. 660 nm red? or is this a green laser?) if you are using only one laser source? Is this an effect due to the patterned color filter behind the lens but over the sensor... Are you focussed on these tiny lenticular lenses??
Otherwise .... well done... definitely "food for thought".
Cheers
Just a question, are the two blobs with internal fringes produced by two sets of pinholes (ie: 4 pinholes?) each set separated by some distance?
Or is this one pattern produced by only one set of pinholes and they are interfering over a relatively very great separation distance?
In the three pinhole picture... in your post above... are these pinholes arranged in an approximate triangular pattern?
Is this image only one quarter of of a single diffraction airy disk, is that 2 irregular airy disks I see there?
Previously you said...
QUOTE
Reducing the magnification by a factor of 2 (ie the laser is in the bog-roll about 2" away from the camera) and increasing the gain shows how there are all sorts of interference effects going on besides the DSE effect.
Is the "bog roll" still producing that outcome above or something like it? Are you still using that blue tack with two tiny pinholes in it? What really interests me is are you reducing the various higher modes yet by using a "spatial filter" on your laser and are you using "diverged laser illumination" in the Fresnel Zone?
Ideally you should have the laser initially a "large" distance from the slits and the source should be "spatially filtered" with another largish pinhole that "crops" the "edges" of the laser lens.. This should improve things.
Just trying to understand why it is currently so "messy"? Otherwise it is interesting. What are you intending to discover here?
Have you got an explanation for the unusual colors... ?? Shouldn't they all be the same color (ca. 660 nm red? or is this a green laser?) if you are using only one laser source? Is this an effect due to the patterned color filter behind the lens but over the sensor... Are you focussed on these tiny lenticular lenses??
Otherwise .... well done... definitely "food for thought".
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
The active area of the 'detector' is about 2.5mm by 2.0 mm. There are no lenses and I have removed the IR filter .. the light goes straight onto the chip. The colours haven't been 'right' since I removed the IR filter. I'm not sure the effect is related to the removal of the filter .. my feeling is that it's just leakage between cells which is wiping out the colour .. it can still be seen in low amplitude areas. Laser is always 650nm red.
Until the last '3 pinhole' picture all pictures have been produced using a piece of black card with two pinholes poked through .. this is then stuck with bluetack to the front of the laser pointer. The source is the laser 'as is' .. the 'spot' is about 4mm in diameter at the exit of the device and it diverges to about 8mm at a distance of about 3m . Since my pinholes are about 1mm apart the 'spot' covers both pinholes and gives a good DSE effect .. I didn't expect this to be true but since it works and keeps everything simple I've just accepted this bit of strangeness.
Since the laser beam hardly diverges over the region of interest and we know the dimensions of the sensor we can effectively measure the pinhole separation by the distance between the bright round bits in most of the pictires. In the first picture you posted above the separation is seen to be about 1.25mm.
Most of my pictures are taken with the slits about 10cm from the detector.
The thre pinholes are in a triangular pattern .. sorry, I should have made that clear.
Airy discs .. the source is over to the right .. the discs are irregular but repeat .. I see maybe 3 discs.
"Is the "bog roll" still producing that outcome above or something like it?
With or without the bogroll makes no difference it just keeps light from my PC screen away from the sensor. I regret there is no difference with or without the bogroll, poking fingures down the side etc.Nothing makes any discernable difference unless it is in the direct path between the laser and the detector.
".. are you reducing the various higher modes yet by using a "spatial filter" on your laser and are you using "diverged laser illumination" in the Fresnel Zone?"
God only knows! All is as described.
"What are you intending to discover here?"
If we use DSE equation ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) and assume my slits are about 1mm apart , wavelength 650nm and 10cm to the 'screen', the screen being about 2.5mm across then we'd expect to fit about 40 bright bits across the screen.
Looking at (10cm to screen)
http://www.modellines.net/test/Picture%2039.jpg we see a spacing equivalent to about 40 fringes across the screen and I guesstimate there are actually about 46.
And here (20cm)
http://www.modellines.net/test/Picture%2034.jpg
I guestimate about 21 fringes.
I'd say this is entirely within the limits of how accurately I actually measured these things.
For accuracy we have the Teachspin results .. I'm only looking at "What's going on". We are seeing effects that are not obvious in a 'proper' setup.
In many of the pictures we see the DSE fringes are unevenly spaced. My explanation is..
If we imagine the larger scale diffraction pattern as 'background' then the 'ray' from the other slit has to cancel the (variable) phase of the 'background'. I agree this is something that is not taken into account in my simple DSE equation .. we have much better equations which we don't really need here .. as long as we understand the principle.
"Is this an effect due to the patterned color filter behind the lens but over the sensor... Are you focussed on these tiny lenticular lenses??"
No lens and no filter. Sorry, no evidence of any cavity effect.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Sorry a bit hurried .. do come back on anything I've missed.
The active area of the 'detector' is about 2.5mm by 2.0 mm. There are no lenses and I have removed the IR filter .. the light goes straight onto the chip. The colours haven't been 'right' since I removed the IR filter. I'm not sure the effect is related to the removal of the filter .. my feeling is that it's just leakage between cells which is wiping out the colour .. it can still be seen in low amplitude areas. Laser is always 650nm red.
Until the last '3 pinhole' picture all pictures have been produced using a piece of black card with two pinholes poked through .. this is then stuck with bluetack to the front of the laser pointer. The source is the laser 'as is' .. the 'spot' is about 4mm in diameter at the exit of the device and it diverges to about 8mm at a distance of about 3m . Since my pinholes are about 1mm apart the 'spot' covers both pinholes and gives a good DSE effect .. I didn't expect this to be true but since it works and keeps everything simple I've just accepted this bit of strangeness.
Since the laser beam hardly diverges over the region of interest and we know the dimensions of the sensor we can effectively measure the pinhole separation by the distance between the bright round bits in most of the pictires. In the first picture you posted above the separation is seen to be about 1.25mm.
Most of my pictures are taken with the slits about 10cm from the detector.
The thre pinholes are in a triangular pattern .. sorry, I should have made that clear.
Airy discs .. the source is over to the right .. the discs are irregular but repeat .. I see maybe 3 discs.
"Is the "bog roll" still producing that outcome above or something like it?
With or without the bogroll makes no difference it just keeps light from my PC screen away from the sensor. I regret there is no difference with or without the bogroll, poking fingures down the side etc.Nothing makes any discernable difference unless it is in the direct path between the laser and the detector.
".. are you reducing the various higher modes yet by using a "spatial filter" on your laser and are you using "diverged laser illumination" in the Fresnel Zone?"
God only knows! All is as described.
"What are you intending to discover here?"
If we use DSE equation ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) and assume my slits are about 1mm apart , wavelength 650nm and 10cm to the 'screen', the screen being about 2.5mm across then we'd expect to fit about 40 bright bits across the screen.
Looking at (10cm to screen)
http://www.modellines.net/test/Picture%2039.jpg we see a spacing equivalent to about 40 fringes across the screen and I guesstimate there are actually about 46.
And here (20cm)
http://www.modellines.net/test/Picture%2034.jpg
I guestimate about 21 fringes.
I'd say this is entirely within the limits of how accurately I actually measured these things.
For accuracy we have the Teachspin results .. I'm only looking at "What's going on". We are seeing effects that are not obvious in a 'proper' setup.
In many of the pictures we see the DSE fringes are unevenly spaced. My explanation is..
If we imagine the larger scale diffraction pattern as 'background' then the 'ray' from the other slit has to cancel the (variable) phase of the 'background'. I agree this is something that is not taken into account in my simple DSE equation .. we have much better equations which we don't really need here .. as long as we understand the principle.
"Is this an effect due to the patterned color filter behind the lens but over the sensor... Are you focussed on these tiny lenticular lenses??"
No lens and no filter. Sorry, no evidence of any cavity effect.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Sorry a bit hurried .. do come back on anything I've missed.
Hi Confused2,
Thanks for that. It clears up a lot of unknowns.
Here is a page that indicates how a color camera works and how the color filter sits over the CCD sensors on the chip surface.
http://www.shortcourses.com/choosing/how/03.htm
However this is what it generally looks like...
If you have a color camera and you only removed the large optical lens then this three layer "sandwich" remains composed of a clear lenticular bead lens array (focusing the light slightly into the center of the patch), transparent color patch array, then underlying all that the CCD pixel sensors. The color of each pixel in the image is "interpolated" as shown in the final illustration using an algorithm using the 8 nearest color sensors and itself using their basic response to light.
Naturally each CCD patch is not naturally color sensitive only light sensitive until it has this tiny color grid laid over it. An onboard processor chip jiggles the individual values around. As indicated in the page referenced, they usually have the "Bayer Pattern" which has twice as many green patches as there are red or blue patches and this means it is twice as sensitive to green as it is to other colors (including red). In theory these three particular colors, If you have a red laser, then the green and blue filters should block most of that pure red light in about 7/9ths of all the pixels. Because your pictures have a pattern it is possible this influence is causing an "artifact". I am pretty sure that the strong laser illumination penetrates all the filters maybe even having a non-linear effect, and I am expecting a banding effect due to this phenomenon because of this filter. This may be second order... I dunno what it might do here. Have you any comments to make about it being "Johnny on the spot"?
Cheers
Thanks for that. It clears up a lot of unknowns.
Here is a page that indicates how a color camera works and how the color filter sits over the CCD sensors on the chip surface.
http://www.shortcourses.com/choosing/how/03.htm
However this is what it generally looks like...
If you have a color camera and you only removed the large optical lens then this three layer "sandwich" remains composed of a clear lenticular bead lens array (focusing the light slightly into the center of the patch), transparent color patch array, then underlying all that the CCD pixel sensors. The color of each pixel in the image is "interpolated" as shown in the final illustration using an algorithm using the 8 nearest color sensors and itself using their basic response to light.
Naturally each CCD patch is not naturally color sensitive only light sensitive until it has this tiny color grid laid over it. An onboard processor chip jiggles the individual values around. As indicated in the page referenced, they usually have the "Bayer Pattern" which has twice as many green patches as there are red or blue patches and this means it is twice as sensitive to green as it is to other colors (including red). In theory these three particular colors, If you have a red laser, then the green and blue filters should block most of that pure red light in about 7/9ths of all the pixels. Because your pictures have a pattern it is possible this influence is causing an "artifact". I am pretty sure that the strong laser illumination penetrates all the filters maybe even having a non-linear effect, and I am expecting a banding effect due to this phenomenon because of this filter. This may be second order... I dunno what it might do here. Have you any comments to make about it being "Johnny on the spot"?
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I'm under the impression that cheap CMOS cameras like this have very crude colour filters which are made by etching the SiO2 down to different thicknesses over the active bits to get 3 colours. Obviously they aim for RGB or similar but my guess is that it's more like high, medium and low frequency.
Initially I tried to make my pinholes as small as possible but once you find anything works regardless of size the temptation is to pop 'em out rather less carefully.
As far as I can tell the thing is telling the truth .. there are no oddities when rotating, moving in and out and sliding across. I have put the lens back and it still works as a camere.
The pictures I've posted so far have been jpegged .. the early ones were more compressed but the later ones are 400K after jpeg -- as a BMP they take 900k so I doubt if there is any detectable difference as a result of compression.
I hope this answers the questions.
Best wishes,
C2.
I'm under the impression that cheap CMOS cameras like this have very crude colour filters which are made by etching the SiO2 down to different thicknesses over the active bits to get 3 colours. Obviously they aim for RGB or similar but my guess is that it's more like high, medium and low frequency.
Initially I tried to make my pinholes as small as possible but once you find anything works regardless of size the temptation is to pop 'em out rather less carefully.
As far as I can tell the thing is telling the truth .. there are no oddities when rotating, moving in and out and sliding across. I have put the lens back and it still works as a camere.
The pictures I've posted so far have been jpegged .. the early ones were more compressed but the later ones are 400K after jpeg -- as a BMP they take 900k so I doubt if there is any detectable difference as a result of compression.
I hope this answers the questions.
Best wishes,
C2.
Hi C2,
Excellent work and descriptions for your home brew experimental setup!
Are you up for trying to use slits rather than pin holes?
LL
Excellent work and descriptions for your home brew experimental setup!
Are you up for trying to use slits rather than pin holes?
LL
QUOTE (LL+)
Are you up for trying to use slits rather than pin holes?
Er .. well.. um .. yes and no ..
See this:-
That's my best pair of slits (scored in smoked glass).
I think I would have to build a slit-making machine to get anything sensible out of slits.
Would we be any further forward if I did?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Er .. well.. um .. yes and no ..
See this:-
That's my best pair of slits (scored in smoked glass).
I think I would have to build a slit-making machine to get anything sensible out of slits.
Would we be any further forward if I did?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
That's my best pair of slits (scored in smoked glass).
I think I would have to build a slit-making machine to get anything sensible out of slits.
Would we be any further forward if I did?
I think I would have to build a slit-making machine to get anything sensible out of slits.
Would we be any further forward if I did?
You have done very well so far. I think that will not make a difference. Pinholes actually show everything needed. It is a struggle enough to get any answers using our limited resources. For me it is Gedanken Experiments.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Hi Good Elf,
Is there any evidence that would help to decide the standing wave issue? I've got pictures of DSE patterns taken at different distances and angles - they all look to be exactly as I would expect on the basis of path length difference and very difficult to account for in any other way. Would there be any point in my posting them?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Is there any evidence that would help to decide the standing wave issue? I've got pictures of DSE patterns taken at different distances and angles - they all look to be exactly as I would expect on the basis of path length difference and very difficult to account for in any other way. Would there be any point in my posting them?
Best wishes,
-C2.
I agree that as far as it goes this is not the way to resolve that question you posed. Here is a "Gedanken Question"... what do you think the interference pattern due to one single photon entering a cavity may be? This cavity has been unexcited for ages... just what is the pattern for just one??? Can it be any different for many photons?
I need to look at the internal consistency and the results of current experiment. I will recap what I think are the important points... These mostly deal with photons not with electrons. It is only a pure bosonic phenomena I am going to deal with here.
A single coherent photon emitted at an irregular interval of time (to the best of our experimental ability) will create the same diffraction pattern in the same volumetric space as billions of coherent photons in Continuous Wave all in phase. The DSE pattern is functionally independent of the photon flux density. This is an experimental result not a theory so we must address it. This begs the question if the flux density is zero this pattern must still exist. (Just extrapolate the effect... functional independence means there is something that does not depend on density function for its existence). Clearly there is something in the empty spaces of cavities that always exists there that depends only on the cavity and not on the "excitation".
If individual photons needed to interfere with their alternative path (going through two slits at once) it could choose to take to the target where it finally gives up its "flash", then we must explain this mechanism physically? We cannot retreat with our arms waving and invoking quantum theory self reflexively as the answer... this is the sort of answer that you give a child... "just because it is"... Quantum Theory is right so this is the explanation. I do not like that philosophically. So here we go... Firstly there is the proposition that this is due to progressive waves. This is the way it is usually presented and "visually" in Java applets. A very strong emotional driver to accept this idea isn't it? Progressive waves, as in the case of water waves at the beach, cannot set up a permanent pattern one single crest at a time with long uneven intervals between... especially when there is a preexisting "mill pond" situation. The progressive propagating crest will naturally "criss-cross" back and forth as the single dispersed spreading crest propagates around the "cavity" (or "mill pond"). The energy of the wave then becomes distributed everywhere and with different arrival times for portions of the original energy as has been noted. You must see this is due to the way the spreading model acts and it is not my fault... it is a picture which is wrong. I do not need to reconcile this progressive concept with the experimental results, it is those who propose that this is the correct view that need to justify it. Does this make sense... "Am I still beating my wife?... Yes or No?"... this way I am either a wife beater or a reformed wife beater no matter what I answer.
The real way in which this cavity acts is totally different to this "progressive wave" picture and the energy of the individual photon arrives at the final destination as a "packet" by the most direct path. This is regardless of "which way it goes" while it is still seeking all paths. It is my contention this cavity is a resonant "line" and the "incident photon energy" from one end propagates through this "resonant line" which has an existing standing wave structure, to arrive as a packet at the opposite end of the three dimensional cavity. So intensity depends on the two dimensional internal surface standing wave ratio at every point of the internal cavity walls. Some energy is always reflected and some is absorbed. The principles behind the DSE is exactly the same. The intensity seen on the "cavity walls" is dependent on the properties of the cavity's complex impedance as a three dimensional spatial function which is a solution of Schrodingers or Dirac's Equation for electromagnetic waves in cavities. The standing wave ratio is important since this determines how the energy is distributed around the internal space. This is the difference between a steady state wave picture where dynamic standing waves exist due to preexisting boundary conditions and an erroneous progressive wave picture that leads to the energy being delivered everywhere and at any time.
In the former standing wave case, the "internal cavity structure" had time to reach a dynamic equilibrium which is waiting for the incident photon to be there. The way the photon's energy is then processed is clear... it is the Principle of Least Action and the Conservation of Energy. In the case of more than one single photon it is the Principle of Superposition that arrives at the final result which is the same result for one at a time.. In this latter case the instantaneous progressive interference pattern that is different for one photon than it is for large numbers of photons is dramatically different to that of this steady state standing wave situation. Experiment actually shows one photon at a time actually "works" by propagating into a "mill pond" cavity without any previous disturbance, and fits with a consistent steady state dynamic standing wave pattern, so this progressive wave proposal is in error.
Naturally there is no explanation for the interference due to path length as shown by multiple path constructions, it is a purely "behavioral model" and is the simple answer to why a "resonant line" has fixed nodes and anti-nodes in it. Any line has a node or antinode at its terminus, there is really no alternatives as we attempt to adjust the cavity size. It works but without a more sensible mechanism it remains a question that we continue to wrestle with. Saying this another way there needs to be a "coincidence" of screen and the phase of the two possible wave paths at a point on this screen in order for a flash to be possible. This "behavioral model" is answered equally by both progressive waves and standing waves. But when you take into account all the facts, the progressive wave model is not viable. The flash signifies a collapse of the wavefunction... it is no longer a wave but a "particle". However between source and screen (I mean original source here) the photon is propagating most certainly as waves and it has a standing wave ratio everywhere on a physical bounding surface. It is axiomatic that you cannot have standing wave ratios with progressive waves.
There are more issues as well. This cavity resonance model explains why there is a non-local solution to this question. Why distant parts of a cavity can dispose solutions in other areas of the connected spaces. We have previously discussed why the photon's energy is setting up actual electromagnetic waves that match the cavity's modes, these modes already exist. This occurs at each of the quantum harmonic oscillator's frequencies. This is an overlapping structure we "humans" do not like to consider because of the complexity but it is the way reality is actually constructing "cavity space". Once the photons energy is introduced in that space it chooses one of these pre-existing modes in which to travel/occupy depending on that cavity geometry. This transfers the energy by the least amount of action to a single target on the cavity wall. These modes are simultaneously superimposed in space and represent independently acting bosonic states which are co-terminal with the geometry of the cavity. These states overlap but cannot interfere with each other while "uncollapsed".
I have already recently discussed aspects of the wave equation that leads to time frequency reciprocally associated with space and reciprocal space. The natural inverted flourier domain that leads to the Wheeler Feynman interpretation...
A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)
... but only if you can believe that our entire Universe is just a composition of holographic waves... he he he!
For further edification you may need to refer to some recent experimental and theoretical work that indicates that at least this idea is not inconsistent with an interpretation of reality that is neither local nor "realistic". This stuff does not fit with just three dimensions.
Nature 446, 871 (2007).
An experimental test of non-local realism
Cheers
I need to look at the internal consistency and the results of current experiment. I will recap what I think are the important points... These mostly deal with photons not with electrons. It is only a pure bosonic phenomena I am going to deal with here.
A single coherent photon emitted at an irregular interval of time (to the best of our experimental ability) will create the same diffraction pattern in the same volumetric space as billions of coherent photons in Continuous Wave all in phase. The DSE pattern is functionally independent of the photon flux density. This is an experimental result not a theory so we must address it. This begs the question if the flux density is zero this pattern must still exist. (Just extrapolate the effect... functional independence means there is something that does not depend on density function for its existence). Clearly there is something in the empty spaces of cavities that always exists there that depends only on the cavity and not on the "excitation".
If individual photons needed to interfere with their alternative path (going through two slits at once) it could choose to take to the target where it finally gives up its "flash", then we must explain this mechanism physically? We cannot retreat with our arms waving and invoking quantum theory self reflexively as the answer... this is the sort of answer that you give a child... "just because it is"... Quantum Theory is right so this is the explanation. I do not like that philosophically. So here we go... Firstly there is the proposition that this is due to progressive waves. This is the way it is usually presented and "visually" in Java applets. A very strong emotional driver to accept this idea isn't it? Progressive waves, as in the case of water waves at the beach, cannot set up a permanent pattern one single crest at a time with long uneven intervals between... especially when there is a preexisting "mill pond" situation. The progressive propagating crest will naturally "criss-cross" back and forth as the single dispersed spreading crest propagates around the "cavity" (or "mill pond"). The energy of the wave then becomes distributed everywhere and with different arrival times for portions of the original energy as has been noted. You must see this is due to the way the spreading model acts and it is not my fault... it is a picture which is wrong. I do not need to reconcile this progressive concept with the experimental results, it is those who propose that this is the correct view that need to justify it. Does this make sense... "Am I still beating my wife?... Yes or No?"... this way I am either a wife beater or a reformed wife beater no matter what I answer.
The real way in which this cavity acts is totally different to this "progressive wave" picture and the energy of the individual photon arrives at the final destination as a "packet" by the most direct path. This is regardless of "which way it goes" while it is still seeking all paths. It is my contention this cavity is a resonant "line" and the "incident photon energy" from one end propagates through this "resonant line" which has an existing standing wave structure, to arrive as a packet at the opposite end of the three dimensional cavity. So intensity depends on the two dimensional internal surface standing wave ratio at every point of the internal cavity walls. Some energy is always reflected and some is absorbed. The principles behind the DSE is exactly the same. The intensity seen on the "cavity walls" is dependent on the properties of the cavity's complex impedance as a three dimensional spatial function which is a solution of Schrodingers or Dirac's Equation for electromagnetic waves in cavities. The standing wave ratio is important since this determines how the energy is distributed around the internal space. This is the difference between a steady state wave picture where dynamic standing waves exist due to preexisting boundary conditions and an erroneous progressive wave picture that leads to the energy being delivered everywhere and at any time.
In the former standing wave case, the "internal cavity structure" had time to reach a dynamic equilibrium which is waiting for the incident photon to be there. The way the photon's energy is then processed is clear... it is the Principle of Least Action and the Conservation of Energy. In the case of more than one single photon it is the Principle of Superposition that arrives at the final result which is the same result for one at a time.. In this latter case the instantaneous progressive interference pattern that is different for one photon than it is for large numbers of photons is dramatically different to that of this steady state standing wave situation. Experiment actually shows one photon at a time actually "works" by propagating into a "mill pond" cavity without any previous disturbance, and fits with a consistent steady state dynamic standing wave pattern, so this progressive wave proposal is in error.
Naturally there is no explanation for the interference due to path length as shown by multiple path constructions, it is a purely "behavioral model" and is the simple answer to why a "resonant line" has fixed nodes and anti-nodes in it. Any line has a node or antinode at its terminus, there is really no alternatives as we attempt to adjust the cavity size. It works but without a more sensible mechanism it remains a question that we continue to wrestle with. Saying this another way there needs to be a "coincidence" of screen and the phase of the two possible wave paths at a point on this screen in order for a flash to be possible. This "behavioral model" is answered equally by both progressive waves and standing waves. But when you take into account all the facts, the progressive wave model is not viable. The flash signifies a collapse of the wavefunction... it is no longer a wave but a "particle". However between source and screen (I mean original source here) the photon is propagating most certainly as waves and it has a standing wave ratio everywhere on a physical bounding surface. It is axiomatic that you cannot have standing wave ratios with progressive waves.
There are more issues as well. This cavity resonance model explains why there is a non-local solution to this question. Why distant parts of a cavity can dispose solutions in other areas of the connected spaces. We have previously discussed why the photon's energy is setting up actual electromagnetic waves that match the cavity's modes, these modes already exist. This occurs at each of the quantum harmonic oscillator's frequencies. This is an overlapping structure we "humans" do not like to consider because of the complexity but it is the way reality is actually constructing "cavity space". Once the photons energy is introduced in that space it chooses one of these pre-existing modes in which to travel/occupy depending on that cavity geometry. This transfers the energy by the least amount of action to a single target on the cavity wall. These modes are simultaneously superimposed in space and represent independently acting bosonic states which are co-terminal with the geometry of the cavity. These states overlap but cannot interfere with each other while "uncollapsed".
I have already recently discussed aspects of the wave equation that leads to time frequency reciprocally associated with space and reciprocal space. The natural inverted flourier domain that leads to the Wheeler Feynman interpretation...
A photon-like wavepacket with quantized properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)
... but only if you can believe that our entire Universe is just a composition of holographic waves... he he he!
For further edification you may need to refer to some recent experimental and theoretical work that indicates that at least this idea is not inconsistent with an interpretation of reality that is neither local nor "realistic". This stuff does not fit with just three dimensions.
Nature 446, 871 (2007).
An experimental test of non-local realism
Cheers
Hi Good Elf et al,
We have a photon, an experiment and a result. Let's call them p(s),q(s),r(s) .. if we took the right sort of transform we could say
P(s)*Q(s) = R(s)
We know R(s) but not P(s) and Q(s). For a while (months?) we've been arguing about which bits of R(s) are due to p and which bits are due to q. Logically, with a single experiment we can't separate the properties of p and q and we go round in circles.
We have no choice but to introduce at least one more experiment. To expose the properties of p we need an experiment that eliminates as many 'q' type properties as possible.
One experiment - the simpler the better.
Suggestions welcome (preferably not involving placing any particular forum member in a decaying orbit around the sun.)
Best wishes,
-C2.
We have a photon, an experiment and a result. Let's call them p(s),q(s),r(s) .. if we took the right sort of transform we could say
P(s)*Q(s) = R(s)
We know R(s) but not P(s) and Q(s). For a while (months?) we've been arguing about which bits of R(s) are due to p and which bits are due to q. Logically, with a single experiment we can't separate the properties of p and q and we go round in circles.
We have no choice but to introduce at least one more experiment. To expose the properties of p we need an experiment that eliminates as many 'q' type properties as possible.
One experiment - the simpler the better.
Suggestions welcome (preferably not involving placing any particular forum member in a decaying orbit around the sun.)
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Good Elf Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al
I've just posted something to help get your thought get into new territory.
Gerard ’t Hooft got a Nobel prize for his contribution to the Standard Model. He is responsible for "holographic waves" and he is still searching for a better answer.
See:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...90&#entry204334
jal
I've just posted something to help get your thought get into new territory.
Gerard ’t Hooft got a Nobel prize for his contribution to the Standard Model. He is responsible for "holographic waves" and he is still searching for a better answer.
See:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...90&#entry204334
jal
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
We have no choice but to introduce at least one more experiment. [..] One experiment - the simpler the better.
If I didn't know better I would say you have once again provided no leadership in a critical assessment of the theory supplied, and simply ask for "more". Just one more experiment would not do it for you would it? If the Universe was that "simple" then we would have found it by now... the answer is to "tool up" and to grasp a deeper more consistent understanding of the processes. Why not say that the Universe admits ambiguity and that the things I am saying are "distinct possibilities" and work from there? The least you could do is to provide some scientific criticism of the idea. The alternative is to admit that the old theory is at the end of the trail and there is nothing more to discover. Is this what you really mean? Or is there something else you can put forward that answers these complex questions better?
I have proposed using existing experimental and theoretical results as a way to proceed. The advantage of these theories are they rely on existing experiment and can be proven wrong with a simple experiment, so why not do it? Point to the flaw and we will discuss that! You keep pointing to how simple the theory of paths you have proposed really is but no physical justification for it... why does it work?
The way that Einstein proceeded was to show an experiment such as the bending of light by the Sun. There were many ways to explain away the results, there still are. His explanation is still the best way to address the overall problems in Physics even today. One failed experiment would be enough to "collapse" Einstein's Theories in a heap... funny how no one has come up with that one experiment. Seems a simple enough request... just one experiment. Is it because there are none? For those who do not believe or will not consider alternative there is always the call for "one more experiment"... what is wrong with existing experiments and their results.
Earth calling Icarus 3, time to begin your descent phase ...
Cheers
I have proposed using existing experimental and theoretical results as a way to proceed. The advantage of these theories are they rely on existing experiment and can be proven wrong with a simple experiment, so why not do it? Point to the flaw and we will discuss that! You keep pointing to how simple the theory of paths you have proposed really is but no physical justification for it... why does it work?
The way that Einstein proceeded was to show an experiment such as the bending of light by the Sun. There were many ways to explain away the results, there still are. His explanation is still the best way to address the overall problems in Physics even today. One failed experiment would be enough to "collapse" Einstein's Theories in a heap... funny how no one has come up with that one experiment. Seems a simple enough request... just one experiment. Is it because there are none? For those who do not believe or will not consider alternative there is always the call for "one more experiment"... what is wrong with existing experiments and their results.
Earth calling Icarus 3, time to begin your descent phase ...
Cheers
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
An article in the April 14th edition of New Scientist sums up a lot of the problems of quantum theory vs other realistic theories. The article is called "Impossible things for breakfast, at the Logic Café". The main point is that we have two different logical ways of dealing with the two different worlds ... one is the world of quantum physics and the other is the world of "realism". The methods of logic employed are completely different. The "quantum" world uses a logic that deals with statistics and the "real" world deals with a reality based on the dynamics of systems.
An article in the April 14th edition of New Scientist sums up a lot of the problems of quantum theory vs other realistic theories. The article is called "Impossible things for breakfast, at the Logic Café". The main point is that we have two different logical ways of dealing with the two different worlds ... one is the world of quantum physics and the other is the world of "realism". The methods of logic employed are completely different. The "quantum" world uses a logic that deals with statistics and the "real" world deals with a reality based on the dynamics of systems.
QUOTE (Impossible things for breakfast+ at the Logic Café New Scientist 14042007)
Kochen and Specker's theorem puts some pretty severe constraints on anyone hoping to rid quantum theory of its weirdness. Put simply, the theorem shows that it is pointless expecting to get simple true and false answers from quantum theory. Every statement about a quantum system must either depend on a host of assumptions, or refuse to obey the standard rules of logic - and possibly both.
For quantum cosmologists, Kochen and Specker's theorem is particularly bad news. It rules out all hope of squaring quantum theory with the common-sense view that the universe is real and has simple, clear-cut properties. Or at least it does for those who believe the laws of logic are set in stone. What if they aren't? Could the problem lie not in quantum theory, but in our notion of truth? That is the question that Isham and his colleagues have dared to ask, with intriguing results.
Abandoning the standard laws of logic in order to make the universe real seems like a hefty price to pay. Yet some theorists have believed it is worth it, says Steven French, a philosopher and quantum physicist at the University of Leeds in the UK. That's one reason why mathematicians over the years have developed other systems of logic. "Along with standard true/false logic there are so-called non-classical logics out there which include true, false and indeterminate values," says French. "People looked at them as a way of dealing with problems in quantum theory, but it died out in the 1970s and 1980s because it wasn't really illuminating very much."
A big sticking-point lay in finding the alternatives to "AND", "OR" and "NOT", the logical operators of the standard or Boolean algebra that are routinely used by everyone from philosophers to computer programmers to make logical deductions. While this familiar form of logic works well enough in everyday situations, it fails to describe the behavior of quantum systems.
For quantum cosmologists, Kochen and Specker's theorem is particularly bad news. It rules out all hope of squaring quantum theory with the common-sense view that the universe is real and has simple, clear-cut properties. Or at least it does for those who believe the laws of logic are set in stone. What if they aren't? Could the problem lie not in quantum theory, but in our notion of truth? That is the question that Isham and his colleagues have dared to ask, with intriguing results.
Abandoning the standard laws of logic in order to make the universe real seems like a hefty price to pay. Yet some theorists have believed it is worth it, says Steven French, a philosopher and quantum physicist at the University of Leeds in the UK. That's one reason why mathematicians over the years have developed other systems of logic. "Along with standard true/false logic there are so-called non-classical logics out there which include true, false and indeterminate values," says French. "People looked at them as a way of dealing with problems in quantum theory, but it died out in the 1970s and 1980s because it wasn't really illuminating very much."
A big sticking-point lay in finding the alternatives to "AND", "OR" and "NOT", the logical operators of the standard or Boolean algebra that are routinely used by everyone from philosophers to computer programmers to make logical deductions. While this familiar form of logic works well enough in everyday situations, it fails to describe the behavior of quantum systems.
Here is my slant on this problem... I do not think we need to go this far. It is my belief that we all have a completely "free" choice between theories that is either purely quantum statistical or theories which have "realistic" interpretations. Maybe a bit from column A and a bit from column B. What is the problem is that we are unable to observe this "fine" level of "reality" without disturbing it. We already know that. Statistics allows us to determine a number of features of the system without resorting to dynamics, but in each individual event it is impossible to determine "a priori" the outcome of an event because the way in which any "measurement" disturbs the system. However after the event not only could we determine the statistics of events just as well as quantum mechanics, but we can also show with high probability the dynamics that would be necessary to cause the event to be observed.
It is very similar to when we have a machine that shoots baseballs out at random times at a target wall ... very imperfectly. It may not be possible to say just when the machine will shoot the ball out and its aim is so poor that we can't say just where the ball will hit on a wall. Before the event, armed with a book of statistics, we can say that given the spread of firing times of the previous tests and with a spread of the pattern on the wall of the previous "hits" we can say just with what probability in future how the balls will be shot from the machine and with what probability they will hit a target on that wall (and the spread). What it cannot tell us is exactly when the next ball will be fired, and exactly where that next ball will hit the wall. After the experiment and after a few hundred more balls we will know statistically to a slightly better refined accuracy just what the timing is averaging out to be and just how accurate on average these balls are. What I would like to add is with all this randomness and with all this uncertainty, it might come as a surprise that it is possible that this situation might produce the "Mona Lisa" every time with a high degree of reproducibility. You may scoff but read on.
That situation is similar to quantum mechanics. On the other hand Bohmian Mechanics can't predict before the balls are fired when they are to be fired, but it can have a provisional figure derived from quantum mechanics and it can record the time each ball hits the wall and record each position on the wall the ball hits with a great accuracy (we will kid ourselves that we can't see the balls in actual flight). Afterwards we can plot the exact course of each and every ball from the source to the target and its spatial path is as exact as it can be made (knowing the weight of each ball and other factors) and we get this by applying the laws of dynamics to the problem. So we can't predict ("a priori") ahead of time when the ball is fired and we can't predict ahead of time just how accurate this particular ball will be... but in hindsight we can be very good indeed about comparison of measurements "a posteriori" (which is almost always the case in natural laboratory experiments) and this tells us more information than if quantum mechanics alone were used to make these predictions.
Returning to the problem in quantum mechanics... Now consider a darkened room with a single source of individual photons (we have spoken about this before) and these photons cannot be predicted just when they are emitted from the weak laser except that they are emitted one at a time at a random time in a random direction. What we do know is that if we have the DSE in one corner and we have a photographic plate in another corner we will have a build up of photons in both "experiments". Individually we have no idea where the photons are going to hit on the emulsion or on the screen and individually we have no idea just when each photon is going to be emitted from the source. What we do know is that the image of interference fringes in the emulsion always has the same level of noise in it right from photon 1 onwards... the image does not start out noisy and is "cleaned up" over time it just gets more and more intense over time as the "exposure" continues. The same goes for the DSE, each individual photon... no matter how random the coherent source... the interference fringes on the screen builds up over time to a "ideal" double slit experiment. There will be some noise but this may be due to dust specks in the room or earth tremors during the period of the exposure or other feature that we choose to ignore.
So the source of the photons is perfectly random but the hologram of the room has no noise and the DSE fringes are still perfect (as the experiment can be). After the event if we have recorded the individual photons striking the plate and the individual photons striking the screen then we can back calculate the trajectory of each and every photon to the source and plot it on a three dimensional grid with a mathematical accuracy you just would not believe. This means that regardless of the randomness of each and every photon, the photons can be shown to have formed "perfect" patterns in the plate and on the screen and furthermore the photons can be "inferred" to have traveled along a certain path to their destination in configuration space to that exact recorded position. This is much more information that quantum theory alone can predict since it can only say that the photons will fall somewhere on a plate and somewhere on a screen and individually cannot predict exactly which individual photons went...
The information supplied by each method is distinct and it is without noise even though the source is discrete and unable to be predicted. Now it is my contention that we have a free choice to choose if we interpret this information as quantum "noise" generating perfect images that always contain the same level of "misinformation" no matter what the exposure or that each photon is deterministic and not so much guided but responding to dynamic conditions of the system.
The paper comes to this conclusion...
One last question Confused2, how accurate is your paths method of calculating the DSE using the paths alone if I place a small but "disturbing" mirror on one side of the pattern? I think you would find your path on the other side disrupted quite severely and the calculations put off very seriously. This is not my idea it is one stated by Feynman in his book on QED. In these cases we see that "seeking all paths" means just that and that this is not a simple calculation after all and it is a cavity phenomenon after all.
Cheers
It is very similar to when we have a machine that shoots baseballs out at random times at a target wall ... very imperfectly. It may not be possible to say just when the machine will shoot the ball out and its aim is so poor that we can't say just where the ball will hit on a wall. Before the event, armed with a book of statistics, we can say that given the spread of firing times of the previous tests and with a spread of the pattern on the wall of the previous "hits" we can say just with what probability in future how the balls will be shot from the machine and with what probability they will hit a target on that wall (and the spread). What it cannot tell us is exactly when the next ball will be fired, and exactly where that next ball will hit the wall. After the experiment and after a few hundred more balls we will know statistically to a slightly better refined accuracy just what the timing is averaging out to be and just how accurate on average these balls are. What I would like to add is with all this randomness and with all this uncertainty, it might come as a surprise that it is possible that this situation might produce the "Mona Lisa" every time with a high degree of reproducibility. You may scoff but read on.
That situation is similar to quantum mechanics. On the other hand Bohmian Mechanics can't predict before the balls are fired when they are to be fired, but it can have a provisional figure derived from quantum mechanics and it can record the time each ball hits the wall and record each position on the wall the ball hits with a great accuracy (we will kid ourselves that we can't see the balls in actual flight). Afterwards we can plot the exact course of each and every ball from the source to the target and its spatial path is as exact as it can be made (knowing the weight of each ball and other factors) and we get this by applying the laws of dynamics to the problem. So we can't predict ("a priori") ahead of time when the ball is fired and we can't predict ahead of time just how accurate this particular ball will be... but in hindsight we can be very good indeed about comparison of measurements "a posteriori" (which is almost always the case in natural laboratory experiments) and this tells us more information than if quantum mechanics alone were used to make these predictions.
Returning to the problem in quantum mechanics... Now consider a darkened room with a single source of individual photons (we have spoken about this before) and these photons cannot be predicted just when they are emitted from the weak laser except that they are emitted one at a time at a random time in a random direction. What we do know is that if we have the DSE in one corner and we have a photographic plate in another corner we will have a build up of photons in both "experiments". Individually we have no idea where the photons are going to hit on the emulsion or on the screen and individually we have no idea just when each photon is going to be emitted from the source. What we do know is that the image of interference fringes in the emulsion always has the same level of noise in it right from photon 1 onwards... the image does not start out noisy and is "cleaned up" over time it just gets more and more intense over time as the "exposure" continues. The same goes for the DSE, each individual photon... no matter how random the coherent source... the interference fringes on the screen builds up over time to a "ideal" double slit experiment. There will be some noise but this may be due to dust specks in the room or earth tremors during the period of the exposure or other feature that we choose to ignore.
So the source of the photons is perfectly random but the hologram of the room has no noise and the DSE fringes are still perfect (as the experiment can be). After the event if we have recorded the individual photons striking the plate and the individual photons striking the screen then we can back calculate the trajectory of each and every photon to the source and plot it on a three dimensional grid with a mathematical accuracy you just would not believe. This means that regardless of the randomness of each and every photon, the photons can be shown to have formed "perfect" patterns in the plate and on the screen and furthermore the photons can be "inferred" to have traveled along a certain path to their destination in configuration space to that exact recorded position. This is much more information that quantum theory alone can predict since it can only say that the photons will fall somewhere on a plate and somewhere on a screen and individually cannot predict exactly which individual photons went...
The information supplied by each method is distinct and it is without noise even though the source is discrete and unable to be predicted. Now it is my contention that we have a free choice to choose if we interpret this information as quantum "noise" generating perfect images that always contain the same level of "misinformation" no matter what the exposure or that each photon is deterministic and not so much guided but responding to dynamic conditions of the system.
The paper comes to this conclusion...
QUOTE
Does that mean we must accept a universe that is real, but about which any question will receive myriad answers, all of them true? According to Isham and his colleagues, the answer - appropriately enough - is both yes and no. If we are content to view reality through the window of classical physics, then we can enjoy straightforward true/false answers to our questions - as long as we avoid the realm of atoms. But if we insist on making statements about atoms, we must use the logic of quantum topoi and accept the existence of a whole host of realities, all as valid as each other.
It is my view, and my "extension" to this obvious fact that atoms obey the same rules as other processes at the large scale as shown in the above gedanken experiment (and real experiment)... when the hologram slowly develops from one tiny crystal in the emulsion at a time, perfectly in place, the events that produce this "image" always have almost no noise since the final result is almost without noise and there is a linearity between the first photon that strikes the emulsion and the last photon that completes the exposure. The "painters hand" is sure and accurate and the canvas is completed one tiny brush stroke at a time. To our untrained eye it may seem that the painter is "random" but the end result is proof enough. The same goes for the DSE and the bands of light and dark... there is really nothing random about them other than in the technique that has been employed. Are these not "Mona Lisa's" and not mere random patterns of dots in emulsions or on walls? Does Quantum Mechanics predict the "Mona Lisa" or not? Think about it very carefully. The answer is it does not predict any "Mona Lisa's", the "Mona Lisa's" develop through emergent processes that are within the very nature of the source emission and the way the photons "seek all paths" and are unknown "a priori". What I can say is these processes may be viewed as "dynamic" in nature and are subject to the standard laws of "realistic" physics. The same forces guide the photons and sub-atomic quantum events as does Boeing 747's, it is just that we can't interfere with them "before or during the event".. In any case we can even determine much of the dynamics of the so called noise by the same technique. What I will say is this ... we are working in a configuration space which is not quite overlapping our space and we must allow for that "extra dimension"... parametric or physical.One last question Confused2, how accurate is your paths method of calculating the DSE using the paths alone if I place a small but "disturbing" mirror on one side of the pattern? I think you would find your path on the other side disrupted quite severely and the calculations put off very seriously. This is not my idea it is one stated by Feynman in his book on QED. In these cases we see that "seeking all paths" means just that and that this is not a simple calculation after all and it is a cavity phenomenon after all.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I am not deliberately avoiding the issue .. the reverse in fact .. the issue is somehow avoiding me. Thinking!
Best wishes,
-C2.
I am not deliberately avoiding the issue .. the reverse in fact .. the issue is somehow avoiding me. Thinking!
Best wishes,
-C2.
I posted this question on another trhead about the double-slit experiment.
it might be more relevant in this thread though.
Something that does bother me with the 2 slit experiment is that even though we cannot detect the route that one electron has taken without disturbing the interference pattern, we should be able to determine the momentum of the electron as it arrives at the detection screen.
If the momentum at the detection screen (the interference pattern has not been disturbed by measurement) can be determined sufficiently accurate we can deduce from that momentum te route that specific electron has taken. Since the momentum should be in line with either of the slits.
So would this be possible or would this result in the disapearance of the interference pattern?
Of all the experiments I have read about the measurement of either the momentum or the location of the particle (electron here) is done before the waves reach the detection screen. None have tried to measure it after the interference pattern has formed.
It may be that I am far off the chart here but it keeps lingering in my mind..
Jan Rinze.
it might be more relevant in this thread though.
Something that does bother me with the 2 slit experiment is that even though we cannot detect the route that one electron has taken without disturbing the interference pattern, we should be able to determine the momentum of the electron as it arrives at the detection screen.
If the momentum at the detection screen (the interference pattern has not been disturbed by measurement) can be determined sufficiently accurate we can deduce from that momentum te route that specific electron has taken. Since the momentum should be in line with either of the slits.
So would this be possible or would this result in the disapearance of the interference pattern?
Of all the experiments I have read about the measurement of either the momentum or the location of the particle (electron here) is done before the waves reach the detection screen. None have tried to measure it after the interference pattern has formed.
It may be that I am far off the chart here but it keeps lingering in my mind..
Jan Rinze.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, yquantum, janrinze, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I am not deliberately avoiding the issue .. the reverse in fact .. the issue is somehow avoiding me. Thinking!
Best wishes,
Best wishes,
That is all I can expect anyone to do about it. To me that is enough and I am very pleased this has at least produced the desired result.
QUOTE (janrinze+)
Something that does bother me with the 2 slit experiment is that even though we cannot detect the route that one electron has taken without disturbing the interference pattern, we should be able to determine the momentum of the electron as it arrives at the detection screen.
If the momentum at the detection screen (the interference pattern has not been disturbed by measurement) can be determined sufficiently accurate we can deduce from that momentum the route that specific electron has taken. Since the momentum should be in line with either of the slits.
If the momentum at the detection screen (the interference pattern has not been disturbed by measurement) can be determined sufficiently accurate we can deduce from that momentum the route that specific electron has taken. Since the momentum should be in line with either of the slits.
Consider at first the DSE and the Hologram produced only with photons (the more difficult case). You are quite right but I will emphasize that according to the "rules" of this game the quantum picture and the "realist" pictures do not actually exist in the same spaces. Probability "density" is not our normal definition of where a single particle exists yet many measurements (actually thousands of measurements) would be required to determine where on average any particle will be). In the "realist" world we simply determine position and momentum. In a practical experiment we do not measure "probability density" we actually measure some "measurable" of the system. The position of the photon that strikes a photographic plate is provided to a high degree of locality by single crystals of silver undergoing a chemical modification. Provided we restrict the optical sources of photons to just one source this can be as small as a single quantum dot which tells us to a high level of accuracy one extremum of the photons journey and the blackened crystal in the emulsion gives us the other. In the normal situation we do not have the corrected time of this impact. The problem with this is photographic plates do not record the times. We must swap this crude sensor for a more accurate one that records time as well. Confused2 is continually referring to a particular graph that records a one dimensional strip of information using a photosensor. Therefore the time can be recorded very accurately. How do we calculate the path? To be able to say "which way" the photon actually travels is not possible since the "wave" travels all ways to its final target. This "all ways" path does not stipulate which individual slit the actual photon has actually traveled but the path of least action.
I have been hammering away at just this point that it is a contradiction of terms to insist that you allow interference and at the same time "force" the experiment to choose "which path" the photon must take. "Are you still beating your wife... Yes or No?" The sort of logic/language that lawyers use in court to intimidate a witness or the plaintiff. It is clear this logic is disallowed by nature, just forget it for this problem, it is totally inappropriate. The Universe is far more subtle than this. You can plot a unique a course in "interpretation space" from the source to the destination that is the unique solution to this problem and you will find more often than not that, as a single path, it will appear to pass not through the slits but the "bar" between them.
The reason this is the case is you are insisting that the path be one that a projectile takes from source to destination.. this experiment is not one that responds to "projectiles" and this is the error. As I have said you can extract a lot of information from this construction and previous papers I have posted here illustrate these type of construction, and it is clear that this construction could be described as a superposition of states provided the photon were considered only a wave. The emission and the reception of the photon is an event in which a series of harmonic solutions of this problem "converge" and superimpose to the "particle" results which can be analyzed as a dynamic particle. This is the harmonic oscillator and each solution is a single set of waves that individually are solutions to the Schrodinger Wave Equation (actually it is the Dirac Wave Equation) for the "cavity".
We have just shown that "our space" used to analyze the path of "particle photon's" which absolutely must be localized to provide any solution is inappropriate to describe this event. I have indicated that this "Fourier Space" which is a form of reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency), does not admit our calculations of space and time. It has long been understood that this Fourier space is associated with harmonic spatial resonance and energy processes in cavities.
The properties of this conjugate Fourier space is identical to the properties of our space but deals with the particle aspects of the transformed entity while "we" in our space deal with the reciprocal properties of the entity ... its wave properties (in a bosonic space). The former is a very localized environment that we see as the evanescent field that only exists around particles and in which we can measure "particle properties" and the latter reciprocal Fourier space is the "far field" in which we can only observe "wave properties" of quanta. What I mean by this is the normal act of observation "forces" the measurement to be an evanescent zone measurement every time. Caveat: I am glossing over the finer points of "protective measurements" here. Regarding small low mass particles and the heavier mass particles they all have this reciprocal state but as the mass of the system increases the bosonic state (in which the particle is unobservable as a particle and occupies a superimposition of states) becomes harder to observe and contracts around the evanescent zone of the massive particle. In atoms this becomes the orbitals without their electrons... this will happen even with the simplest of atoms the proton (hydrogen atom in an ionic state). It is surrounded by an unseen "structure" in what we think of as "empty space". Every fermion particle has this boson "counter particle" which is a superposition of states of the fundamental quantum oscillator. Through a quirk of mathematics and I believe professional "doggedness", supersymmetry has not been correctly identified as this almost massless bosonic counterpart of the sub-atomic fermion particles. These properties can pervade the "empty" space around fermions and their evanescent zone leading to standing waves that even light (photons) must "negotiate". These bosonic structures are always there and are unmeasured and are entirely quantum in nature. Their innate reciprocally relative to our laboratory instruments means that they are not subject to direct energy transfers and are a kind of parallel state in our universe .... reciprocal in dimensionality and time but sharing the three dimensions and time of our "normal" space.
In one way we have always known this but we are in denial of the implications. It is the prime reason why it has not been possible to advance because we are trying to "nail down" this reciprocal universe over our "flatspace" of spacetime. They just do not fit. This is fine if you accept it. In one respect we may even find it useful since it is the shortcut between points in space but it is not a wormhole but an electromagnetic analog which connects the two descriptions in separate dimensional but inverse spaces. If you look back over this thread .... it is a very long thread... you will see this repeating theme over and over.
Quickly summarized... Spacetime is linked by a "rotation" into or out of the plane of spacetime by an angle of arctan(V/C), where V is the relative velocity of a particle and C is the speed of light. This change in geometry occurs because light is confined to the surface of a relativistic light cone. These "underdefined" electromagnetic vortices of "topological charge" represent a study topic of "Singular Optics" and can exist in our space as "optical solitons", sometimes called "bright matter solitons", connecting the evanescent regions of "particles and neo-particles" through "instantons". These are very similar to the well known Falaco Solitons in water only in more dimensions. Special Relativity then connects with a reciprocal space which we can see in deBroglie matter waves in which the the deBroglie frequency is related this way (top formula)...
... Click to enlarge
The natural units of this "realm" are wave numbers not wavelengths. It is also the reason why particles "deBroglie frequency" in inversely related to velocity often stated here and why the debroglie relationship is the low velocity "end" of Special Relativity...
These co-terminal spaces form transform pairs and particles and waves share a common description in their relative reciprocal spaces...
... Click to enlarge
As always this is the absolute simplest particle/wave transform (boxcar <-> sync functions) representing the time and frequency domain respectively and we have discussed how in the real world this may be modified by a superposition of states.
This is the reason why mathematically we need to apply renormalization to the particle states and why Feynman needs to renormalize in his many paths interpretation. As I have said we have always known these things but much of the physics establishment seem paralyzed to accept the conclusions. Still you read it here "first"
Cheers
I have been hammering away at just this point that it is a contradiction of terms to insist that you allow interference and at the same time "force" the experiment to choose "which path" the photon must take. "Are you still beating your wife... Yes or No?" The sort of logic/language that lawyers use in court to intimidate a witness or the plaintiff. It is clear this logic is disallowed by nature, just forget it for this problem, it is totally inappropriate. The Universe is far more subtle than this. You can plot a unique a course in "interpretation space" from the source to the destination that is the unique solution to this problem and you will find more often than not that, as a single path, it will appear to pass not through the slits but the "bar" between them.
The reason this is the case is you are insisting that the path be one that a projectile takes from source to destination.. this experiment is not one that responds to "projectiles" and this is the error. As I have said you can extract a lot of information from this construction and previous papers I have posted here illustrate these type of construction, and it is clear that this construction could be described as a superposition of states provided the photon were considered only a wave. The emission and the reception of the photon is an event in which a series of harmonic solutions of this problem "converge" and superimpose to the "particle" results which can be analyzed as a dynamic particle. This is the harmonic oscillator and each solution is a single set of waves that individually are solutions to the Schrodinger Wave Equation (actually it is the Dirac Wave Equation) for the "cavity".
We have just shown that "our space" used to analyze the path of "particle photon's" which absolutely must be localized to provide any solution is inappropriate to describe this event. I have indicated that this "Fourier Space" which is a form of reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency), does not admit our calculations of space and time. It has long been understood that this Fourier space is associated with harmonic spatial resonance and energy processes in cavities.
The properties of this conjugate Fourier space is identical to the properties of our space but deals with the particle aspects of the transformed entity while "we" in our space deal with the reciprocal properties of the entity ... its wave properties (in a bosonic space). The former is a very localized environment that we see as the evanescent field that only exists around particles and in which we can measure "particle properties" and the latter reciprocal Fourier space is the "far field" in which we can only observe "wave properties" of quanta. What I mean by this is the normal act of observation "forces" the measurement to be an evanescent zone measurement every time. Caveat: I am glossing over the finer points of "protective measurements" here. Regarding small low mass particles and the heavier mass particles they all have this reciprocal state but as the mass of the system increases the bosonic state (in which the particle is unobservable as a particle and occupies a superimposition of states) becomes harder to observe and contracts around the evanescent zone of the massive particle. In atoms this becomes the orbitals without their electrons... this will happen even with the simplest of atoms the proton (hydrogen atom in an ionic state). It is surrounded by an unseen "structure" in what we think of as "empty space". Every fermion particle has this boson "counter particle" which is a superposition of states of the fundamental quantum oscillator. Through a quirk of mathematics and I believe professional "doggedness", supersymmetry has not been correctly identified as this almost massless bosonic counterpart of the sub-atomic fermion particles. These properties can pervade the "empty" space around fermions and their evanescent zone leading to standing waves that even light (photons) must "negotiate". These bosonic structures are always there and are unmeasured and are entirely quantum in nature. Their innate reciprocally relative to our laboratory instruments means that they are not subject to direct energy transfers and are a kind of parallel state in our universe .... reciprocal in dimensionality and time but sharing the three dimensions and time of our "normal" space.
In one way we have always known this but we are in denial of the implications. It is the prime reason why it has not been possible to advance because we are trying to "nail down" this reciprocal universe over our "flatspace" of spacetime. They just do not fit. This is fine if you accept it. In one respect we may even find it useful since it is the shortcut between points in space but it is not a wormhole but an electromagnetic analog which connects the two descriptions in separate dimensional but inverse spaces. If you look back over this thread .... it is a very long thread... you will see this repeating theme over and over.
Quickly summarized... Spacetime is linked by a "rotation" into or out of the plane of spacetime by an angle of arctan(V/C), where V is the relative velocity of a particle and C is the speed of light. This change in geometry occurs because light is confined to the surface of a relativistic light cone. These "underdefined" electromagnetic vortices of "topological charge" represent a study topic of "Singular Optics" and can exist in our space as "optical solitons", sometimes called "bright matter solitons", connecting the evanescent regions of "particles and neo-particles" through "instantons". These are very similar to the well known Falaco Solitons in water only in more dimensions. Special Relativity then connects with a reciprocal space which we can see in deBroglie matter waves in which the the deBroglie frequency is related this way (top formula)...
... Click to enlarge
The natural units of this "realm" are wave numbers not wavelengths. It is also the reason why particles "deBroglie frequency" in inversely related to velocity often stated here and why the debroglie relationship is the low velocity "end" of Special Relativity...
These co-terminal spaces form transform pairs and particles and waves share a common description in their relative reciprocal spaces...
... Click to enlarge
As always this is the absolute simplest particle/wave transform (boxcar <-> sync functions) representing the time and frequency domain respectively and we have discussed how in the real world this may be modified by a superposition of states.
This is the reason why mathematically we need to apply renormalization to the particle states and why Feynman needs to renormalize in his many paths interpretation. As I have said we have always known these things but much of the physics establishment seem paralyzed to accept the conclusions. Still you read it here "first"
Cheers
Good Elf,
my understanding is that conservation of momentum should still apply under QM.
With any wave-form either with particle/probability waves or just photons there is still a momentum. This momentum will be averaged to a certain degree if a cumulative measurement is done. The result should be similair to the ratio of the two separate intensity distributions that form the base of the interference pattern.
I disagree with the idea that the interference pattern only applies when multiple photons/particles are passing the two-slit setup. The pattern itself would not be visible but each particle would still be found with a probability according to the interference pattern. One measurement however cannot confirm the existance of a pattern. Repeating the one particle experiment many times would.
Remains the question if measuring momentum at the detectionplate could allow for revealing the 'path' taken.
As to having photo sensitive emulsion as a detection mechanism this would not enable the measurement of the momentum of any incident photon or particle.
About the insistance of finding the path travelled it is an intrinsic part of the entire enigma about the two slit experiment. Any attempt has shown that trying to measure the particle will result in the loss of the interference pattern. How does measureing the momentum at a certain point of the detectionplate change the result?
Perhaps it it just stubbornness on my part but I have difficulty in believing that the wave/particle duality is something that behaves differently just because you try to measure something. For the most part in of all the proposed experiments there will be an added disturbance to the particles that lead to a change in the resulting interference pattern. This change just implies that the coherence has been lost. The waves are still there. If the wave arriving at the detectionplate is a genuine result of the addition of a wave coming from both slits then the measurement of the momentum of each particle will be as if it was coming from a point in the center between the two slits. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle will undoubtedly dissallow a measurement with enough accurracy to determine this.. It therefore is a gedanken experiment and maybe we could find a way to see how it works out..
Just my thoughts though.
Jan Rinze.
my understanding is that conservation of momentum should still apply under QM.
With any wave-form either with particle/probability waves or just photons there is still a momentum. This momentum will be averaged to a certain degree if a cumulative measurement is done. The result should be similair to the ratio of the two separate intensity distributions that form the base of the interference pattern.
I disagree with the idea that the interference pattern only applies when multiple photons/particles are passing the two-slit setup. The pattern itself would not be visible but each particle would still be found with a probability according to the interference pattern. One measurement however cannot confirm the existance of a pattern. Repeating the one particle experiment many times would.
Remains the question if measuring momentum at the detectionplate could allow for revealing the 'path' taken.
As to having photo sensitive emulsion as a detection mechanism this would not enable the measurement of the momentum of any incident photon or particle.
About the insistance of finding the path travelled it is an intrinsic part of the entire enigma about the two slit experiment. Any attempt has shown that trying to measure the particle will result in the loss of the interference pattern. How does measureing the momentum at a certain point of the detectionplate change the result?
Perhaps it it just stubbornness on my part but I have difficulty in believing that the wave/particle duality is something that behaves differently just because you try to measure something. For the most part in of all the proposed experiments there will be an added disturbance to the particles that lead to a change in the resulting interference pattern. This change just implies that the coherence has been lost. The waves are still there. If the wave arriving at the detectionplate is a genuine result of the addition of a wave coming from both slits then the measurement of the momentum of each particle will be as if it was coming from a point in the center between the two slits. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle will undoubtedly dissallow a measurement with enough accurracy to determine this.. It therefore is a gedanken experiment and maybe we could find a way to see how it works out..
Just my thoughts though.
Jan Rinze.
Hi janrinze et al,
It is important that you can record the event "a posteriori". I disagree that quantum mechanics can predict the interference fringes within a holographic emulsion. There is no source phase associated with matter waves and all particle theories and squaring the amplitude causes a natural loss of absolute phase information. This is not a problem if the events are dealt with maintaining the source spatial phase. One theory comes closet to this methodology and it is Feynman's Many Paths Method.
It is important that you can record the event "a posteriori". I disagree that quantum mechanics can predict the interference fringes within a holographic emulsion. There is no source phase associated with matter waves and all particle theories and squaring the amplitude causes a natural loss of absolute phase information. This is not a problem if the events are dealt with maintaining the source spatial phase. One theory comes closet to this methodology and it is Feynman's Many Paths Method.
QUOTE (janrinze+)
I disagree with the idea that the interference pattern only applies when multiple photons/particles are passing the two-slit setup. The pattern itself would not be visible but each particle would still be found with a probability according to the interference pattern. One measurement however cannot confirm the existance of a pattern. Repeating the one particle experiment many times would.
Never said that and you have not picked up the idea that one photon at a time produces the full interference pattern without any need to have "assistance" from other photons. It is true we are not able to see the interference pattern without some measurements which cannot be made without destroying the pattern, but I know it is there because of the information in the plate when it is developed. The subtlety is the full pattern is only revealed one "event" spot at a time but each single photon event must have information from the total environment of all possible paths. This is the key to understanding this point. Without this fact it becomes "mysterious" and lacks any true understanding. The individual photon "waves" expand on the wavefront and "seek all possible paths", not collectively but singly, they are bosons which occupy the same volumetric space and differ only in "Berry Phase". The photon individually is non-local, this operation is totally non-local and the photon's wave retains information about the entire cavity. This information is always inside that cavity and is different for each photon and each harmonic oscillator frequency... a superposition of states. The solutions are solutions of the Dirac Wave Equation for the cavity (... as open or as closed as it is)
QUOTE (janrinze+)
Perhaps it it just stubbornness on my part but I have difficulty in believing that the wave/particle duality is something that behaves differently just because you try to measure something.
It is not my problem, the answer is in the experimental results and they are telling me this is the way the Universe behaves. You will need to take it up with the Universe itself or measure things differently using something we currently do not have. I understand your point and it may be true but it is a form of interpretation. The problem is if I am unable to say in what way the experiment has been actually changed to any verifiable level of accuracy, we are dealing with "beliefs" all over again. The photon wave function might not actually be technically "collapsed" but it has certainly been "reset" and the interference pattern for that subset of photons now turns "Gaussian" for those photons that have been affected in this way and because each one of these "afflicted" photons are not coherent with each other we have a problem with measurement all over again. The original information about the source has been lost. This would be an example of the Quantum Zeno Effect. It is unfortunate that we have that baggage from the Copenhagen Interpretation tagging along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Another approach is to only "touch" the system lightly, so lightly that the state is not collapsed and statistically it will be possible to "estimate" the gross position and momentum of "ensembles" of photons but to what effect? You still can't say exactly where or when photons are being emitted and sent. This is termed a "protective measurement".
http://tabish.freeshell.org/physics/pm/
This is "squeezing" the packet down from "everywhere" to a smaller region of space. Of course just when you think you are getting somewhere the state collapses.
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Another approach is to only "touch" the system lightly, so lightly that the state is not collapsed and statistically it will be possible to "estimate" the gross position and momentum of "ensembles" of photons but to what effect? You still can't say exactly where or when photons are being emitted and sent. This is termed a "protective measurement".
http://tabish.freeshell.org/physics/pm/
This is "squeezing" the packet down from "everywhere" to a smaller region of space. Of course just when you think you are getting somewhere the state collapses.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
The rules of quantum mechanics that you describe are know to me but the reason of my post was the notion of conservation of momentum.
I agree that a holographic image purely records the intensity which is equal to |phi1+phi2|^2 which results in loss of phase and direction of the momentum.
The method of detection should therefore be chosen to such an extent that we can determine the momentum at the 'detection plate'. It might need a different approach in which no plate exists at all.. Whe might need a totally different way of measuring information in the plane where the detection plate would stand.
The measure ment then would indeed be a posteriori which makes it interesting to see if the space between the plates needs to be regarded as a 'cavity'.
If such an experiment could be devised the answer might just be as perplexing as the two slit experiment is on it own.
The thread here goes far beyond this single issue that I would like to raise ad perhaps it is not the right place to persue this in this thread.
I agree that for the current state of QM the need for an explanation in a conceptual sense needs to be put aside to be able to work with it. I also agree that it therefore relies on a kind of 'faith' that it 'just works'. This has been the hardest part for me personally when i followed QM lectures. It gives me a sense of 'something is missing' in the theory of QM. Unification of particle/wave on some sort of dimensional level or even a solution where the 'particle' has an oscillating 'motion' perpendicular to the momentum might be a more satisfying approach conceptually. It would introduce however more problems than solutions within QM.
Jan Rinze.
The rules of quantum mechanics that you describe are know to me but the reason of my post was the notion of conservation of momentum.
I agree that a holographic image purely records the intensity which is equal to |phi1+phi2|^2 which results in loss of phase and direction of the momentum.
The method of detection should therefore be chosen to such an extent that we can determine the momentum at the 'detection plate'. It might need a different approach in which no plate exists at all.. Whe might need a totally different way of measuring information in the plane where the detection plate would stand.
The measure ment then would indeed be a posteriori which makes it interesting to see if the space between the plates needs to be regarded as a 'cavity'.
If such an experiment could be devised the answer might just be as perplexing as the two slit experiment is on it own.
The thread here goes far beyond this single issue that I would like to raise ad perhaps it is not the right place to persue this in this thread.
I agree that for the current state of QM the need for an explanation in a conceptual sense needs to be put aside to be able to work with it. I also agree that it therefore relies on a kind of 'faith' that it 'just works'. This has been the hardest part for me personally when i followed QM lectures. It gives me a sense of 'something is missing' in the theory of QM. Unification of particle/wave on some sort of dimensional level or even a solution where the 'particle' has an oscillating 'motion' perpendicular to the momentum might be a more satisfying approach conceptually. It would introduce however more problems than solutions within QM.
Jan Rinze.
My sincere apology in advance for asking the most probably a naive questions. Be brave.
An electron is released from an electron gun, and in the accordance to the most known gossip originated in the Copenhagen an electron managed to pass both slits simultaneously, and hit a detector in an interference pattern. Which is clearly visible after some number of an electrons repeated the same trick as the first one. And they called that trick a wave function.
Some do not believe in that story about a wave function. However they are in minority. Is there some other experiment designed to falsify the hypothesis of a wave function except the DS?
Is it possible to test the notion/reality of a wave function in the following fashion.
As I understand the probability that particular electron would be detected after being released from an electron gun at any "point" of space is diminishing as times goes by . Right?
If that is what Schrondinger's equation is telling then I imagined those probability distribution as some kind of a cloud which is increasing in its volume as time goes , by but at the same time decreasing in its density ( while "density" is a degree of probability of detecting that particular electron at particular "point" somewhere inside that "cloud" of probability distribution. )
If my understanding is correct so far....
Let us say that we set up the Double Slit , but we do not use a barrier with two slits but we use a very thin barrier which is as wide as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS , and which is as long as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS ( or more, if possible. ) And that barrier is placed perpendicular to a detector behind it.
Now, an electron it has been released. As I understand a wave function of that particular electron is getting wider as a time goes by.
If our barrier is placed in a greater distance from an electron gun then it is usual
( I do not know how much more distant, exactly ) so that probability distribution of an electron being on the left or on the right side of a barrier is the same, then if a wave function is a "reality" an wave function of that particular electron would have passed a barrier splinted in more less two half's. One more or less half passing a left and one more less half passing a right side of a barrier.
If a wave function is a reality those splinted two half's of a wave function of that electron would interfere with each other after they passed a barrier, to hit a detector in an interference pattern of hits.
Why is this wrong?
An electron is released from an electron gun, and in the accordance to the most known gossip originated in the Copenhagen an electron managed to pass both slits simultaneously, and hit a detector in an interference pattern. Which is clearly visible after some number of an electrons repeated the same trick as the first one. And they called that trick a wave function.
Some do not believe in that story about a wave function. However they are in minority. Is there some other experiment designed to falsify the hypothesis of a wave function except the DS?
Is it possible to test the notion/reality of a wave function in the following fashion.
As I understand the probability that particular electron would be detected after being released from an electron gun at any "point" of space is diminishing as times goes by . Right?
If that is what Schrondinger's equation is telling then I imagined those probability distribution as some kind of a cloud which is increasing in its volume as time goes , by but at the same time decreasing in its density ( while "density" is a degree of probability of detecting that particular electron at particular "point" somewhere inside that "cloud" of probability distribution. )
If my understanding is correct so far....
Let us say that we set up the Double Slit , but we do not use a barrier with two slits but we use a very thin barrier which is as wide as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS , and which is as long as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS ( or more, if possible. ) And that barrier is placed perpendicular to a detector behind it.
Now, an electron it has been released. As I understand a wave function of that particular electron is getting wider as a time goes by.
If our barrier is placed in a greater distance from an electron gun then it is usual
( I do not know how much more distant, exactly ) so that probability distribution of an electron being on the left or on the right side of a barrier is the same, then if a wave function is a "reality" an wave function of that particular electron would have passed a barrier splinted in more less two half's. One more or less half passing a left and one more less half passing a right side of a barrier.
If a wave function is a reality those splinted two half's of a wave function of that electron would interfere with each other after they passed a barrier, to hit a detector in an interference pattern of hits.
Why is this wrong?
Hi Mate,
An electron is released from an electron gun, and in the accordance to the most known gossip originated in the Copenhagen an electron managed to pass both slits simultaneously, and hit a detector in an interference pattern. Which is clearly visible after some number of an electrons repeated the same trick as the first one. And they called that trick a wave function.
Some do not believe in that story about a wave function. However they are in minority. Is there some other experiment designed to falsify the hypothesis of a wave function except the DS?
the wave form is part of a duality particle/wave. It is not the problem that people deny it is possible to have a wave form. It is just that the particle and wave have very distinct properties that differ and there is no real 'unification'..
The DS experiment therefore is not designed to disprove the wave nature of particle but instead to prove its wave nature.
to be more precise the square of the wave equation here equals the probability of finding the electron at any give position and in time. This is the probability distribution. There is no real need for a Schrodinger equation at this point yet. With the DS experiment a single slit setup is used to create a 'point source' from which the wave travels before it passes the double slit. This can be either explained through a diverging wave or just by the fact that particles hit the inside edges of the first slit and spread out accordingly. Both result in the same gaussian distrubution. Wheter this should be percieved as a 'cloud' is more or less a form of subjective preference. There are no real cloud particles here though.
to be more precise the square of the wave equation here equals the probability of finding the electron at any give position and in time. This is the probability distribution. There is no real need for a Schrodinger equation at this point yet. With the DS experiment a single slit setup is used to create a 'point source' from which the wave travels before it passes the double slit. This can be either explained through a diverging wave or just by the fact that particles hit the inside edges of the first slit and spread out accordingly. Both result in the same gaussian distrubution. Wheter this should be percieved as a 'cloud' is more or less a form of subjective preference. There are no real cloud particles here though.
Let us say that we set up the Double Slit , but we do not use a barrier with two slits but we use a very thin barrier which is as wide as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS , and which is as long as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS ( or more, if possible. ) And that barrier is placed perpendicular to a detector behind it.
Now, an electron it has been released. As I understand a wave function of that particular electron is getting wider as a time goes by.
If our barrier is placed in a greater distance from an electron gun then it is usual
( I do not know how much more distant, exactly ) so that probability distribution of an electron being on the left or on the right side of a barrier is the same, then if a wave function is a "reality" an wave function of that particular electron would have passed a barrier splinted in more less two half's. One more or less half passing a left and one more less half passing a right side of a barrier.
If a wave function is a reality those splinted two half's of a wave function of that electron would interfere with each other after they passed a barrier, to hit a detector in an interference pattern of hits.
Why is this wrong?
There is nothing wrong with your argument, it fails however to recognise that the two slits will become a point source (in fact a line source but here a point for the sake of argument) which is not present in your setup. The bending of waves around (sharp) corners is present but the overall effect of the wavefront above and below the obstruction is causing a more-or-less gaussian intensity pattern on the detectionplate. A minute interference pattern should be sitting on top of that but will be hardly visible.
So it is not wrong, it may prove not to be very practical in the sense of doing an experiment for zooming in on the wave properties of matter.
Jan Rinze.
The method of detection should therefore be chosen to such an extent that we can determine the momentum at the 'detection plate'. It might need a different approach in which no plate exists at all.. Whe might need a totally different way of measuring information in the plane where the detection plate would stand.
Hi, Jan,
just a quick thought. Is it beyond a possibility to make a detection plate from a double line of vertically pointed laser waves of two colors. Placed in the pattern, looking from the slits, that between a two "front" laser waves would be a one laser wave of a different color in the middle and behind of them ( at the same time a two laser waves in the background and between them a one laser wave in front of them ).
If an electron would hit a laser wave, for example number 3 looking from left to right, would it be possible to calculate/predict from which slit an electron came from by ( if would be any ) a characteristic difference of position/place where would the photon kicked by an electron, and the electron which kicked the photon, be detected ( if they would be detected ) on the classic detecting plate behind the laser wall?
There is nothing wrong with your argument, it fails however to recognise that the two slits will become a point source (in fact a line source but here a point for the sake of argument) which is not present in your setup. The bending of waves around (sharp) corners is present but the overall effect of the wavefront above and below the obstruction is causing a more-or-less gaussian intensity pattern on the detectionplate. A minute interference pattern should be sitting on top of that but will be hardly visible.
So it is not wrong, it may prove not to be very practical in the sense of doing an experiment for zooming in on the wave properties of matter.
If a classic barrier ( not this perpendicular I mentioned ) would be thicker at one slit in the comparison with a thickness of a barrier at other slit, would it be possible to manipulate a phases of an electron ( allegedly splitting and recombining after it passed a both slits ) in a fashion that considering the place where would a particular electron hit a detection screen it would possible to deduce through which slit an electron passed ( or through which slit the most of an electron passed, which is possibility I still have not read about the matter of DS so far). Assuming that such an asymmetry at barrier does not distrurb an interference.
for a slit to function as a 'point source' the gap should be in the order of a small mangitude of the wavelenghts. too small and nothing comes through it, too large and the wavefront will no longer be circular after the slit.
Ok , Jan.
By the way, you did not say, does the laser wall proposal have some validity for detecting a momentum of an electron in DS?
And where is a fun in that.
And where is a fun in that.
Mate-
IF you could determine the 'which way' path from the momentum and you actually used the information then I'd be pretty sure the interference pattern would go.
Confused2,
The interference pattern would still be present at the laser wall. Surely an electrons would be hitting the laser wall in the interference pattern.
In this case the detection screen behind the laser wall is not there to register an interference pattern of hits. The detection screen is there to record where would an electron hit after an electron passed through the laser wall. And , possibly, where would a photon hit the detection screen ( or what would happen with that particular photon ) after being hit by that electron which passed the laser wall.
So, we would have ( I think ) these informations.
Where that particular electron hit the laser wall.
Where that particular electron hit a detection screen after that particular electron passed the laser wall.
Where that particular photon ( hit by an electron ) would hit a detection screen ( or what would happen with that particular photon ).
Perhaps it is possible to calculate the momentum of that particular electron by combining all those informations available.
The interference happened at the laser wall. The rest is an attempt to deduce from which slit that particular electron came by using listed informations collected, hopefully, in this particular set up of the DS for electrons.
C2,
I am on the other hand unsure what exactly you are asking. So I am going to repeat in other words the proposal regarding the laser wall. The laser wall is a "substitution" for a detection screen in the classic arrangement.
In the classic set up an electron hits the detection screen in the interference pattern. In this set up an electron hits the laser wall in the interference pattern too.
But an assumption is that when that electron went though a "detection" screen " ( in the form of the laser wall ) that that electron ( and the photon which that electron kicked while passing through the laser wall ) would hit the real detection screen which is placed close behind the laser wall in the unique fashion from which it would be possible to deduce/calculate the momentum/path of that electron before that electron hit the laser wall/beam.
So, the assumption is that momentum/path of that particular electron before hitting the laser wall would be possible to deduce/calculate from three pieces of the information.
1)where that electron hit the laser wall
2) where that electron hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or other laser beam behind, before finally hitting the real detection screen )
3)where that photon hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or what else happened to that photon)
.
C2,
I am on the other hand unsure what exactly you are asking. So I am going to repeat in other words the proposal regarding the laser wall. The laser wall is a "substitution" for a detection screen in the classic arrangement.
In the classic set up an electron hits the detection screen in the interference pattern. In this set up an electron hits the laser wall in the interference pattern too.
But an assumption is that when that electron went though a "detection" screen " ( in the form of the laser wall ) that that electron ( and the photon which that electron kicked while passing through the laser wall ) would hit the real detection screen which is placed close behind the laser wall in the unique fashion from which it would be possible to deduce/calculate the momentum/path of that electron before that electron hit the laser wall/beam.
So, the assumption is that momentum/path of that particular electron before hitting the laser wall would be possible to deduce/calculate from three pieces of the information.
1)where that electron hit the laser wall
2) where that electron hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or other laser beam behind, before finally hitting the real detection screen )
3)where that photon hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or what else happened to that photon)
.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is an experiment which has been done and for which we do have the results ( http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) . Against logic it does seem that knowing which slit the photon went through - even when it should be too late to effect the result - even that is sufficient to destroy the interference effect. By understanding the DCQE it might be possible to get a greater insight into the result of the experiment you propose.
I have read it, although superficially, the article you posted.
The difference is, as I see, that in my proposal we do not need entanglement nor splitting/creating a two particles. In this proposal we have a single electron.
A photon does not have an influence on an electron's momentum/path before an electron hits a photon in the laser wall, similarly as the detection screen in the classic set up of the experiment does not have an influence on an electron's momentum/path before that electron hit the screen.
Perhaps I do not understand what exactly you are asking?
Anton
PS. Just to emphasize that the real detection screen behind the laser wall is that close to the laser wall to exclude a possibility of any interference after an electron passed the laser wall.
QUOTE (Mate+Apr 28 2007, 12:06 PM)
An electron is released from an electron gun, and in the accordance to the most known gossip originated in the Copenhagen an electron managed to pass both slits simultaneously, and hit a detector in an interference pattern. Which is clearly visible after some number of an electrons repeated the same trick as the first one. And they called that trick a wave function.
Some do not believe in that story about a wave function. However they are in minority. Is there some other experiment designed to falsify the hypothesis of a wave function except the DS?
the wave form is part of a duality particle/wave. It is not the problem that people deny it is possible to have a wave form. It is just that the particle and wave have very distinct properties that differ and there is no real 'unification'..
The DS experiment therefore is not designed to disprove the wave nature of particle but instead to prove its wave nature.
QUOTE
As I understand the probability that particular electron would be detected after being released from an electron gun at any "point" of space is diminishing as times goes by . Right?
If that is what Schrondinger's equation is telling then I imagined those probability distribution as some kind of a cloud which is increasing in its volume as time goes , by but at the same time decreasing in its density ( while "density" is a degree of probability of detecting that particular electron at particular "point" somewhere inside that "cloud" of probability distribution. )
If that is what Schrondinger's equation is telling then I imagined those probability distribution as some kind of a cloud which is increasing in its volume as time goes , by but at the same time decreasing in its density ( while "density" is a degree of probability of detecting that particular electron at particular "point" somewhere inside that "cloud" of probability distribution. )
to be more precise the square of the wave equation here equals the probability of finding the electron at any give position and in time. This is the probability distribution. There is no real need for a Schrodinger equation at this point yet. With the DS experiment a single slit setup is used to create a 'point source' from which the wave travels before it passes the double slit. This can be either explained through a diverging wave or just by the fact that particles hit the inside edges of the first slit and spread out accordingly. Both result in the same gaussian distrubution. Wheter this should be percieved as a 'cloud' is more or less a form of subjective preference. There are no real cloud particles here though.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I understand the probability that particular electron would be detected after being released from an electron gun at any "point" of space is diminishing as times goes by . Right? If that is what Schrondinger's equation is telling then I imagined those probability distribution as some kind of a cloud which is increasing in its volume as time goes , by but at the same time decreasing in its density ( while "density" is a degree of probability of detecting that particular electron at particular "point" somewhere inside that "cloud" of probability distribution. ) |
to be more precise the square of the wave equation here equals the probability of finding the electron at any give position and in time. This is the probability distribution. There is no real need for a Schrodinger equation at this point yet. With the DS experiment a single slit setup is used to create a 'point source' from which the wave travels before it passes the double slit. This can be either explained through a diverging wave or just by the fact that particles hit the inside edges of the first slit and spread out accordingly. Both result in the same gaussian distrubution. Wheter this should be percieved as a 'cloud' is more or less a form of subjective preference. There are no real cloud particles here though.
Let us say that we set up the Double Slit , but we do not use a barrier with two slits but we use a very thin barrier which is as wide as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS , and which is as long as it is the usual distance between a slits in the classic DS ( or more, if possible. ) And that barrier is placed perpendicular to a detector behind it.
Now, an electron it has been released. As I understand a wave function of that particular electron is getting wider as a time goes by.
If our barrier is placed in a greater distance from an electron gun then it is usual
( I do not know how much more distant, exactly ) so that probability distribution of an electron being on the left or on the right side of a barrier is the same, then if a wave function is a "reality" an wave function of that particular electron would have passed a barrier splinted in more less two half's. One more or less half passing a left and one more less half passing a right side of a barrier.
If a wave function is a reality those splinted two half's of a wave function of that electron would interfere with each other after they passed a barrier, to hit a detector in an interference pattern of hits.
Why is this wrong?
There is nothing wrong with your argument, it fails however to recognise that the two slits will become a point source (in fact a line source but here a point for the sake of argument) which is not present in your setup. The bending of waves around (sharp) corners is present but the overall effect of the wavefront above and below the obstruction is causing a more-or-less gaussian intensity pattern on the detectionplate. A minute interference pattern should be sitting on top of that but will be hardly visible.
So it is not wrong, it may prove not to be very practical in the sense of doing an experiment for zooming in on the wave properties of matter.
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (janrinze+Apr 28 2007, 09:32 AM)
The method of detection should therefore be chosen to such an extent that we can determine the momentum at the 'detection plate'. It might need a different approach in which no plate exists at all.. Whe might need a totally different way of measuring information in the plane where the detection plate would stand.
Hi, Jan,
just a quick thought. Is it beyond a possibility to make a detection plate from a double line of vertically pointed laser waves of two colors. Placed in the pattern, looking from the slits, that between a two "front" laser waves would be a one laser wave of a different color in the middle and behind of them ( at the same time a two laser waves in the background and between them a one laser wave in front of them ).
If an electron would hit a laser wave, for example number 3 looking from left to right, would it be possible to calculate/predict from which slit an electron came from by ( if would be any ) a characteristic difference of position/place where would the photon kicked by an electron, and the electron which kicked the photon, be detected ( if they would be detected ) on the classic detecting plate behind the laser wall?
QUOTE (janrinze+Apr 28 2007, 01:07 PM)
There is nothing wrong with your argument, it fails however to recognise that the two slits will become a point source (in fact a line source but here a point for the sake of argument) which is not present in your setup. The bending of waves around (sharp) corners is present but the overall effect of the wavefront above and below the obstruction is causing a more-or-less gaussian intensity pattern on the detectionplate. A minute interference pattern should be sitting on top of that but will be hardly visible.
So it is not wrong, it may prove not to be very practical in the sense of doing an experiment for zooming in on the wave properties of matter.
If a classic barrier ( not this perpendicular I mentioned ) would be thicker at one slit in the comparison with a thickness of a barrier at other slit, would it be possible to manipulate a phases of an electron ( allegedly splitting and recombining after it passed a both slits ) in a fashion that considering the place where would a particular electron hit a detection screen it would possible to deduce through which slit an electron passed ( or through which slit the most of an electron passed, which is possibility I still have not read about the matter of DS so far). Assuming that such an asymmetry at barrier does not distrurb an interference.
QUOTE (Mate+Apr 28 2007, 03:43 PM)
If a classic barrier ( not this perpendicular I mentioned ) would be thicker at one slit in the comparison with a thickness of a barrier at other slit, would it be possible to manipulate a phases of an electron ( allegedly splitting and recombining after it passed a both slits ) in a fashion that considering the place where would a particular electron hit a detection screen it would possible to deduce through which slit an electron passed ( or through which slit the most of an electron passed, which is possibility I still have not read about the matter of DS so far). Assuming that such an asymmetry at barrier does not distrurb an interference.
Hi Mate,
The thing with interference patterns is that they are the result of two point sources that are coherent and have the same frequency. If these conditions remain true then the interference pattern will be visible. Other setups may work to some extent.
for a slit to function as a 'point source' the gap should be in the order of a small mangitude of the wavelenghts. too small and nothing comes through it, too large and the wavefront will no longer be circular after the slit. (there must be some nice formula for this, I have seem to forgotten it.)
so if the point of exit from the slits occur at the same 'x' then I guess it would make no observable difference. The hard part will start when a barrier is too 'thin' and particles are able to tunnel in a significant amount through the barrier...
Interference is a mode of operation when two waves meet. It is not something exotic . Just imagine riples on a water surface where two waves run through each other.
This is all on the basis of classical wave-theory. Except for the tunneling ofcourse.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Mate,
The thing with interference patterns is that they are the result of two point sources that are coherent and have the same frequency. If these conditions remain true then the interference pattern will be visible. Other setups may work to some extent.
for a slit to function as a 'point source' the gap should be in the order of a small mangitude of the wavelenghts. too small and nothing comes through it, too large and the wavefront will no longer be circular after the slit. (there must be some nice formula for this, I have seem to forgotten it.)
so if the point of exit from the slits occur at the same 'x' then I guess it would make no observable difference. The hard part will start when a barrier is too 'thin' and particles are able to tunnel in a significant amount through the barrier...
Interference is a mode of operation when two waves meet. It is not something exotic . Just imagine riples on a water surface where two waves run through each other.
This is all on the basis of classical wave-theory. Except for the tunneling ofcourse.
Jan Rinze.
Hi mate, janrinze et al,
There are two nice slit analyses (for a photon) here:-
(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html
The last one integrates over the width of each slit .. no great problem (in principle) to use different slit widths.
IMHO the only slight problem is that these analyses give the right answer by assuming the excitation is a continuous sinewave. If you want to treat your electron or photon as some sort of a wavepacket then you need an infinitely wide/long wavepacket which doesn't look much like a 'packet' to my way of thinking.
Best wishes,
-C2.
There are two nice slit analyses (for a photon) here:-
(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html
The last one integrates over the width of each slit .. no great problem (in principle) to use different slit widths.
IMHO the only slight problem is that these analyses give the right answer by assuming the excitation is a continuous sinewave. If you want to treat your electron or photon as some sort of a wavepacket then you need an infinitely wide/long wavepacket which doesn't look much like a 'packet' to my way of thinking.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Apr 28 2007, 08:28 PM)
IMHO the only slight problem is that these analyses give the right answer by assuming the excitation is a continuous sinewave. If you want to treat your electron or photon as some sort of a wavepacket then you need an infinitely wide/long wavepacket which doesn't look much like a 'packet' to my way of thinking.
Best wishes,
-C2.
hi Confused2
The links are nice examples to illustrate the two slit experiment.
Indeed the wave packets are different from a continuus coherent wave but since the wave packets have the same frequency ( wave number here) the method of superposition is still valid. (mathematically also very similar)
Jan Rinze.
Best wishes,
-C2.
hi Confused2
The links are nice examples to illustrate the two slit experiment.
Indeed the wave packets are different from a continuus coherent wave but since the wave packets have the same frequency ( wave number here) the method of superposition is still valid. (mathematically also very similar)
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (Confused2+Apr 28 2007, 08:28 PM)
Hi mate, janrinze et al,
There are two nice slit analyses (for a photon) here:-
(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html
The last one integrates over the width of each slit .. no great problem (in principle) to use different slit widths.
IMHO the only slight problem is that these analyses give the right answer by assuming the excitation is a continuous sinewave. If you want to treat your electron or photon as some sort of a wavepacket then you need an infinitely wide/long wavepacket which doesn't look much like a 'packet' to my way of thinking.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Trying to track down a paper I ran across last night when I was surfing. It described how using fractals to describe the wave provided you with a really ellegant explanation for the interference pattern in the two slit experiment.
There are two nice slit analyses (for a photon) here:-
(simple) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node30.html
(better) http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses...res/node32.html
The last one integrates over the width of each slit .. no great problem (in principle) to use different slit widths.
IMHO the only slight problem is that these analyses give the right answer by assuming the excitation is a continuous sinewave. If you want to treat your electron or photon as some sort of a wavepacket then you need an infinitely wide/long wavepacket which doesn't look much like a 'packet' to my way of thinking.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Trying to track down a paper I ran across last night when I was surfing. It described how using fractals to describe the wave provided you with a really ellegant explanation for the interference pattern in the two slit experiment.
QUOTE
for a slit to function as a 'point source' the gap should be in the order of a small mangitude of the wavelenghts. too small and nothing comes through it, too large and the wavefront will no longer be circular after the slit.
Ok , Jan.
By the way, you did not say, does the laser wall proposal have some validity for detecting a momentum of an electron in DS?
All- a suggestion - don't try to make this experiment more complicated than it already is!
Mate-
IF you could determine the 'which way' path from the momentum and you actually used the information then I'd be pretty sure the interference pattern would go.
Probably time to introduce the delayed choice quantum eraser
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
janrinze:-
It is easy to imagine a wave packet arriving at the same point at the same time via two different paths - the problem is getting some maths and physics to replace the imaginery bit - can you do that?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Mate-
IF you could determine the 'which way' path from the momentum and you actually used the information then I'd be pretty sure the interference pattern would go.
Probably time to introduce the delayed choice quantum eraser
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
janrinze:-
It is easy to imagine a wave packet arriving at the same point at the same time via two different paths - the problem is getting some maths and physics to replace the imaginery bit - can you do that?
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE
All- a suggestion - don't try to make this experiment more complicated than it already is!
And where is a fun in that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All- a suggestion - don't try to make this experiment more complicated than it already is! |
And where is a fun in that.
Mate-
IF you could determine the 'which way' path from the momentum and you actually used the information then I'd be pretty sure the interference pattern would go.
Confused2,
The interference pattern would still be present at the laser wall. Surely an electrons would be hitting the laser wall in the interference pattern.
In this case the detection screen behind the laser wall is not there to register an interference pattern of hits. The detection screen is there to record where would an electron hit after an electron passed through the laser wall. And , possibly, where would a photon hit the detection screen ( or what would happen with that particular photon ) after being hit by that electron which passed the laser wall.
So, we would have ( I think ) these informations.
Where that particular electron hit the laser wall.
Where that particular electron hit a detection screen after that particular electron passed the laser wall.
Where that particular photon ( hit by an electron ) would hit a detection screen ( or what would happen with that particular photon ).
Perhaps it is possible to calculate the momentum of that particular electron by combining all those informations available.
The interference happened at the laser wall. The rest is an attempt to deduce from which slit that particular electron came by using listed informations collected, hopefully, in this particular set up of the DS for electrons.
Hi Mate,
Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is an experiment which has been done and for which we do have the results ( http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) . Against logic it does seem that knowing which slit the photon went through - even when it should be too late to effect the result - even that is sufficient to destroy the interference effect. By understanding the DCQE it might be possible to get a greater insight into the result of the experiment you propose.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is an experiment which has been done and for which we do have the results ( http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) . Against logic it does seem that knowing which slit the photon went through - even when it should be too late to effect the result - even that is sufficient to destroy the interference effect. By understanding the DCQE it might be possible to get a greater insight into the result of the experiment you propose.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Best wishes,
-C2.
posted in error
Hi Confused2, Mate, Laserlight, yquantum, janrinze, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
The whole point about interference is that the "wave" passes through "both" slits... if you determine "which path" then the "wave" is no longer interfering so you cannot have that interference. Logically it is very consistent. The only illogic about this experiment is the concept about the photon or in some cases the electron which can also behave as a wave. We want to believe that this unobserved phenomena is a particle so it should only go through one aperture or the other. What we absolutely know is the result will not occur if you block one hole/slot. Forcing the event to pass through one hole/slot is having the same effect as blocking one of the holes... Actually it is worse than just blocking the hole it is also imposing a strong locality on the photon or the electron and it will no longer exhibit wave properties that would normally be resulting in diffraction phenomena such as airy disks. What happens is the phenomena is reduced to simple Gaussian behavior.
The problem with us is we want it to be like we see things, or think we see things, on our scale of time and through our eyes. It is the same problem when we try and understand just what Relativity might mean and we imagine the phenomena to be counter intuitive. It is so easy to show that our minds are not perceiving things in any way that is without "human artifact".
Imagining what we see when we travel near to the speed of light is also one of those tricks we like to play with our minds. We can never see events up close and personal that are moving near the speed of light simply because our mind cannot respond to events that are so rapid. We may be able to imagine these things but never think we can actually "see" these things. Quantum Phenomena are another one of these things that nature has not prepared our ape brains for. We need to rely on measurements and comparisons with data after the event to arrive at the nature of this phenomena.
Consider the way in which electrons move. Recently it has been shown that pairs of electrons (cooper pairs or their equivalent) in "atomic shells" behave exactly like planetary orbitals. Believe it or not it has been determined that pairs of electrons move in a way that is analogous to the earth moving around the sun in a plane orbit. You probably thought that this was ruled out decades ago well you would be wrong. This was not indicated by standard quantum theory, it was determined by experiment and later found that this solution was found to be the case while single electrons do not behave like that at all but as smeared out entities. You would normally think that it was the other way around. It all stems from our preconceived concept of what electrons are and how they should behave. Here is an animation of a single electron in "orbit" around an atom. The colors and amplitude represent phase and "density" of the wave function.
This is the phase relationship...
We see the electron mapped into our space is a blurry mess. Another way to represent this is to treat this as multiple reflections of waves in a confined space. A further way would be to place many extra electron "images" to cancel and to add these effective bits to the picture. Which way is the "correct" picture? They will all give the same answer but in the end the choice of paradigm is a free one. In Bohmian Mechanics this would be the equivalent of an electron as it moves in higher dimensions and these effects are what occur when we are not specifically looking at it. When we use our instruments to look we see only one particle in one place but we know this is not a unique solution.
Cheers
The whole point about interference is that the "wave" passes through "both" slits... if you determine "which path" then the "wave" is no longer interfering so you cannot have that interference. Logically it is very consistent. The only illogic about this experiment is the concept about the photon or in some cases the electron which can also behave as a wave. We want to believe that this unobserved phenomena is a particle so it should only go through one aperture or the other. What we absolutely know is the result will not occur if you block one hole/slot. Forcing the event to pass through one hole/slot is having the same effect as blocking one of the holes... Actually it is worse than just blocking the hole it is also imposing a strong locality on the photon or the electron and it will no longer exhibit wave properties that would normally be resulting in diffraction phenomena such as airy disks. What happens is the phenomena is reduced to simple Gaussian behavior.
The problem with us is we want it to be like we see things, or think we see things, on our scale of time and through our eyes. It is the same problem when we try and understand just what Relativity might mean and we imagine the phenomena to be counter intuitive. It is so easy to show that our minds are not perceiving things in any way that is without "human artifact".
Imagining what we see when we travel near to the speed of light is also one of those tricks we like to play with our minds. We can never see events up close and personal that are moving near the speed of light simply because our mind cannot respond to events that are so rapid. We may be able to imagine these things but never think we can actually "see" these things. Quantum Phenomena are another one of these things that nature has not prepared our ape brains for. We need to rely on measurements and comparisons with data after the event to arrive at the nature of this phenomena.
Consider the way in which electrons move. Recently it has been shown that pairs of electrons (cooper pairs or their equivalent) in "atomic shells" behave exactly like planetary orbitals. Believe it or not it has been determined that pairs of electrons move in a way that is analogous to the earth moving around the sun in a plane orbit. You probably thought that this was ruled out decades ago well you would be wrong. This was not indicated by standard quantum theory, it was determined by experiment and later found that this solution was found to be the case while single electrons do not behave like that at all but as smeared out entities. You would normally think that it was the other way around. It all stems from our preconceived concept of what electrons are and how they should behave. Here is an animation of a single electron in "orbit" around an atom. The colors and amplitude represent phase and "density" of the wave function.
QUOTE
This animation follows the motion of a circular orbit wave packet for 30 Kepler periods (that is, the time needed for a classical electron to orbit 30 times around the nucleus). The wave packet is a Gaussian superposition of 17 circular states centered about n=180.
Circular Orbit Wave Packet
The wave packet is initially well-localized but begins to spread after just a few orbits, because of the unequal spacing between the hydrogenic energy levels.
After this spreading, or "decay," the discrete nature of the quantum-mechanical energy levels leads to rephasings of the wave packet. These are called "fractional revivals." The initial wave packet would re-appear at 60 Kepler periods. (Likewise, at 60 / 2 = 30 Kepler periods there are 2 copies of the wave packet, at 60 / 3 = 20 Kepler periods there are 3 copies of the wave packet, and so forth.)
The coloring on this animation indicates the quantum-mechanical dynamical phase of the electron wave function. The following color wheel shows how we can map the complex "phase" of the wave function to a color for a given point of the wave packet: http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../cowporbit.html
Circular Orbit Wave Packet
The wave packet is initially well-localized but begins to spread after just a few orbits, because of the unequal spacing between the hydrogenic energy levels.
After this spreading, or "decay," the discrete nature of the quantum-mechanical energy levels leads to rephasings of the wave packet. These are called "fractional revivals." The initial wave packet would re-appear at 60 Kepler periods. (Likewise, at 60 / 2 = 30 Kepler periods there are 2 copies of the wave packet, at 60 / 3 = 20 Kepler periods there are 3 copies of the wave packet, and so forth.)
The coloring on this animation indicates the quantum-mechanical dynamical phase of the electron wave function. The following color wheel shows how we can map the complex "phase" of the wave function to a color for a given point of the wave packet: http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../cowporbit.html
This is the phase relationship...
We see the electron mapped into our space is a blurry mess. Another way to represent this is to treat this as multiple reflections of waves in a confined space. A further way would be to place many extra electron "images" to cancel and to add these effective bits to the picture. Which way is the "correct" picture? They will all give the same answer but in the end the choice of paradigm is a free one. In Bohmian Mechanics this would be the equivalent of an electron as it moves in higher dimensions and these effects are what occur when we are not specifically looking at it. When we use our instruments to look we see only one particle in one place but we know this is not a unique solution.
Cheers
QUOTE
Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from
C2,
I am on the other hand unsure what exactly you are asking. So I am going to repeat in other words the proposal regarding the laser wall. The laser wall is a "substitution" for a detection screen in the classic arrangement.
In the classic set up an electron hits the detection screen in the interference pattern. In this set up an electron hits the laser wall in the interference pattern too.
But an assumption is that when that electron went though a "detection" screen " ( in the form of the laser wall ) that that electron ( and the photon which that electron kicked while passing through the laser wall ) would hit the real detection screen which is placed close behind the laser wall in the unique fashion from which it would be possible to deduce/calculate the momentum/path of that electron before that electron hit the laser wall/beam.
So, the assumption is that momentum/path of that particular electron before hitting the laser wall would be possible to deduce/calculate from three pieces of the information.
1)where that electron hit the laser wall
2) where that electron hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or other laser beam behind, before finally hitting the real detection screen )
3)where that photon hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or what else happened to that photon)
.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from |
C2,
I am on the other hand unsure what exactly you are asking. So I am going to repeat in other words the proposal regarding the laser wall. The laser wall is a "substitution" for a detection screen in the classic arrangement.
In the classic set up an electron hits the detection screen in the interference pattern. In this set up an electron hits the laser wall in the interference pattern too.
But an assumption is that when that electron went though a "detection" screen " ( in the form of the laser wall ) that that electron ( and the photon which that electron kicked while passing through the laser wall ) would hit the real detection screen which is placed close behind the laser wall in the unique fashion from which it would be possible to deduce/calculate the momentum/path of that electron before that electron hit the laser wall/beam.
So, the assumption is that momentum/path of that particular electron before hitting the laser wall would be possible to deduce/calculate from three pieces of the information.
1)where that electron hit the laser wall
2) where that electron hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or other laser beam behind, before finally hitting the real detection screen )
3)where that photon hit the real detection screen behind the laser wall ( or what else happened to that photon)
.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is an experiment which has been done and for which we do have the results ( http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm ) . Against logic it does seem that knowing which slit the photon went through - even when it should be too late to effect the result - even that is sufficient to destroy the interference effect. By understanding the DCQE it might be possible to get a greater insight into the result of the experiment you propose.
I have read it, although superficially, the article you posted.
The difference is, as I see, that in my proposal we do not need entanglement nor splitting/creating a two particles. In this proposal we have a single electron.
A photon does not have an influence on an electron's momentum/path before an electron hits a photon in the laser wall, similarly as the detection screen in the classic set up of the experiment does not have an influence on an electron's momentum/path before that electron hit the screen.
Perhaps I do not understand what exactly you are asking?
Anton
PS. Just to emphasize that the real detection screen behind the laser wall is that close to the laser wall to exclude a possibility of any interference after an electron passed the laser wall.
Hi Anton (Mate),
Regardless of how cleaver the arrangement, any way of localizing the electron sufficiently to determine "which way" information would destroy any chance of an interference pattern. It is the delocalized nature of the electron ... that blurriness seen above with phase and amplitude... that actually allows the electron wave to interfere. In the animation above you can see various harmonics of the electron emerging and decaying. What you would be doing is blocking the interference phenomena by localizing the "particle" and removing the blurriness and the internal dynamic. While the "particle" is localized it can't effectively exhibit a "wave". While it is actually a wave it can pass through barriers it can't normally pass while it is a particle... it can tunnel. It is as though the electron is no longer truly solid when it is delocalized... which is the way you might expect if whatever it is composed of is spread out over much greater volumes of space. DeBroglie says that this delocalization increases as the velocity of the particle approaches zero. When the electron velocity is around zero it must be spread very thinly through space.
I also believe that it is an even stronger principle than this and the nature of the phenomena is actually entirely wave and localization for fermions such as electrons is related to a curvature in the ambient spacetime of the electron. This is not related to gravity but to electromagnetism. I would conjecture that mass is related to this curvature in a similar fashion to the emergence of topological charge. A symmetric metric emerging from the antisymmetric electromagnetic geometry through internal topological processes (folding) already described elsewhere.
Cheers
Regardless of how cleaver the arrangement, any way of localizing the electron sufficiently to determine "which way" information would destroy any chance of an interference pattern. It is the delocalized nature of the electron ... that blurriness seen above with phase and amplitude... that actually allows the electron wave to interfere. In the animation above you can see various harmonics of the electron emerging and decaying. What you would be doing is blocking the interference phenomena by localizing the "particle" and removing the blurriness and the internal dynamic. While the "particle" is localized it can't effectively exhibit a "wave". While it is actually a wave it can pass through barriers it can't normally pass while it is a particle... it can tunnel. It is as though the electron is no longer truly solid when it is delocalized... which is the way you might expect if whatever it is composed of is spread out over much greater volumes of space. DeBroglie says that this delocalization increases as the velocity of the particle approaches zero. When the electron velocity is around zero it must be spread very thinly through space.
I also believe that it is an even stronger principle than this and the nature of the phenomena is actually entirely wave and localization for fermions such as electrons is related to a curvature in the ambient spacetime of the electron. This is not related to gravity but to electromagnetism. I would conjecture that mass is related to this curvature in a similar fashion to the emergence of topological charge. A symmetric metric emerging from the antisymmetric electromagnetic geometry through internal topological processes (folding) already described elsewhere.
Cheers
QUOTE (Mate+)
Perhaps I do not understand what exactly you are asking?
I'm not really asking .. more suggesting .. you're welcome to ignore the suggestion.
As I understand your plan - you want to make it impossible for the electron to 'un-interfere' with itself.
The delayed choice experiment tests exactly that .. but with a photon. The photon does 'un-interfere' with itself. If you understand the result of an experiment that has actually been done then you can probably predict the result of the experiment that you propose. If you don't understand the result of the delayed choice experiment then I doubt if you will be able to understand or agree with any unverifiable prediction of the results of the experiment you suggest - inevitably nobody will be able to make any progress. Just a thought - I'll shut up now.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Not really asking .. just suggesting that we have one experiment that gives results which I think are relevent to the experiment you prop
I'm not really asking .. more suggesting .. you're welcome to ignore the suggestion.
As I understand your plan - you want to make it impossible for the electron to 'un-interfere' with itself.
The delayed choice experiment tests exactly that .. but with a photon. The photon does 'un-interfere' with itself. If you understand the result of an experiment that has actually been done then you can probably predict the result of the experiment that you propose. If you don't understand the result of the delayed choice experiment then I doubt if you will be able to understand or agree with any unverifiable prediction of the results of the experiment you suggest - inevitably nobody will be able to make any progress. Just a thought - I'll shut up now.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Not really asking .. just suggesting that we have one experiment that gives results which I think are relevent to the experiment you prop
Hi, C2,
As I understood you suggested to me to read the paper on The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Considering that I already said that I read the paper it seems that I accepted your suggestion. So ignoring your suggestion after I accepted it is only possible, I guess, in some The Forum Delayed Taking Of Suggestion Phenomenon.
I was simply unsure what do you want to know, if anything. Nothing personal about that sentence of mine. I was just assuming that you are asking me something considering that the very first sentence of your was "Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from", which looked to me like you want some information I did not write or you want me to clear something.
As I understood you suggested to me to read the paper on The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Considering that I already said that I read the paper it seems that I accepted your suggestion. So ignoring your suggestion after I accepted it is only possible, I guess, in some The Forum Delayed Taking Of Suggestion Phenomenon.
I was simply unsure what do you want to know, if anything. Nothing personal about that sentence of mine. I was just assuming that you are asking me something considering that the very first sentence of your was "Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from", which looked to me like you want some information I did not write or you want me to clear something.
As I understand your plan - you want to make it impossible for the electron to 'un-interfere' with itself.
The delayed choice experiment tests exactly that .. but with a photon. The photon does 'un-interfere' with itself. If you understand the result of an experiment that has actually been done then you can probably predict the result of the experiment that you propose.
I understood the results of an experiment. That was actually pretty easy.
What is very difficult is to believe that those are the results.
I am delaying progress? In which way?
If that is so my apology to all.
Now, as I said it looked to me that "your" experiment is not quite the same experiment nor it would give the same results. Even THE results in both experiments would again confirm QM.
I was thinking that if the electrons which would hit the laser wall would make an interference pattern of a hits, and if we would be able to deduce/calculate the paths of those electrons from the three pieces of information I mentioned, that all calculations for all electrons would have the same result. If QM is unavoidable then the calculated result would be that every path of every electron from the interference pattern would be the line from exactly between two slits to the every recorded hit in the interference pattern.
Which, it seemed to me, would not be the same result as the result in "your" experiment.
Anton
QUOTE
I'm not really asking .. more suggesting .. you're welcome to ignore the suggestion.
As I understood you suggested to me to read the paper on The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Considering that I already said that I read the paper it seems that I accepted your suggestion. So ignoring your suggestion after I accepted it is only possible, I guess, in some The Forum Delayed Taking Of Suggestion Phenomenon.
I was simply unsure what do you want to know, if anything. Nothing personal about that sentence of mine. I was just assuming that you are asking me something considering that the very first sentence of your was "Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from", which looked to me like you want some information I did not write or you want me to clear something.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not really asking .. more suggesting .. you're welcome to ignore the suggestion. |
As I understood you suggested to me to read the paper on The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Considering that I already said that I read the paper it seems that I accepted your suggestion. So ignoring your suggestion after I accepted it is only possible, I guess, in some The Forum Delayed Taking Of Suggestion Phenomenon.
I was simply unsure what do you want to know, if anything. Nothing personal about that sentence of mine. I was just assuming that you are asking me something considering that the very first sentence of your was "Not quite sure where the laser walls are coming from", which looked to me like you want some information I did not write or you want me to clear something.
As I understand your plan - you want to make it impossible for the electron to 'un-interfere' with itself.
The delayed choice experiment tests exactly that .. but with a photon. The photon does 'un-interfere' with itself. If you understand the result of an experiment that has actually been done then you can probably predict the result of the experiment that you propose.
I understood the results of an experiment. That was actually pretty easy.
What is very difficult is to believe that those are the results.
QUOTE
If you don't understand the result of the delayed choice experiment then I doubt if you will be able to understand or agree with any unverifiable prediction of the results of the experiment you suggest - inevitably nobody will be able to make any progress. Just a thought - I'll shut up now.
I am delaying progress? In which way?
If that is so my apology to all.
Now, as I said it looked to me that "your" experiment is not quite the same experiment nor it would give the same results. Even THE results in both experiments would again confirm QM.
I was thinking that if the electrons which would hit the laser wall would make an interference pattern of a hits, and if we would be able to deduce/calculate the paths of those electrons from the three pieces of information I mentioned, that all calculations for all electrons would have the same result. If QM is unavoidable then the calculated result would be that every path of every electron from the interference pattern would be the line from exactly between two slits to the every recorded hit in the interference pattern.
Which, it seemed to me, would not be the same result as the result in "your" experiment.
Anton
Hello All,
I think that we are all forgetting that there is no “which way” that can be assigned to
either a photon or an electron wave as it passes thru multiple slit openings. If the
energy of these phenomena are indeed wavelike, then the energy and forward momentum
of the wave will simultaneously travel thru all available slits presented within the
“physical” limits of its waveform.
The slit walls act as obstructions to the wave energy, while the slit openings act as
conduits or “cavities” for the energy of the wave to leak thru. The slits confine
the wave shape while at the same time they add temporal and spatial timing delays to the
phasing of the wave energy passing thru them.
Prior to interacting with the physical attributes of the slits, the waveform shape and
timing is perfectly "homogenous" and synchronous but, after being influenced thru
its interaction with the geometry of physical matter, the wave shape loses its
inherent relative “consistency” that it had prior to entering the slits.
After passing thru the separated slits, each portion of the advancing wave is now
basically acting as a new wave, with each emanating from its own “source”.
From a relative timing perspective the newly separated individual waves are still time
synchronous, in relation to their original common point of emission, but since part of the
energy of the original wave has been separated they are now propagating and expanding
as individual wave fronts originating from parallel “sources”.
So there is no “which way” data that can be assigned to the wave energy. If you attempt
to isolate one of the individual wave components from the other(s) you prevent it from
interfering with its parallel counterpart(s) that are “unobstructed” in their relative timing
and phasing. Any interaction with matter placed in any wave path will introduce inherent
delays between separate parallel waveforms, and interference between them cannot
occur.
There is no “which slit” information that can be determined from wave dynamics since
the phenomenon of interference requires all available ways to form a final solution.
The results of the DSE is a finite solution set that is generated by the relative physical
dynamics of a wave when it interacts with the physical geometry of matter and the
dimensional and temporal characteristics of “space”.
You cannot place physical “constraints” on an oscillating and undulating free form of
energy without altering its natural waveform characteristics. A waveform can be
temporarily changed or modified by altering its shape, direction, or relative timing but
as soon as the free form propagating wave energy totally collapses and is absorbed by
matter it becomes a work function....which is then considered the particle characteristic of
the wave.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
I think that we are all forgetting that there is no “which way” that can be assigned to
either a photon or an electron wave as it passes thru multiple slit openings. If the
energy of these phenomena are indeed wavelike, then the energy and forward momentum
of the wave will simultaneously travel thru all available slits presented within the
“physical” limits of its waveform.
The slit walls act as obstructions to the wave energy, while the slit openings act as
conduits or “cavities” for the energy of the wave to leak thru. The slits confine
the wave shape while at the same time they add temporal and spatial timing delays to the
phasing of the wave energy passing thru them.
Prior to interacting with the physical attributes of the slits, the waveform shape and
timing is perfectly "homogenous" and synchronous but, after being influenced thru
its interaction with the geometry of physical matter, the wave shape loses its
inherent relative “consistency” that it had prior to entering the slits.
After passing thru the separated slits, each portion of the advancing wave is now
basically acting as a new wave, with each emanating from its own “source”.
From a relative timing perspective the newly separated individual waves are still time
synchronous, in relation to their original common point of emission, but since part of the
energy of the original wave has been separated they are now propagating and expanding
as individual wave fronts originating from parallel “sources”.
So there is no “which way” data that can be assigned to the wave energy. If you attempt
to isolate one of the individual wave components from the other(s) you prevent it from
interfering with its parallel counterpart(s) that are “unobstructed” in their relative timing
and phasing. Any interaction with matter placed in any wave path will introduce inherent
delays between separate parallel waveforms, and interference between them cannot
occur.
There is no “which slit” information that can be determined from wave dynamics since
the phenomenon of interference requires all available ways to form a final solution.
The results of the DSE is a finite solution set that is generated by the relative physical
dynamics of a wave when it interacts with the physical geometry of matter and the
dimensional and temporal characteristics of “space”.
You cannot place physical “constraints” on an oscillating and undulating free form of
energy without altering its natural waveform characteristics. A waveform can be
temporarily changed or modified by altering its shape, direction, or relative timing but
as soon as the free form propagating wave energy totally collapses and is absorbed by
matter it becomes a work function....which is then considered the particle characteristic of
the wave.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
,,
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 29 2007, 04:15 PM)
Hi Anton (Mate),
Regardless of how cleaver the arrangement, any way of localizing the electron sufficiently to determine "which way" information would destroy any chance of an interference pattern. It is the delocalized nature of the electron ... that blurriness seen above with phase and amplitude... that actually allows the electron wave to interfere. In the animation above you can see various harmonics of the electron emerging and decaying. What you would be doing is blocking the interference phenomena by localizing the "particle" and removing the blurriness and the internal dynamic. While the "particle" is localized it can't effectively exhibit a "wave". While it is actually a wave it can pass through barriers it can't normally pass while it is a particle... it can tunnel. It is as though the electron is no longer truly solid when it is delocalized... which is the way you might expect if whatever it is composed of is spread out over much greater volumes of space. DeBroglie says that this delocalization increases as the velocity of the particle approaches zero. When the electron velocity is around zero it must be spread very thinly through space.
I also believe that it is an even stronger principle than this and the nature of the phenomena is actually entirely wave and localization for fermions such as electrons is related to a curvature in the ambient spacetime of the electron. This is not related to gravity but to electromagnetism. I would conjecture that mass is related to this curvature in a similar fashion to the emergence of topological charge. A symmetric metric emerging from the antisymmetric electromagnetic geometry through internal topological processes (folding) already described elsewhere.
Cheers
Hi, Good Elf,
I was not writing a responses or comments of my own about your posts so far because
I have to get familiar with the some terms you used in your posts and not less importantly I would need to have something to say. Although the reason two is not an unbreakable rule.
Thanks for your comments.
Greetings,
Anton
Regardless of how cleaver the arrangement, any way of localizing the electron sufficiently to determine "which way" information would destroy any chance of an interference pattern. It is the delocalized nature of the electron ... that blurriness seen above with phase and amplitude... that actually allows the electron wave to interfere. In the animation above you can see various harmonics of the electron emerging and decaying. What you would be doing is blocking the interference phenomena by localizing the "particle" and removing the blurriness and the internal dynamic. While the "particle" is localized it can't effectively exhibit a "wave". While it is actually a wave it can pass through barriers it can't normally pass while it is a particle... it can tunnel. It is as though the electron is no longer truly solid when it is delocalized... which is the way you might expect if whatever it is composed of is spread out over much greater volumes of space. DeBroglie says that this delocalization increases as the velocity of the particle approaches zero. When the electron velocity is around zero it must be spread very thinly through space.
I also believe that it is an even stronger principle than this and the nature of the phenomena is actually entirely wave and localization for fermions such as electrons is related to a curvature in the ambient spacetime of the electron. This is not related to gravity but to electromagnetism. I would conjecture that mass is related to this curvature in a similar fashion to the emergence of topological charge. A symmetric metric emerging from the antisymmetric electromagnetic geometry through internal topological processes (folding) already described elsewhere.
Cheers
Hi, Good Elf,
I was not writing a responses or comments of my own about your posts so far because
I have to get familiar with the some terms you used in your posts and not less importantly I would need to have something to say. Although the reason two is not an unbreakable rule.
Thanks for your comments.
Greetings,
Anton
Sorry Anton. I'm trying to leave the thread alone for a bit - I actually want to shut up and see what other people can come up with - absolutely no offence was intended. The problem with a thought experiment is that you can easily expect the result you expect - unless you can carry out the experiment to check your expectation you are no further forward.
Enough from me.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Enough from me.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Apr 29 2007, 08:02 PM)
Sorry Anton. I'm trying to leave the thread alone for a bit - I actually want to shut up and see what other people can come up with - absolutely no offence was intended. The problem with a thought experiment is that you can easily expect the result you expect - unless you can carry out the experiment to check your expectation you are no further forward.
Enough from me.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Excellent, C2,
I am glad that there is no some unnecessary misunderstanding on the personal level.
Greetings,
Anton
Enough from me.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Excellent, C2,
I am glad that there is no some unnecessary misunderstanding on the personal level.
Greetings,
Anton
Hi laserlight, Confused2, mate, quantum, janrinze, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
QUOTE (laserlight+)
The slit walls act as obstructions to the wave energy, while the slit openings act as conduits or “cavities” for the energy of the wave to leak thru. The slits confine the wave shape while at the same time they add temporal and spatial timing delays to the phasing of the wave energy passing thru them.
Prior to interacting with the physical attributes of the slits, the waveform shape and timing is perfectly "homogenous" and synchronous but, after being influenced thru its interaction with the geometry of physical matter, the wave shape loses its inherent relative “consistency” that it had prior to entering the slits.
After passing thru the separated slits, each portion of the advancing wave is now basically acting as a new wave, with each emanating from its own “source”.
Prior to interacting with the physical attributes of the slits, the waveform shape and timing is perfectly "homogenous" and synchronous but, after being influenced thru its interaction with the geometry of physical matter, the wave shape loses its inherent relative “consistency” that it had prior to entering the slits.
After passing thru the separated slits, each portion of the advancing wave is now basically acting as a new wave, with each emanating from its own “source”.
This is an interesting point. There are several extreme cases to be considered. One is the interesting case of "deep holes" in which energy is transferred longitudinally along "optical guides" and the normal case of very thin slit thickness. The former case in nature is the existence of materials such as the mineral Ulexite which conducts light from a lower surface to the upper surface with little loss or distortion and casting the image as if it was originating from the upper surface. We have duplicated and improved on these phenomena using fiber optics in which control over the zoning of impurities can be used to vastly improve upon nature allowing us to convey light over several kilometers this way (not without some technical tricks though). There are also organic instances of desert plants also using such methods to 'convey" light into the subsoil to facilitate photo absorption under the soil. We have touched on these points previously.
In the case of thin slits the pinholes become secondary sources, they convey information from those distant primary sources directly into a Fourier Transform with almost ideal precision. This is hard to actually see but if you take one pinhole at a time of the DSE as a single diffraction case and remove the instance of the interference for just a moment, this is a "camera obscura" and clearly the diffracted light carries information about the original source in a hidden mode. You can immediately see this if you focus this light using a lens or even if you just allow this light to form an image on the screen behind the perforations as a simple pinhole. We note that the pinhole now behaves like a lens of any optical focal length. For one pure source such as a single laser this is not obvious but for a number of separate sources it becomes clear that we see an image that this single pinhole conveys of the "Universe" beyond that pinhole to the flat plane of the screen.
On consideration it becomes evident that if the distant source was a single bright star emitting light in a very narrow band of frequencies the image of this star on the screen will contain information of that source... and if this image was somehow examined using a very powerful microscope details of the surface of the distant sun such as sunspots could in theory be seen there as it is with our Sun. Young himself did this experiment in a slightly modified form using the light from our sun directly and the "magic of spatial coherence" to do the first Double Slit Interference Experiment. No lasers required.
If we consider this in three parts, the source, the pinholes, the screen, A single pinhole is the same as if we used a magnifying glass forming an image of the sun's surface at the focal plane. Then we can consider the pinhole and the screen, and observations of the screen using a converging lens. This "combination" is a primitive form of telescope since the pinhole could substitute for a converging lens and the "microscope" behind the screen could be a powerful "magnifying glass", the combination of the two forming a crude telescope. The external "macro-Universe" is therefore converted to a "micro-Universe". Depending on how we view this ensemble we might consider the image as either an examination of the ultra small or an examination of the ultra large. It depends on our overall awareness of how much of the optical system we are considering.
.. Click to enlarge...
This process is based on Fourier transforms... we forget that this is a deep secret of our Universe... The DSE is not the result of single pinhole diffraction but the information of the two single pinholes is "encoded" in the Double Slit Interference Experiment of Young.
But the interesting fact is the information does not "proceed" directly from the space we are examining but from much further away. In this case the stars. People are not consciously aware of this inversion of scale and conversion between ordinary space and reciprocal space but it is what I would like to call this discussion to examine very carefully so we fully understand this "Holographic" process and the way these scales invert spontaneously on examination. Admittedly this is a contrived example but consider if everything is holographic ... right down to the images we see "in the dark rooms" of the sub-atomic universe.
Regardless of how cleaver the arrangement, any way of localizing the electron sufficiently to determine "which way" information would destroy any chance of an interference pattern.
Good Elf,
Like I said in the conversation with C2. Perhaps the result of the experiment I proposed would be that if we would be able to calculate the paths/momentums of the electrons which made an interference pattern of hits on the laser wall by using the informations mentioned in proposal, and if QM is unavoidable, then every calculated path/momentum of any of the electrons which made an interference pattern of hits on the laser wall would be the same one. The line between the two slits to the every hit in an interference pattern.
Would it be interesting to conduct such a experiment and to get such a result/s which confirms QM in a novel ( I assume ) manner ? Or to get, hopefully, something surprisingly "wrong" ?
Of course, judging from the comments so far my prediction is the most probably a wrong one, and in this proposed set up for DS an interference would be destroyed, as you said. Nevertheless I would be curious to see the results of the experiment, and there is actually the simple way to test the validity of this particular proposal. The crucial assumption is that it would be possible, in principle, to deduce/calculate the momentums/paths of the electrons from the pieces of information mentioned in the proposal. If the crucial assumption is valid that the simple way to conduct this experiment is a following one.
First we run the DS for an electrons, one by one regime of releasing from an electron gun. But just with the laser wall. And , I assume, we would see the pattern of hits on the laser wall to be an interference pattern of hits. As I understand that finding would not violate QM.
Now we run the experiment for the second time but now with the real detection screen placed closely behind the laser wall.
If in this particular set up an interference would disappear on the laser wall just because the detection screen was placed behind the laser wall, then there is no need to bother with designing the mathematics needed to calculate the paths/momentum in the sense mentioned in the proposal.
But if an interference would not disappear from the laser wall even after we added the real detection screen closely behind the laser wall , then we have , at least, the experiment which would confirm QM in another novel manner.
Or if we are lucky something would get wrong in the surprising manner
(Edit)This would be even simpler ( read better ) experiment than A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser if an interference would disappeared after adding the real detection screen behind the laser wall. In this case we have no two splitted photons and entanglement to help them. In this case we would have only one electron which can predict a future in front of him ( the real detection plate ), and which knows mathematics intuitively.
Almost like Nostradamus on a steroids.
(Edit two) And even more interesting situation would be if an interference would disappeared after adding the real detection screen behind the laser while the "the crucial assumption" I mentioned above would not be satisfied, that is, when we would be unable to design the mathematics needed to calculated the paths/momentums of the electrons used in the experiment from the pieces of the information mentioned in the proposal. IN this case an electron can predict a future and it knows mathematic better than us.
Anton
In the case of thin slits the pinholes become secondary sources, they convey information from those distant primary sources directly into a Fourier Transform with almost ideal precision. This is hard to actually see but if you take one pinhole at a time of the DSE as a single diffraction case and remove the instance of the interference for just a moment, this is a "camera obscura" and clearly the diffracted light carries information about the original source in a hidden mode. You can immediately see this if you focus this light using a lens or even if you just allow this light to form an image on the screen behind the perforations as a simple pinhole. We note that the pinhole now behaves like a lens of any optical focal length. For one pure source such as a single laser this is not obvious but for a number of separate sources it becomes clear that we see an image that this single pinhole conveys of the "Universe" beyond that pinhole to the flat plane of the screen.
On consideration it becomes evident that if the distant source was a single bright star emitting light in a very narrow band of frequencies the image of this star on the screen will contain information of that source... and if this image was somehow examined using a very powerful microscope details of the surface of the distant sun such as sunspots could in theory be seen there as it is with our Sun. Young himself did this experiment in a slightly modified form using the light from our sun directly and the "magic of spatial coherence" to do the first Double Slit Interference Experiment. No lasers required.
If we consider this in three parts, the source, the pinholes, the screen, A single pinhole is the same as if we used a magnifying glass forming an image of the sun's surface at the focal plane. Then we can consider the pinhole and the screen, and observations of the screen using a converging lens. This "combination" is a primitive form of telescope since the pinhole could substitute for a converging lens and the "microscope" behind the screen could be a powerful "magnifying glass", the combination of the two forming a crude telescope. The external "macro-Universe" is therefore converted to a "micro-Universe". Depending on how we view this ensemble we might consider the image as either an examination of the ultra small or an examination of the ultra large. It depends on our overall awareness of how much of the optical system we are considering.
.. Click to enlarge...
This process is based on Fourier transforms... we forget that this is a deep secret of our Universe... The DSE is not the result of single pinhole diffraction but the information of the two single pinholes is "encoded" in the Double Slit Interference Experiment of Young.
But the interesting fact is the information does not "proceed" directly from the space we are examining but from much further away. In this case the stars. People are not consciously aware of this inversion of scale and conversion between ordinary space and reciprocal space but it is what I would like to call this discussion to examine very carefully so we fully understand this "Holographic" process and the way these scales invert spontaneously on examination. Admittedly this is a contrived example but consider if everything is holographic ... right down to the images we see "in the dark rooms" of the sub-atomic universe.
QUOTE (Auguries of Innocence+)
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
~~ William Blake, November 28, 1757 – August 21, 1827
Cheers
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
~~ William Blake, November 28, 1757 – August 21, 1827
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 29 2007, 04:15 PM)
Regardless of how cleaver the arrangement, any way of localizing the electron sufficiently to determine "which way" information would destroy any chance of an interference pattern.
Good Elf,
Like I said in the conversation with C2. Perhaps the result of the experiment I proposed would be that if we would be able to calculate the paths/momentums of the electrons which made an interference pattern of hits on the laser wall by using the informations mentioned in proposal, and if QM is unavoidable, then every calculated path/momentum of any of the electrons which made an interference pattern of hits on the laser wall would be the same one. The line between the two slits to the every hit in an interference pattern.
Would it be interesting to conduct such a experiment and to get such a result/s which confirms QM in a novel ( I assume ) manner ? Or to get, hopefully, something surprisingly "wrong" ?
Of course, judging from the comments so far my prediction is the most probably a wrong one, and in this proposed set up for DS an interference would be destroyed, as you said. Nevertheless I would be curious to see the results of the experiment, and there is actually the simple way to test the validity of this particular proposal. The crucial assumption is that it would be possible, in principle, to deduce/calculate the momentums/paths of the electrons from the pieces of information mentioned in the proposal. If the crucial assumption is valid that the simple way to conduct this experiment is a following one.
First we run the DS for an electrons, one by one regime of releasing from an electron gun. But just with the laser wall. And , I assume, we would see the pattern of hits on the laser wall to be an interference pattern of hits. As I understand that finding would not violate QM.
Now we run the experiment for the second time but now with the real detection screen placed closely behind the laser wall.
If in this particular set up an interference would disappear on the laser wall just because the detection screen was placed behind the laser wall, then there is no need to bother with designing the mathematics needed to calculate the paths/momentum in the sense mentioned in the proposal.
But if an interference would not disappear from the laser wall even after we added the real detection screen closely behind the laser wall , then we have , at least, the experiment which would confirm QM in another novel manner.
Or if we are lucky something would get wrong in the surprising manner
(Edit)This would be even simpler ( read better ) experiment than A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser if an interference would disappeared after adding the real detection screen behind the laser wall. In this case we have no two splitted photons and entanglement to help them. In this case we would have only one electron which can predict a future in front of him ( the real detection plate ), and which knows mathematics intuitively.
Almost like Nostradamus on a steroids.
(Edit two) And even more interesting situation would be if an interference would disappeared after adding the real detection screen behind the laser while the "the crucial assumption" I mentioned above would not be satisfied, that is, when we would be unable to design the mathematics needed to calculated the paths/momentums of the electrons used in the experiment from the pieces of the information mentioned in the proposal. IN this case an electron can predict a future and it knows mathematic better than us.
Anton
Hi mate, laserlight, Confused2, quantum, janrinze, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
I assume that this "laser wall" is some kind of detection system that assists in determining the paths of electrons. Actually it is not possible for me to understand your setup with such an imprecise term as "laser wall". What is its purpose and what do you really mean? Could you tell me please?
Cheers
I assume that this "laser wall" is some kind of detection system that assists in determining the paths of electrons. Actually it is not possible for me to understand your setup with such an imprecise term as "laser wall". What is its purpose and what do you really mean? Could you tell me please?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 30 2007, 02:11 PM)
Hi mate, laserlight, Confused2, quantum, janrinze, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
I assume that this "laser wall" is some kind of detection system that assists in determining the paths of electrons. Actually it is not possible for me to understand your setup with such an imprecise term as "laser wall". What is its purpose and what do you really mean? Could you tell me please?
Cheers
Good Elf,
the laser wall is indeed imagined as kind of a detection system. But only when it is combined with the real detection plate/screen behind the laser wall. The laser wall by itself would not give , I think, a sufficient information with which we would be able to deduce/calculate the path/momentum of a particular electron which hit the laser wall.
But when we have an information about which particular laser beam particular electron hit , and where on that particular laser beam that particular electron hit, and when we also have an information where particular electron hit the real detection screen after that particular electron passed through that laser beam ( or where that particular electron hit, possibly, another laser beam before finally hitting the real detection screen, depends is there one or two lines of laser beams ) , and when we have an information where a photon hit by that particular electron hit the real detection screen ( or what else happened with that photon ) , then, I assume, we would have a combined information sufficient to deduce/calculate with which path/momentum that particular electron hit the laser wall.
I initially imagined the laser wall to be made by double line ( perhaps would only one line be sufficient ) of vertically pointed laser beams. Front line from one color and back line from other color. Again , perhaps one line of vertically pointed laser beams would be sufficient if a double line would disturb an interference.
So, the laser wall would "play" the real detection screen in the classic arrangement of DS for electrons.
I assume that if we would conduct the DS for an electrons in this arrangement when the line made from the vertically pointed laser beams would "play" the detection screen from the classic arrangement, that an interference pattern would be recorded ( or it is better to say noticed ) on the laser wall.
If that is the case then we can then add in the experiment the real detection screen in the fashion I wrote in the previous post.
Anton
I assume that this "laser wall" is some kind of detection system that assists in determining the paths of electrons. Actually it is not possible for me to understand your setup with such an imprecise term as "laser wall". What is its purpose and what do you really mean? Could you tell me please?
Cheers
Good Elf,
the laser wall is indeed imagined as kind of a detection system. But only when it is combined with the real detection plate/screen behind the laser wall. The laser wall by itself would not give , I think, a sufficient information with which we would be able to deduce/calculate the path/momentum of a particular electron which hit the laser wall.
But when we have an information about which particular laser beam particular electron hit , and where on that particular laser beam that particular electron hit, and when we also have an information where particular electron hit the real detection screen after that particular electron passed through that laser beam ( or where that particular electron hit, possibly, another laser beam before finally hitting the real detection screen, depends is there one or two lines of laser beams ) , and when we have an information where a photon hit by that particular electron hit the real detection screen ( or what else happened with that photon ) , then, I assume, we would have a combined information sufficient to deduce/calculate with which path/momentum that particular electron hit the laser wall.
I initially imagined the laser wall to be made by double line ( perhaps would only one line be sufficient ) of vertically pointed laser beams. Front line from one color and back line from other color. Again , perhaps one line of vertically pointed laser beams would be sufficient if a double line would disturb an interference.
So, the laser wall would "play" the real detection screen in the classic arrangement of DS for electrons.
I assume that if we would conduct the DS for an electrons in this arrangement when the line made from the vertically pointed laser beams would "play" the detection screen from the classic arrangement, that an interference pattern would be recorded ( or it is better to say noticed ) on the laser wall.
If that is the case then we can then add in the experiment the real detection screen in the fashion I wrote in the previous post.
Anton
QUOTE (Mate+Apr 30 2007, 02:58 PM)
Good Elf,
the laser wall is indeed imagined as kind of a detection system. But only when it is combined with the real detection plate/screen behind the laser wall. The laser wall by itself would not give , I think, a sufficient information with which we would be able to deduce/calculate the path/momentum of a particular electron which hit the laser wall.
But when we have an information about which particular laser beam particular electron hit , and where on that particular laser beam that particular electron hit, and when we also have an information where particular electron hit the real detection screen after that particular electron passed through that laser beam ( or where that particular electron hit, possibly, another laser beam before finally hitting the real detection screen, depends is there one or two lines of laser beams ) , and when we have an information where a photon hit by that particular electron hit the real detection screen ( or what else happened with that photon ) , then, I assume, we would have a combined information sufficient to deduce/calculate with which path/momentum that particular electron hit the laser wall.
I initially imagined the laser wall to be made by double line ( perhaps would only one line be sufficient ) of vertically pointed laser beams. Front line from one color and back line from other color. Again , perhaps one line of vertically pointed laser beams would be sufficient if a double line would disturb an interference.
So, the laser wall would "play" the real detection screen in the classic arrangement of DS for electrons.
I assume that if we would conduct the DS for an electrons in this arrangement when the line made from the vertically pointed laser beams would "play" the detection screen from the classic arrangement, that an interference pattern would be recorded ( or it is better to say noticed ) on the laser wall.
If that is the case then we can then add in the experiment the real detection screen in the fashion I wrote in the previous post.
Anton
Hi Mate,
Just what do you expect to observe? An electron passing thru a beam of light
will not provide any visible indication.....there are atoms of air naturally moving
thru the laser beam and they will not have any significant effect on photons in
the beam even at their relatively large size so why will an electron, which is
tiny by comparison to an atom, have any measurable effect or provide
some "signature" of it's passing thru the laser beam?
Comments welcome,
LL
the laser wall is indeed imagined as kind of a detection system. But only when it is combined with the real detection plate/screen behind the laser wall. The laser wall by itself would not give , I think, a sufficient information with which we would be able to deduce/calculate the path/momentum of a particular electron which hit the laser wall.
But when we have an information about which particular laser beam particular electron hit , and where on that particular laser beam that particular electron hit, and when we also have an information where particular electron hit the real detection screen after that particular electron passed through that laser beam ( or where that particular electron hit, possibly, another laser beam before finally hitting the real detection screen, depends is there one or two lines of laser beams ) , and when we have an information where a photon hit by that particular electron hit the real detection screen ( or what else happened with that photon ) , then, I assume, we would have a combined information sufficient to deduce/calculate with which path/momentum that particular electron hit the laser wall.
I initially imagined the laser wall to be made by double line ( perhaps would only one line be sufficient ) of vertically pointed laser beams. Front line from one color and back line from other color. Again , perhaps one line of vertically pointed laser beams would be sufficient if a double line would disturb an interference.
So, the laser wall would "play" the real detection screen in the classic arrangement of DS for electrons.
I assume that if we would conduct the DS for an electrons in this arrangement when the line made from the vertically pointed laser beams would "play" the detection screen from the classic arrangement, that an interference pattern would be recorded ( or it is better to say noticed ) on the laser wall.
If that is the case then we can then add in the experiment the real detection screen in the fashion I wrote in the previous post.
Anton
Hi Mate,
Just what do you expect to observe? An electron passing thru a beam of light
will not provide any visible indication.....there are atoms of air naturally moving
thru the laser beam and they will not have any significant effect on photons in
the beam even at their relatively large size so why will an electron, which is
tiny by comparison to an atom, have any measurable effect or provide
some "signature" of it's passing thru the laser beam?
Comments welcome,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+Apr 30 2007, 06:43 PM)
Hi Mate,
Just what do you expect to observe? An electron passing thru a beam of light
will not provide any visible indication.....there are atoms of air naturally moving
thru the laser beam and they will not have any significant effect on photons in
the beam even at their relatively large size so why will an electron, which is
tiny by comparison to an atom, have any measurable effect or provide
some "signature" of it's passing thru the laser beam?
Comments welcome,
LL
LL,
well, I have been told that a photon of a high frequency, and those are in the laser beam of a high frequency, would change in interaction with an electron its ( electron's ) wave function enough to make a wave function of an electron to collapse.
I have been told incorrectly?
Anton
PS. Just to add that intensity of the chosen type of laser beam would also have to be of high intensity. So, laser beam of the high frequency and intensity.
(Edit) Also, if an electron passing through the laser beam would interact with a photon in the manner that photon would increase an energy of an electron, and if that electron then release that photon, would that be detectable?
Just what do you expect to observe? An electron passing thru a beam of light
will not provide any visible indication.....there are atoms of air naturally moving
thru the laser beam and they will not have any significant effect on photons in
the beam even at their relatively large size so why will an electron, which is
tiny by comparison to an atom, have any measurable effect or provide
some "signature" of it's passing thru the laser beam?
Comments welcome,
LL
LL,
well, I have been told that a photon of a high frequency, and those are in the laser beam of a high frequency, would change in interaction with an electron its ( electron's ) wave function enough to make a wave function of an electron to collapse.
I have been told incorrectly?
Anton
PS. Just to add that intensity of the chosen type of laser beam would also have to be of high intensity. So, laser beam of the high frequency and intensity.
(Edit) Also, if an electron passing through the laser beam would interact with a photon in the manner that photon would increase an energy of an electron, and if that electron then release that photon, would that be detectable?
QUOTE (Mate+Apr 30 2007, 07:15 PM)
LL,
well, I have been told that a photon of a high frequency, and those are in the laser beam of a high frequency, would change in interaction with an electron its ( electron's ) wave function enough to make a wave function of an electron to collapse.
I have been told incorrectly?
Anton
PS. Just to add that intensity of the chosen type of laser beam would also have to be of high intensity. So, laser beam of the high frequency and intensity.
(Edit) Also, if an electron passing through the laser beam would interact with a photon in the manner that photon would increase an energy of an electron, and if that electron then release that photon, would that be detectable?
Hi Mate,
An electron is a fermion with a net negative charge. A photon is a boson
with no net charge. I see no way for them to interact when there is no
"tuned" atomic dipole arrangement to act as a tuned antenna for EM interaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
LL
well, I have been told that a photon of a high frequency, and those are in the laser beam of a high frequency, would change in interaction with an electron its ( electron's ) wave function enough to make a wave function of an electron to collapse.
I have been told incorrectly?
Anton
PS. Just to add that intensity of the chosen type of laser beam would also have to be of high intensity. So, laser beam of the high frequency and intensity.
(Edit) Also, if an electron passing through the laser beam would interact with a photon in the manner that photon would increase an energy of an electron, and if that electron then release that photon, would that be detectable?
Hi Mate,
An electron is a fermion with a net negative charge. A photon is a boson
with no net charge. I see no way for them to interact when there is no
"tuned" atomic dipole arrangement to act as a tuned antenna for EM interaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
LL
Hi Mate (and the rest),
I also contemplated a form of 'laser wall' replacement for the detection plate but quickly rejected the idea since it would not be possible to measure the momentum with it. It would only result in the measurement of the interference pattern by means of photon/electron interaction.
For laserlight I have a question: What kind of dipole do you prefer? an electical dipole or a magnetic dipole? The electron is an electric monopole but surely a magnetic dipole?
Next to that there are enough examples of transferring momentum between photons and electrons i.i.r.c.
In all, the conservation of momentum may yield two distinct answers in a single electron DS experiment. Either we can (if Heisenberg permits) measure from the resulting momentum at the 'detection plane' the route which the electron took. Or the measured momentum will show that the electron came from the center between the two slits. I will discuss this with some peers at the Uni. Maybe we could even setup such an experiment. It might just prove nothing though.
For C2: if the wave packet could be seen as a gaussian envelope or any other shaped envelope modulated by the base frequency (or vice versa) then it might be mathematically possible to do the superposition of the wave packets. assuming no significant dispersion of the packet. the easiest way forward would be to do this only for the detection plane. So in fact the only major difference would be that the intensity would change over time since it includes only the two packets. The most interesting part would be where the packets arrive one after the other.. (Only possible with sufficiently short packets..) Have not done the math yet but I might find some time later this week. (or just check my books if it is already done.. its been a while.) integrating over time would give a rough idea of the power distribution over the plane or in terms of probability the chance of finding a collapsed wave (the electron) at a certain position.
Then again I could be way off with these notions of mine on QM...
Jan Rinze.
I also contemplated a form of 'laser wall' replacement for the detection plate but quickly rejected the idea since it would not be possible to measure the momentum with it. It would only result in the measurement of the interference pattern by means of photon/electron interaction.
For laserlight I have a question: What kind of dipole do you prefer? an electical dipole or a magnetic dipole? The electron is an electric monopole but surely a magnetic dipole?
Next to that there are enough examples of transferring momentum between photons and electrons i.i.r.c.
In all, the conservation of momentum may yield two distinct answers in a single electron DS experiment. Either we can (if Heisenberg permits) measure from the resulting momentum at the 'detection plane' the route which the electron took. Or the measured momentum will show that the electron came from the center between the two slits. I will discuss this with some peers at the Uni. Maybe we could even setup such an experiment. It might just prove nothing though.
For C2: if the wave packet could be seen as a gaussian envelope or any other shaped envelope modulated by the base frequency (or vice versa) then it might be mathematically possible to do the superposition of the wave packets. assuming no significant dispersion of the packet. the easiest way forward would be to do this only for the detection plane. So in fact the only major difference would be that the intensity would change over time since it includes only the two packets. The most interesting part would be where the packets arrive one after the other.. (Only possible with sufficiently short packets..) Have not done the math yet but I might find some time later this week. (or just check my books if it is already done.. its been a while.) integrating over time would give a rough idea of the power distribution over the plane or in terms of probability the chance of finding a collapsed wave (the electron) at a certain position.
Then again I could be way off with these notions of mine on QM...
Jan Rinze.
Hi Janrinze and All,
An electron's free flight trajectory and its atomic orbit and spin can be influenced
either by electric or magnetic fields of suitable intensity. I think that it is generally
accepted that the electrical component of a photon's EM field has the major
influence on the electron when it is aligned to form a "tuned" atomic dipole with its
nucleus. The atomic dipole must be sensitive/resonant to the frequency of the
photon EM fields applied to the dipole arrangement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
I'm assuming that you are proposing that an electron in free flight will be
influenced by the coherent EM field oscillations of a suitably intense laser beam.
How would you achieve electron "position" information using this technique?
LL
QUOTE
I also contemplated a form of 'laser wall' replacement for the detection plate but quickly rejected the idea since it would not be possible to measure the momentum with it. It would only result in the measurement of the interference pattern by means of photon/electron interaction.
For laserlight I have a question: What kind of dipole do you prefer? an electical dipole or a magnetic dipole? The electron is an electric monopole but surely a magnetic dipole?
Next to that there are enough examples of transferring momentum between photons and electrons i.i.r.c.
For laserlight I have a question: What kind of dipole do you prefer? an electical dipole or a magnetic dipole? The electron is an electric monopole but surely a magnetic dipole?
Next to that there are enough examples of transferring momentum between photons and electrons i.i.r.c.
An electron's free flight trajectory and its atomic orbit and spin can be influenced
either by electric or magnetic fields of suitable intensity. I think that it is generally
accepted that the electrical component of a photon's EM field has the major
influence on the electron when it is aligned to form a "tuned" atomic dipole with its
nucleus. The atomic dipole must be sensitive/resonant to the frequency of the
photon EM fields applied to the dipole arrangement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
I'm assuming that you are proposing that an electron in free flight will be
influenced by the coherent EM field oscillations of a suitably intense laser beam.
How would you achieve electron "position" information using this technique?
LL
Hi Laserlight,
We know that an accelerating electron emits EM radiation - since EM radiation is made up of photons we can say that an accelerating electron emits photons. If an accelerating electron emits photons then a photon will cause an electron to accelerate. Of course the electron may immediately emit the photon - whether this is good or bad I'm not sure.
A dipole emits/receives radiation (photons) preferentially at particular frequencies - since a photon can be of any frequency it would appear that any 'quantisation' must be the result of the geometry of the dipole (any other suggestions?). Is it possible that the ubiquity of the dipole is more a consequence of the fact that we normally want some form of frequency selectivity rather than some fundamental process that prevents anything that is not a dipole from responding to EM/photons?
Best wishes,
-C2.
We know that an accelerating electron emits EM radiation - since EM radiation is made up of photons we can say that an accelerating electron emits photons. If an accelerating electron emits photons then a photon will cause an electron to accelerate. Of course the electron may immediately emit the photon - whether this is good or bad I'm not sure.
A dipole emits/receives radiation (photons) preferentially at particular frequencies - since a photon can be of any frequency it would appear that any 'quantisation' must be the result of the geometry of the dipole (any other suggestions?). Is it possible that the ubiquity of the dipole is more a consequence of the fact that we normally want some form of frequency selectivity rather than some fundamental process that prevents anything that is not a dipole from responding to EM/photons?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi mate, laserlight, Confused2, quantum, janrinze, Jal, Neil Farbstein et al,
The scattering of a free electron by light is a case of Thompson Scattering when it is totally free in interstellar space. In that situation the electron is simply deviated from its trajectory by the event and the "speed" of the electron is unaltered. It does affect the polarization of the incident light.
Alternatively in "structured space" near an atom or in a condition of resonance, the electron will undergo Rayleigh Scattering where the wavelength of the light is affected by the event as well as the polarization. The electron will deviate in "speed" and direction.
The higher the frequency the more the effect. Obviously electrons require very high frequency photons to scatter in both cases simply because they are very small. The effects above are usually noted when we are discussing gas not electrons, which are larger targets.
Beyond this I am still thinking about it and I cannot comment.
Cheers
The scattering of a free electron by light is a case of Thompson Scattering when it is totally free in interstellar space. In that situation the electron is simply deviated from its trajectory by the event and the "speed" of the electron is unaltered. It does affect the polarization of the incident light.
Alternatively in "structured space" near an atom or in a condition of resonance, the electron will undergo Rayleigh Scattering where the wavelength of the light is affected by the event as well as the polarization. The electron will deviate in "speed" and direction.
The higher the frequency the more the effect. Obviously electrons require very high frequency photons to scatter in both cases simply because they are very small. The effects above are usually noted when we are discussing gas not electrons, which are larger targets.
Beyond this I am still thinking about it and I cannot comment.
Cheers
QUOTE (Confused2+May 1 2007, 09:33 AM)
Hi Laserlight,
We know that an accelerating electron emits EM radiation - since EM radiation is made up of photons we can say that an accelerating electron emits photons. If an accelerating electron emits photons then a photon will cause an electron to accelerate. Of course the electron may immediately emit the photon - whether this is good or bad I'm not sure.
A dipole emits/receives radiation (photons) preferentially at particular frequencies - since a photon can be of any frequency it would appear that any 'quantisation' must be the result of the geometry of the dipole (any other suggestions?). Is it possible that the ubiquity of the dipole is more a consequence of the fact that we normally want some form of frequency selectivity rather than some fundamental process that prevents anything that is not a dipole from responding to EM/photons?
Hi C2 and All,
I'm not sure that I agree with your postulation/comments regarding an electron
emitting photons. An electron that changes atomic quantum levels emits a photon
as it oscillates and falls to its "ground state" which is its lowest energy shell around
the nucleus of an atom. This photon release requires the synergy of both the
electron and the nucleus during the step function. I do agree that an electron
can be influenced by the EM fields of photons with sufficient energy and at the
right frequency.
As for the atomic dipole, it acts as a tuned cavity antenna that resonates at the
frequency of the photonic EM energy applied. This atomic arrangement has
relative +/- polarity relationship between the nucleus and the specific electron
as well as a specific atomic gap distance that is sensitive to the waveform
amplitude of the applied frequency. The potential energy available in this resonant
atomic tank circuit is selective to the frequency applied. The stimulated atom
"rings" at some harmonic frequency and the energy that is released on each
wave oscillation is a photon.
Basically, we have a linear tuned circuit that is resonant to a specific EM frequency
and the corresponding energy/amplitude level applied to it.
I still can't visualize or conceptualize how a free flying electron passing thru a
laser beam could indicate "which way" information at a remote detector.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
We know that an accelerating electron emits EM radiation - since EM radiation is made up of photons we can say that an accelerating electron emits photons. If an accelerating electron emits photons then a photon will cause an electron to accelerate. Of course the electron may immediately emit the photon - whether this is good or bad I'm not sure.
A dipole emits/receives radiation (photons) preferentially at particular frequencies - since a photon can be of any frequency it would appear that any 'quantisation' must be the result of the geometry of the dipole (any other suggestions?). Is it possible that the ubiquity of the dipole is more a consequence of the fact that we normally want some form of frequency selectivity rather than some fundamental process that prevents anything that is not a dipole from responding to EM/photons?
Hi C2 and All,
I'm not sure that I agree with your postulation/comments regarding an electron
emitting photons. An electron that changes atomic quantum levels emits a photon
as it oscillates and falls to its "ground state" which is its lowest energy shell around
the nucleus of an atom. This photon release requires the synergy of both the
electron and the nucleus during the step function. I do agree that an electron
can be influenced by the EM fields of photons with sufficient energy and at the
right frequency.
As for the atomic dipole, it acts as a tuned cavity antenna that resonates at the
frequency of the photonic EM energy applied. This atomic arrangement has
relative +/- polarity relationship between the nucleus and the specific electron
as well as a specific atomic gap distance that is sensitive to the waveform
amplitude of the applied frequency. The potential energy available in this resonant
atomic tank circuit is selective to the frequency applied. The stimulated atom
"rings" at some harmonic frequency and the energy that is released on each
wave oscillation is a photon.
Basically, we have a linear tuned circuit that is resonant to a specific EM frequency
and the corresponding energy/amplitude level applied to it.
I still can't visualize or conceptualize how a free flying electron passing thru a
laser beam could indicate "which way" information at a remote detector.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
you wrote:
I still can't visualize or conceptualize how a free flying electron passing thru a
laser beam could indicate "which way" information at a remote detector.
I wrote:
I wrote:
I also contemplated a form of 'laser wall' replacement for the detection plate but quickly rejected the idea since it would not be possible to measure the momentum with it. It would only result in the measurement of the interference pattern by means of photon/electron interaction.
Only momentum could give a clue about the "which way". I don't think that using a laserbeam could help retrieving that information.
In fact it should be noted that I merely try to figure out if it is at all possible to do a a posteriori measurement that could reveal the path taken. If it could be done then the question could be raised about how conservation of momentum works in the combination of wave mechanics versus particle mechanics.
Jan Rinze.
For Mate: I intend to discuss options for designing a setup that would enable the measurement of the momentum of electrons in the plane where the detectionplate would have been. Wheter such a setup would involve a laser remains to be seen.
the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Jan Rinze.
Jan and the rest,
my proposal is imagined for the purpose of enabling the measurement of the momentum of the single electron, one by one, in DS, while that single electron travels in the momentum with which is hitting the detection plane in the interference pattern.
Can you or anyone else here tell me what is wrong with my proposal?
Let me repeat the idea in other words.
With previous runs of the DS for electrons ( as it is described in the last version of the proposal ) it is recorded where are the fringes on the detection plate where the electrons hit the detection plate in the interference pattern.
"The hole" is made on the detection plate somewhere inside fringe with hits of the interference pattern. The hole is wider than collapsed electron so when some electron would be eventually passing through the hole there is no diffraction. The detection plate is as thinner as possible. Closely behind that detection plate is another classic, full detection plate.
Just in front ( as closer as it is possible ) of the hole is the only laser beam pointed vertically. The purpose of that laser beam is to collapse an electron before that electron would eventually pass through the hole to hit the classic full detection plate which is behind.
If this would work than we would have recorded two "points" of the trajectory of that particular electron which passed through the hole. One "point" of that electron's trajectory is the hole itself ( or more precisely just in front of the hole where the laser beam collapsed that electron ), and another point of that electron's trajectory
is where exactly that electron hit the full detection plate behind the hole.
If we have recorded that electron passing through those two points ( which position of those points is known, exactly ) the question is this.
Is it possible from that information to calculate the momentum with which that electron approached the first point, the hole? Even after we included into the calculation eventual effect of scattering or eventual affect of the laser beam on the approaching momentum of that electron?
If answer on these question is yes, why do not conduct the experiment as it proposed ( with some eventually more or less minor modifications if needed) ?
Anton
This part I unintentionally left as the quote in the previous post.
Then , after I posted previous post, I went to do something else, and after I came back now I cannot edit my post any more. I guess the forum system allows editing in some limited time period which I apparently exceeded.
Just to clear that.
Anton
I have a bit of a philosophical disagreement regarding your simplified wording of
the classical interpretation of the dynamics of a wave. IMO, a wave is a
propagating displacement of energy across a "medium" (I know this concept will
be disputed) that is sustained by complementary and mutually
regenerative balanced orthogonal forces that sustain the energy transport
mechanism.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi LL,
There is a slight difference with a harmonic oscillator and an (infinite) set of coupled harmonic oscillators. The first can be seen as the equivalence of a pendulum and the second as a row of coupled pendula. The latter is easier illustrated when using the analogy of an elastic string. With the pendulum gravity and motion energy are interchanged and with the string it is the elastic and motion energy that interchange.
To my opinion this is still pretty straight forward. A travelling wave packet is not different from this. The fact that the energy travels with the packet is merely related to the energy in either type of energy. Maybe I am missing something in this picture but this still is pretty much all there is to waves.. It can be mathematically described by the differential equations like dE1 = f(E2) and dE2 = f(E1) where f is usually a linear formula. With a string this would be (in simplified terms) for example E1= 1/2 m v^2 and E2 = C . dx^2 where dx is the small relative replacement between the parts of the string, C is the spring constant and v is the lateral speed of the part of the string. evaluating this further shows Dx = dt * (v1-v2) or whatever method of substitution you might prefer to solve this for all the parts of the string. Integration of E1 and E2 over the lenght of the string should give the total energy of the wavepacket moving through the string.
I am not sure if I need to elaborate futher in this to illustrate my point.
(after reading this I noticed that I took the energy as a base for the differential equation whereas forces are probably more logical.. nevertheless, it been a while since I did this kind of excercise :-) )
Jan Rinze.
you wrote:
QUOTE
I still can't visualize or conceptualize how a free flying electron passing thru a
laser beam could indicate "which way" information at a remote detector.
I wrote:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I still can't visualize or conceptualize how a free flying electron passing thru a laser beam could indicate "which way" information at a remote detector. |
I wrote:
I also contemplated a form of 'laser wall' replacement for the detection plate but quickly rejected the idea since it would not be possible to measure the momentum with it. It would only result in the measurement of the interference pattern by means of photon/electron interaction.
Only momentum could give a clue about the "which way". I don't think that using a laserbeam could help retrieving that information.
In fact it should be noted that I merely try to figure out if it is at all possible to do a a posteriori measurement that could reveal the path taken. If it could be done then the question could be raised about how conservation of momentum works in the combination of wave mechanics versus particle mechanics.
Jan Rinze.
Jan and the rest,
from the comments so far it seems that this proposed set up of mine for the experiment carries, implies lot off difficulties. If I understood you Jan you will nevertheless possibly try this set up after consultation with your colleagues, right?
Anyway, in the meantime I thought a bit how to simplify this proposal in the context of The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, while avoiding any mathematics like my life depends on that. : )
And I think that I generally simplified and developed the idea a bit further.
Let us say that we have conducted the classic DS for a single electron. And we chose the type of the classic set up which would give the most distinct fringes of an interference pattern. We have recorded where exactly those interference fringes where on the detection screen.
Now, we made another detection screen and we put that detection screen on the same place as the first detection screen was placed in the first run of the experiment. And we should get the same interference pattern of fringes like in the first run.
But our second detection screen is a bit different. It is build in a such manner that where was a fringe with the recorded hits of an interference pattern in the first run, now where that "strap" was, is a line of vertically pointed laser beams of the high frequency and intensity. And where was a fringe with no recored hits of an interference pattern in the first run, now it is a "strap" made of the classical detection screen.-
So, we have the detection screen placed on the same place as in the first run , but our second detection screen is made of alternating "straps" of a lines of the laser beams and classic detection screen.
Now we conduct the experiment again and , I assume, we would not detect any hit on the straps made of classical detection screen because every electrons would pass through the straps made from laser beams, where fringes with hits were in the first run. An interference pattern.
Now we add full classical detection screen closely behind this alternating detection screen and we conduct the experiment again.
If it is now possible to calculate the paths of the electron used in the experiment, and if QM rules forever, then an interference pattern ought to disappear in this third set up of the experiment, and that we would notice by hits on the straps of alternating detection scree, which are made by classic detection screen.
An interference disappeared.
Which would imply that the electrons used in the third run of the experiment "knew" somehow that their momentums can be calculated by using an informations collected from laser beams and the full classic detection screen behind.
Which situation would, seems to me, be even more interesting and intriguing finding than The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser because there is no entanglement in this instance but just the electron/s which can predict future in front of them, that is, the full detection screen closely behind the alternating detection screen.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND, an interference would not disappear after we added the full classic detection screen behind the alternating one, that is, there is still no hit on the straps made of classic detection screen , then we could do this.
We made another detection screen. Now we made the alternating detection screen but only with one laser beam in the place where electron hits in an interference pattern ( or maybe a bit more, matter of evaluation), and the rest of that new alliterating detection is made of classical detection screen. And behind such a new arranged alternating detection screen we left the full classic detection screen.
Now we run the experiment for the fourth time. And we wait when would one electron pass the only one laser beam, to proceed to hit the full detection screen behind
(that laser beam must collapse an electron passing for this to work. )
And now we could calculate, I assume, the path of that particular electron which passed through slits, through the only laser beam, to hit the full screen behind.
Even better would be if we would be able to make just one hole (somewhere inside of hit fringes of an interference pattern ) in the new alternating detection screen through which would an electron pass to hit the full detection screen behind. A such a hole would also has to be a light "barrier" in order to collapse the electron which would passing through to hit the full detection screen behind.
(Edit) "The only laser beam" and "the hole" would have to be wider, bigger than the electron after collapse to avoid any diffraction)
(Edit two) We could place the only laser beam which would be pointed vertically and which would be just in the front of "the hole". In such a case perhaps the only laser beam would collapse that electron just before an electron passed through the hole to hit the full detection screen behind.)
Anton
from the comments so far it seems that this proposed set up of mine for the experiment carries, implies lot off difficulties. If I understood you Jan you will nevertheless possibly try this set up after consultation with your colleagues, right?
Anyway, in the meantime I thought a bit how to simplify this proposal in the context of The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, while avoiding any mathematics like my life depends on that. : )
And I think that I generally simplified and developed the idea a bit further.
Let us say that we have conducted the classic DS for a single electron. And we chose the type of the classic set up which would give the most distinct fringes of an interference pattern. We have recorded where exactly those interference fringes where on the detection screen.
Now, we made another detection screen and we put that detection screen on the same place as the first detection screen was placed in the first run of the experiment. And we should get the same interference pattern of fringes like in the first run.
But our second detection screen is a bit different. It is build in a such manner that where was a fringe with the recorded hits of an interference pattern in the first run, now where that "strap" was, is a line of vertically pointed laser beams of the high frequency and intensity. And where was a fringe with no recored hits of an interference pattern in the first run, now it is a "strap" made of the classical detection screen.-
So, we have the detection screen placed on the same place as in the first run , but our second detection screen is made of alternating "straps" of a lines of the laser beams and classic detection screen.
Now we conduct the experiment again and , I assume, we would not detect any hit on the straps made of classical detection screen because every electrons would pass through the straps made from laser beams, where fringes with hits were in the first run. An interference pattern.
Now we add full classical detection screen closely behind this alternating detection screen and we conduct the experiment again.
If it is now possible to calculate the paths of the electron used in the experiment, and if QM rules forever, then an interference pattern ought to disappear in this third set up of the experiment, and that we would notice by hits on the straps of alternating detection scree, which are made by classic detection screen.
An interference disappeared.
Which would imply that the electrons used in the third run of the experiment "knew" somehow that their momentums can be calculated by using an informations collected from laser beams and the full classic detection screen behind.
Which situation would, seems to me, be even more interesting and intriguing finding than The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser because there is no entanglement in this instance but just the electron/s which can predict future in front of them, that is, the full detection screen closely behind the alternating detection screen.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND, an interference would not disappear after we added the full classic detection screen behind the alternating one, that is, there is still no hit on the straps made of classic detection screen , then we could do this.
We made another detection screen. Now we made the alternating detection screen but only with one laser beam in the place where electron hits in an interference pattern ( or maybe a bit more, matter of evaluation), and the rest of that new alliterating detection is made of classical detection screen. And behind such a new arranged alternating detection screen we left the full classic detection screen.
Now we run the experiment for the fourth time. And we wait when would one electron pass the only one laser beam, to proceed to hit the full detection screen behind
(that laser beam must collapse an electron passing for this to work. )
And now we could calculate, I assume, the path of that particular electron which passed through slits, through the only laser beam, to hit the full screen behind.
Even better would be if we would be able to make just one hole (somewhere inside of hit fringes of an interference pattern ) in the new alternating detection screen through which would an electron pass to hit the full detection screen behind. A such a hole would also has to be a light "barrier" in order to collapse the electron which would passing through to hit the full detection screen behind.
(Edit) "The only laser beam" and "the hole" would have to be wider, bigger than the electron after collapse to avoid any diffraction)
(Edit two) We could place the only laser beam which would be pointed vertically and which would be just in the front of "the hole". In such a case perhaps the only laser beam would collapse that electron just before an electron passed through the hole to hit the full detection screen behind.)
Anton
Hello all
A laser cavity will have nodes and anti-nodes within it. If the laser wall had such a cavity then the question arises as to could these nodes act as a diffraction grating to the incoming electrons. Put the laser wall at right angles to the slits and see if the "laser grating" can determine which slit the electron came through.
Just some thoughts
A laser cavity will have nodes and anti-nodes within it. If the laser wall had such a cavity then the question arises as to could these nodes act as a diffraction grating to the incoming electrons. Put the laser wall at right angles to the slits and see if the "laser grating" can determine which slit the electron came through.
Just some thoughts
Mate,
What is the difference between your proposed setup and just varying the detection
screen distance from the slits? The pattern gaps will change with screen distance.
See the applet attached. Play with the slit gap and distance from the screen
by dragging them to new locations and observe the interference pattern on the screen.
Interference is a consequence of waves interacting, how do you get "which slit"
information from a wavefront that passes thru both slits?
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
Comments,
LL
What is the difference between your proposed setup and just varying the detection
screen distance from the slits? The pattern gaps will change with screen distance.
See the applet attached. Play with the slit gap and distance from the screen
by dragging them to new locations and observe the interference pattern on the screen.
Interference is a consequence of waves interacting, how do you get "which slit"
information from a wavefront that passes thru both slits?
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
Comments,
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+May 1 2007, 06:04 PM)
Mate,
What is the difference between your proposed setup and just varying the detection
screen distance from the slits? The pattern gaps will change with screen distance.
See the applet attached. Play with the slit gap and distance from the screen
by dragging them to new locations and observe the interference pattern on the screen.
Interference is a consequence of waves interacting, how do you get "which slit"
information from a wavefront that passes thru both slits?
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
Comments,
LL
LL,
what varying the detection screen distance? The first detection screen remains on the same place in all of the three possible arrangements. Also, in this set up we would either, possibly, get the same/similar results as in The Delay Choice, and all that with simpler set up, no entanglement and with the one electron propagating. Which makes worthy to try this proposed set up just for that possible outcome.
Regarding "wave" part of the question. If an electron has been recorded passed through two distinct and distant points perhaps ( I am not sure ) is possible to deduce/calculate with which momentum/path that electron approached the first "point".
Now you ask how you can calculate which slit information if an electron as a wave front passed through boths slits.
If that is really the case ( and it is not that that particular notion of an electron pasing through both slits is consider unquestionable by all ) I assume that calculated momentum/path would be the line between the slits. If that would be the result then that is another confirmation of QM, Copenhagen style.
What we ( I ) are hoping is that something surprisingly happens. To check that possibility the experiment would have to be conducted.
Anton
What is the difference between your proposed setup and just varying the detection
screen distance from the slits? The pattern gaps will change with screen distance.
See the applet attached. Play with the slit gap and distance from the screen
by dragging them to new locations and observe the interference pattern on the screen.
Interference is a consequence of waves interacting, how do you get "which slit"
information from a wavefront that passes thru both slits?
http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm
Comments,
LL
LL,
what varying the detection screen distance? The first detection screen remains on the same place in all of the three possible arrangements. Also, in this set up we would either, possibly, get the same/similar results as in The Delay Choice, and all that with simpler set up, no entanglement and with the one electron propagating. Which makes worthy to try this proposed set up just for that possible outcome.
Regarding "wave" part of the question. If an electron has been recorded passed through two distinct and distant points perhaps ( I am not sure ) is possible to deduce/calculate with which momentum/path that electron approached the first "point".
Now you ask how you can calculate which slit information if an electron as a wave front passed through boths slits.
If that is really the case ( and it is not that that particular notion of an electron pasing through both slits is consider unquestionable by all ) I assume that calculated momentum/path would be the line between the slits. If that would be the result then that is another confirmation of QM, Copenhagen style.
What we ( I ) are hoping is that something surprisingly happens. To check that possibility the experiment would have to be conducted.
Anton
Hi Mate,
What I was proposing was that by simply moving the detection screen position
relative to a fixed reference point that you can plot any trajectory by plotting
the varying positions of the nodes or antinodes of the interference patterns that
change as the position of the screen moves. Of course this wouldn't work
for a single electron event if you were attempting to track an individual
trajectory.
LL
QUOTE
what varying the detection screen distance? The first detection screen remains on the same place in all of the three possible arrangements. Also, in this set up we would either, possibly, get the same/similar results as in The Delay Choice, and all that with simpler set up, no entanglement and with the one electron propagating. Which makes worthy to try this proposed set up just for that possible outcome.
What I was proposing was that by simply moving the detection screen position
relative to a fixed reference point that you can plot any trajectory by plotting
the varying positions of the nodes or antinodes of the interference patterns that
change as the position of the screen moves. Of course this wouldn't work
for a single electron event if you were attempting to track an individual
trajectory.
LL
QUOTE (Laserlight+May 1 2007, 06:52 PM)
Hi Mate,
What I was proposing was that by simply moving the detection screen position
relative to a fixed reference point that you can plot any trajectory by plotting
the varying positions of the nodes or antinodes of the interference patterns that
change as the position of the screen moves. Of course this wouldn't work
for a single electron event if you were attempting to track an individual
trajectory.
LL
LL,
yes, the set up I am proposing is imagined for the purpose of determining the sole electron trajectory, one by one which would, eventually hopefully, passed through the only laser beam or the hole. As it is described conceptually in the today post.
Anton
What I was proposing was that by simply moving the detection screen position
relative to a fixed reference point that you can plot any trajectory by plotting
the varying positions of the nodes or antinodes of the interference patterns that
change as the position of the screen moves. Of course this wouldn't work
for a single electron event if you were attempting to track an individual
trajectory.
LL
LL,
yes, the set up I am proposing is imagined for the purpose of determining the sole electron trajectory, one by one which would, eventually hopefully, passed through the only laser beam or the hole. As it is described conceptually in the today post.
Anton
Thinking of the experiment in terms of fractals seems to provide an intuitive explanation for the interference pattern and decoherence. A fractal has wave like characteristics and is self referential. This memory would allow it to interfere with itself. It would also explain the wave function collapse since observing it would disrupt the pattern.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Did some research and the fractal interpretation can explain pretty much everything but entanglement. I'll give a proper description after I've gotten some sleep.
QUOTE (Wulf+May 2 2007, 10:32 AM)
Did some research and the fractal interpretation can explain pretty much everything but entanglement. I'll give a proper description after I've gotten some sleep.
Only AWT interpretation of physics based on Newtonian mechanic can supply the physical interpretation of quantum physics. The fractal character is the result of this mechanics, not vice versa.
Only AWT interpretation of physics based on Newtonian mechanic can supply the physical interpretation of quantum physics. The fractal character is the result of this mechanics, not vice versa.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 2 2007, 12:37 PM)
Only AWT interpretation of physics based on Newtonian mechanic can supply the physical interpretation of quantum physics. The fractal character is the result of this mechanics, not vice versa.
I'm not sure how you figure there is a conflict. Waves and aggregate paths have been proven to be equivalent in QM. Either way a self referential random walk would be equivalent.
I'm not sure how you figure there is a conflict. Waves and aggregate paths have been proven to be equivalent in QM. Either way a self referential random walk would be equivalent.
Hi All,
after reading some post again I noticed there is a two way split in this thread in the past few posts. I did not see any reference to a failure of understanding the interference patterns resulting from wave-packets before the post of Wulf.
To my understanding did the mathematics of fractals evolve after the mathematics for the now well established wave mechanics. Any transformation to a Hilbert-space (mostly like a Fourier transformation when we talk about waves) helps when we want to increase our level of understanding about energy distributions or the like. Transforming to fractal geometry could be interesting but I cannot see how it would simplify the way it describes wave interference.
The response of Zephir baffles me since it states something I have no idea what it is about. AWT is not QM so why would it explain QM in the first place? The mathematics for waves are pretty straight forward and need a bit of knowledge about complex mathematics but that should be first year Uni stuff. The particle wave duality seems to be mutually exclusive in the DS experiment which is counter-intuitive to human perception. This can either be accepted as a fact or lead to an improved model which combines the two and describes how these manifest under different circumstances.
My personal preference lies at the second part and it might lead to a more profound understanding of the fundamental underlying physics. As with the need for a physical interpretation things are still much beyond our comprehension since we appear to try and project QM effects onto everyday life experience.
The current state of QM seems to be very adequate in predicting the measured results of DS experiments and many other. Taking QM as a starting point makes more sense to me in a scientific manner. I have not studied QM enough to make assumptions about it but I hope that over time I will be able to understand the extent of its implications enough to get a clearer picture of the domain where particles and waves meet.
For Mate: I intend to discuss options for designing a setup that would enable the measurement of the momentum of electrons in the plane where the detectionplate would have been. Wheter such a setup would involve a laser remains to be seen.
For Wulf: Any documentation on how fractals could make life easier in these parts would be welcome. The only thing I could come up with would be wavelets. They however do not 'explain' any QM effect in my opinion but merely expand wave theory in a temporal domain.
Lastly I would like to mention that waves in a classical sense are the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Jan Rinze.
after reading some post again I noticed there is a two way split in this thread in the past few posts. I did not see any reference to a failure of understanding the interference patterns resulting from wave-packets before the post of Wulf.
To my understanding did the mathematics of fractals evolve after the mathematics for the now well established wave mechanics. Any transformation to a Hilbert-space (mostly like a Fourier transformation when we talk about waves) helps when we want to increase our level of understanding about energy distributions or the like. Transforming to fractal geometry could be interesting but I cannot see how it would simplify the way it describes wave interference.
The response of Zephir baffles me since it states something I have no idea what it is about. AWT is not QM so why would it explain QM in the first place? The mathematics for waves are pretty straight forward and need a bit of knowledge about complex mathematics but that should be first year Uni stuff. The particle wave duality seems to be mutually exclusive in the DS experiment which is counter-intuitive to human perception. This can either be accepted as a fact or lead to an improved model which combines the two and describes how these manifest under different circumstances.
My personal preference lies at the second part and it might lead to a more profound understanding of the fundamental underlying physics. As with the need for a physical interpretation things are still much beyond our comprehension since we appear to try and project QM effects onto everyday life experience.
The current state of QM seems to be very adequate in predicting the measured results of DS experiments and many other. Taking QM as a starting point makes more sense to me in a scientific manner. I have not studied QM enough to make assumptions about it but I hope that over time I will be able to understand the extent of its implications enough to get a clearer picture of the domain where particles and waves meet.
For Mate: I intend to discuss options for designing a setup that would enable the measurement of the momentum of electrons in the plane where the detectionplate would have been. Wheter such a setup would involve a laser remains to be seen.
For Wulf: Any documentation on how fractals could make life easier in these parts would be welcome. The only thing I could come up with would be wavelets. They however do not 'explain' any QM effect in my opinion but merely expand wave theory in a temporal domain.
Lastly I would like to mention that waves in a classical sense are the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Jan Rinze.
HI Jan,
Since some are a relative newcomers to this board you and others have missed
much excellent discussion regarding wave dynamics, harmonics, QM, QED, surface
effects, and numerous other topics related to this subject. There is not much that
has not been explored and discussed, IMO. The topic of fractals is new but
from my limited knowledge on the subject is not germane to the predictable
results of the DSE.
I have a bit of a philosophical disagreement regarding your simplified wording of
the classical interpretation of the dynamics of a wave. IMO, a wave is a
propagating displacement of energy across a "medium" (I know this concept will
be disputed) that is sustained by complementary and mutually
regenerative balanced orthogonal forces that sustain the energy transport
mechanism.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE
For Wulf: Any documentation on how fractals could make life easier in these parts would be welcome. The only thing I could come up with would be wavelets. They however do not 'explain' any QM effect in my opinion but merely expand wave theory in a temporal domain.
Lastly I would like to mention that waves in a classical sense are the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Lastly I would like to mention that waves in a classical sense are the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Since some are a relative newcomers to this board you and others have missed
much excellent discussion regarding wave dynamics, harmonics, QM, QED, surface
effects, and numerous other topics related to this subject. There is not much that
has not been explored and discussed, IMO. The topic of fractals is new but
from my limited knowledge on the subject is not germane to the predictable
results of the DSE.
I have a bit of a philosophical disagreement regarding your simplified wording of
the classical interpretation of the dynamics of a wave. IMO, a wave is a
propagating displacement of energy across a "medium" (I know this concept will
be disputed) that is sustained by complementary and mutually
regenerative balanced orthogonal forces that sustain the energy transport
mechanism.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
QUOTE (janrinze+May 2 2007, 10:55 PM)
For Mate: I intend to discuss options for designing a setup that would enable the measurement of the momentum of electrons in the plane where the detectionplate would have been. Wheter such a setup would involve a laser remains to be seen.
the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Jan Rinze.
Jan and the rest,
my proposal is imagined for the purpose of enabling the measurement of the momentum of the single electron, one by one, in DS, while that single electron travels in the momentum with which is hitting the detection plane in the interference pattern.
Can you or anyone else here tell me what is wrong with my proposal?
Let me repeat the idea in other words.
With previous runs of the DS for electrons ( as it is described in the last version of the proposal ) it is recorded where are the fringes on the detection plate where the electrons hit the detection plate in the interference pattern.
"The hole" is made on the detection plate somewhere inside fringe with hits of the interference pattern. The hole is wider than collapsed electron so when some electron would be eventually passing through the hole there is no diffraction. The detection plate is as thinner as possible. Closely behind that detection plate is another classic, full detection plate.
Just in front ( as closer as it is possible ) of the hole is the only laser beam pointed vertically. The purpose of that laser beam is to collapse an electron before that electron would eventually pass through the hole to hit the classic full detection plate which is behind.
If this would work than we would have recorded two "points" of the trajectory of that particular electron which passed through the hole. One "point" of that electron's trajectory is the hole itself ( or more precisely just in front of the hole where the laser beam collapsed that electron ), and another point of that electron's trajectory
is where exactly that electron hit the full detection plate behind the hole.
If we have recorded that electron passing through those two points ( which position of those points is known, exactly ) the question is this.
Is it possible from that information to calculate the momentum with which that electron approached the first point, the hole? Even after we included into the calculation eventual effect of scattering or eventual affect of the laser beam on the approaching momentum of that electron?
If answer on these question is yes, why do not conduct the experiment as it proposed ( with some eventually more or less minor modifications if needed) ?
Anton
QUOTE
the result of an energy transfer which oscillates between two types of energy. Makes me wonder if there is another thread that deals with that concept or discusses the equivalence for that in QM. In free space the energy levels should be zero.
Jan Rinze.
Jan Rinze.
This part I unintentionally left as the quote in the previous post.
Then , after I posted previous post, I went to do something else, and after I came back now I cannot edit my post any more. I guess the forum system allows editing in some limited time period which I apparently exceeded.
Just to clear that.
Anton
QUOTE (Laserlight+May 3 2007, 04:56 AM)
I have a bit of a philosophical disagreement regarding your simplified wording of
the classical interpretation of the dynamics of a wave. IMO, a wave is a
propagating displacement of energy across a "medium" (I know this concept will
be disputed) that is sustained by complementary and mutually
regenerative balanced orthogonal forces that sustain the energy transport
mechanism.
Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL
Hi LL,
There is a slight difference with a harmonic oscillator and an (infinite) set of coupled harmonic oscillators. The first can be seen as the equivalence of a pendulum and the second as a row of coupled pendula. The latter is easier illustrated when using the analogy of an elastic string. With the pendulum gravity and motion energy are interchanged and with the string it is the elastic and motion energy that interchange.
To my opinion this is still pretty straight forward. A travelling wave packet is not different from this. The fact that the energy travels with the packet is merely related to the energy in either type of energy. Maybe I am missing something in this picture but this still is pretty much all there is to waves.. It can be mathematically described by the differential equations like dE1 = f(E2) and dE2 = f(E1) where f is usually a linear formula. With a string this would be (in simplified terms) for example E1= 1/2 m v^2 and E2 = C . dx^2 where dx is the small relative replacement between the parts of the string, C is the spring constant and v is the lateral speed of the part of the string. evaluating this further shows Dx = dt * (v1-v2) or whatever method of substitution you might prefer to solve this for all the parts of the string. Integration of E1 and E2 over the lenght of the string should give the total energy of the wavepacket moving through the string.
I am not sure if I need to elaborate futher in this to illustrate my point.
(after reading this I noticed that I took the energy as a base for the differential equation whereas forces are probably more logical.. nevertheless, it been a while since I did this kind of excercise :-) )
Jan Rinze.
Hi janrinze,
This wavepacket thing has been a problem (for me) for some time.
For present purposes can I suggest a DSE using pinholes - just to simplify the concept.
Please indicate anything you don't agree with.
1/ The source emits a wavepacket.
2/ The wavepacket passes through the first pinhole
3/ We get a diffraction pattern on a screen .. the screen has two holes in it which are (say) 1mm apart.
4/ Let the area of the diffraction pattern where most of the energy is be (say) 10mm^2
5/ Each hole in the screen has an area of (say) 0.05mm^2
6/ An equal amount of energy passes through both pinholes
7/ At this stage the wavepacket is looking infinitely divisible
8/ Of the original energy 99.9% is absorbed or reflected off the first screen
9/ Of the 0.1% (total) that passes through the first screen...
there is no probability of detecting it when the difference of path length adds up to an integer (N) +-0.5. N can be 'large'.
10/ For the output of slit A to interfere with the output of slit B when the path length difference is (say) 20.5 wavelengths then the wavepacket must either be considerably longer than 20 wavelengths or the parts of the divided wavepacket do not travel at the same velocity. Which do you think is correct (or neither)?
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.
We can play the same game with lightcones - and again the problems that seem obvious to me seem totally invisible to everyone else - do you think it's me that has the problem? If so then can you help?
Best wishes,
-C2.
This wavepacket thing has been a problem (for me) for some time.
For present purposes can I suggest a DSE using pinholes - just to simplify the concept.
Please indicate anything you don't agree with.
1/ The source emits a wavepacket.
2/ The wavepacket passes through the first pinhole
3/ We get a diffraction pattern on a screen .. the screen has two holes in it which are (say) 1mm apart.
4/ Let the area of the diffraction pattern where most of the energy is be (say) 10mm^2
5/ Each hole in the screen has an area of (say) 0.05mm^2
6/ An equal amount of energy passes through both pinholes
7/ At this stage the wavepacket is looking infinitely divisible
8/ Of the original energy 99.9% is absorbed or reflected off the first screen
9/ Of the 0.1% (total) that passes through the first screen...
there is no probability of detecting it when the difference of path length adds up to an integer (N) +-0.5. N can be 'large'.
10/ For the output of slit A to interfere with the output of slit B when the path length difference is (say) 20.5 wavelengths then the wavepacket must either be considerably longer than 20 wavelengths or the parts of the divided wavepacket do not travel at the same velocity. Which do you think is correct (or neither)?
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.
We can play the same game with lightcones - and again the problems that seem obvious to me seem totally invisible to everyone else - do you think it's me that has the problem? If so then can you help?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
I think this assumption on your part may be incorrect or more complicated
than you are allowing for. It has to do with phase matching, where it depends on
what point of the propagating phase relationship of the photon wave packet enters
the slits (pin holes). The pre-slit cavity geometry (the area/volume between the
source and the slit wall), slit wall cavity reflections back toward the source, the
wavelength of the coherent light source, the slit gap and dimensions, and the initial
atomic point of photon origin from the coherent source all combine to create
phasing variabilities that affect how much energy passes thru each slit.
The variables prior to the slit (holes) have as much influence on the DSE outcome
as the variables between the slit wall and the screen. Basically, we have 2
"tuned" cavities whose combined attributes produce the DSE results. The DSE
results depend on the inputs of both cavities to yield an interference solution set.
We could consider the output result to be caused by a multi-input AND gate.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE
6/ An equal amount of energy passes through both pinholes
I think this assumption on your part may be incorrect or more complicated
than you are allowing for. It has to do with phase matching, where it depends on
what point of the propagating phase relationship of the photon wave packet enters
the slits (pin holes). The pre-slit cavity geometry (the area/volume between the
source and the slit wall), slit wall cavity reflections back toward the source, the
wavelength of the coherent light source, the slit gap and dimensions, and the initial
atomic point of photon origin from the coherent source all combine to create
phasing variabilities that affect how much energy passes thru each slit.
The variables prior to the slit (holes) have as much influence on the DSE outcome
as the variables between the slit wall and the screen. Basically, we have 2
"tuned" cavities whose combined attributes produce the DSE results. The DSE
results depend on the inputs of both cavities to yield an interference solution set.
We could consider the output result to be caused by a multi-input AND gate.
Comments?
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+May 3 2007, 08:29 PM)
Hi janrinze,
This wavepacket thing has been a problem (for me) for some time.
For present purposes can I suggest a DSE using pinholes - just to simplify the concept.
Please indicate anything you don't agree with.
1/ The source emits a wavepacket.
2/ The wavepacket passes through the first pinhole
3/ We get a diffraction pattern on a screen .. the screen has two holes in it which are (say) 1mm apart.
4/ Let the area of the diffraction pattern where most of the energy is be (say) 10mm^2
5/ Each hole in the screen has an area of (say) 0.05mm^2
6/ An equal amount of energy passes through both pinholes
7/ At this stage the wavepacket is looking infinitely divisible
8/ Of the original energy 99.9% is absorbed or reflected off the first screen
9/ Of the 0.1% (total) that passes through the first screen...
there is no probability of detecting it when the difference of path length adds up to an integer (N) +-0.5. N can be 'large'.
10/ For the output of slit A to interfere with the output of slit B when the path length difference is (say) 20.5 wavelengths then the wavepacket must either be considerably longer than 20 wavelengths or the parts of the divided wavepacket do not travel at the same velocity. Which do you think is correct (or neither)?
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.
We can play the same game with lightcones - and again the problems that seem obvious to me seem totally invisible to everyone else - do you think it's me that has the problem? If so then can you help?
Best wishes,
-C2.
hi C2,
up to point 7 all is well i.m.h.o.
at point 8 it is not about energy but about prbability. The energy is not spread out but the probability is spread out. This simply means that it is a matter of chance not a real dispersion of energy since the energy is quantized. When it is detected at the detection plate, all the energy is still there!
So in a sense we can say that the chances of finding a packet arriving at the detection plate at all will be greatly reduced by the slits in the first place if we would talk about 'particles'. In QM apparently this is more complicated and I will easily admit that I have no clue how that works ;-)
between 9 and 10 I believe you mean that destructive interference will be at path lenght differences of (N+0.5) times the wavelength.
part 10 is in my opinion the place where my knowledge of QM breaks and if we would use 'standard' wave mathematics it would result in two packets arriving one after the other.. This would pose a dillemma in QM if we would suddenly measure 2 particles when only 1 left the emmitter in the first place. So depending on the wave packet lenght and possible differences in packet velocity this could have a variety of solutions. I for one, have not been involved deeply enough in these matters to give a full explanation on that.
Things that seem obvious to people do not necessarily coincide with reality ;-)
I am not sure at which 'obvious' parts you are referring but feel free to ask. Some things are 'obvious' to me but not to others and it often takes a much less 'obvious' method to explain these insights or even to change these 'obvious' ideas if they appear to be wrong on my part.. That is in my belief the most interesting part of science.
Jan Rinze.
This wavepacket thing has been a problem (for me) for some time.
For present purposes can I suggest a DSE using pinholes - just to simplify the concept.
Please indicate anything you don't agree with.
1/ The source emits a wavepacket.
2/ The wavepacket passes through the first pinhole
3/ We get a diffraction pattern on a screen .. the screen has two holes in it which are (say) 1mm apart.
4/ Let the area of the diffraction pattern where most of the energy is be (say) 10mm^2
5/ Each hole in the screen has an area of (say) 0.05mm^2
6/ An equal amount of energy passes through both pinholes
7/ At this stage the wavepacket is looking infinitely divisible
8/ Of the original energy 99.9% is absorbed or reflected off the first screen
9/ Of the 0.1% (total) that passes through the first screen...
there is no probability of detecting it when the difference of path length adds up to an integer (N) +-0.5. N can be 'large'.
10/ For the output of slit A to interfere with the output of slit B when the path length difference is (say) 20.5 wavelengths then the wavepacket must either be considerably longer than 20 wavelengths or the parts of the divided wavepacket do not travel at the same velocity. Which do you think is correct (or neither)?
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.
We can play the same game with lightcones - and again the problems that seem obvious to me seem totally invisible to everyone else - do you think it's me that has the problem? If so then can you help?
Best wishes,
-C2.
hi C2,
up to point 7 all is well i.m.h.o.
at point 8 it is not about energy but about prbability. The energy is not spread out but the probability is spread out. This simply means that it is a matter of chance not a real dispersion of energy since the energy is quantized. When it is detected at the detection plate, all the energy is still there!
So in a sense we can say that the chances of finding a packet arriving at the detection plate at all will be greatly reduced by the slits in the first place if we would talk about 'particles'. In QM apparently this is more complicated and I will easily admit that I have no clue how that works ;-)
between 9 and 10 I believe you mean that destructive interference will be at path lenght differences of (N+0.5) times the wavelength.
part 10 is in my opinion the place where my knowledge of QM breaks and if we would use 'standard' wave mathematics it would result in two packets arriving one after the other.. This would pose a dillemma in QM if we would suddenly measure 2 particles when only 1 left the emmitter in the first place. So depending on the wave packet lenght and possible differences in packet velocity this could have a variety of solutions. I for one, have not been involved deeply enough in these matters to give a full explanation on that.
Things that seem obvious to people do not necessarily coincide with reality ;-)
I am not sure at which 'obvious' parts you are referring but feel free to ask. Some things are 'obvious' to me but not to others and it often takes a much less 'obvious' method to explain these insights or even to change these 'obvious' ideas if they appear to be wrong on my part.. That is in my belief the most interesting part of science.
Jan Rinze.
Hi Laserlight,
One reason why I am not posting so often is to avoid the 'going round in circles' effect. There doesn't seem to be any experimental evidence I can provide to prove to you that this isn't a cavity resonance effect and I see no experimental evidence to convince me that it is ( a cavity resonance effect).
Best wishes,
-C2.
One reason why I am not posting so often is to avoid the 'going round in circles' effect. There doesn't seem to be any experimental evidence I can provide to prove to you that this isn't a cavity resonance effect and I see no experimental evidence to convince me that it is ( a cavity resonance effect).
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi janrinze et al,
rpenner has posted this link to http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html on a thread he started here http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12282
rpenner has posted this link to http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html on a thread he started here http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12282
QUOTE (JR+)
at point 8 it is not about energy but about probability. The energy is not spread out but the probability is spread out. This simply means that it is a matter of chance not a real dispersion of energy since the energy is quantized. When it is detected at the detection plate, all the energy is still there!
My problem is not with the probability but instead :- what was the physical significance of the wavepacket in the first place? Why introduce it if it falls at the first hurdle?
Unfortunately 10/ is where it all happens. I can't solve a time dependent Schrodinger Equation here (or anywhere else) but 'intuitively' the evolution of the 'sum over paths' would seem to allow for the possibility of detection for 20.5 T's before the canceling wavefunction has time to arrive over the longer path. Obviously if detection occurred during the first 20.5 T's then somehow we would have to cancel the probability of a (later) detection from the second slit.
Your thoughts are most welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
The wave packet is introduced to enforce a form of locality as well as having the characteristics of a wave (implied by the resulting interference pattern)
What ever happens at the moment of wave collapse might be a form of reflection and therefore 'self interference' which cuts the lenght of the wave packet in half when the center of the packet hits a detection screen. It might even be 'absorbed' by a proper resonator, anything goes I guess.. I still have to stop at that point since my knowledge in that respect is limited. This is exactly why I raised the question wheter momentum is conserved and could give a clue to how the 'path' was taken or if the path is effectively non determinable. The notion of seeing the space between the plates as a cavity would only be interesting if it was at distances of N times lambda and the waves were traveling at lightspeed.. I see no reason to introduce cavity in this model.
Maybe later I will give it a go to look into the time dependant Schrodinger equations (I have to anyway if I want to pass my next exams ;-) and look at the sizes of the wavepackets relative to the sizes of the length differences. Besides simple wave theory will tell that the part where the difference is 20T the position on the detection plate is at the 20th fringe.. thats far on the outer edges if it is detectable at all.. (the interference pattern is a superposition of two waves that each has a gaussian distribution over the detection plates so the intensity of a single slit setup at those edges would likely be near zero.)
Guess I am out of ideas for the moment..
Jan Rinze.
My problem is not with the probability but instead :- what was the physical significance of the wavepacket in the first place? Why introduce it if it falls at the first hurdle?
QUOTE (JR+)
part 10 is in my opinion the place where my knowledge of QM breaks and if we would use 'standard' wave mathematics it would result in two packets arriving one after the other.. This would pose a dilemma in QM if we would suddenly measure 2 particles when only 1 left the emitter in the first place. So depending on the wave packet length and possible differences in packet velocity this could have a variety of solutions. I for one, have not been involved deeply enough in these matters to give a full explanation on that.
Unfortunately 10/ is where it all happens. I can't solve a time dependent Schrodinger Equation here (or anywhere else) but 'intuitively' the evolution of the 'sum over paths' would seem to allow for the possibility of detection for 20.5 T's before the canceling wavefunction has time to arrive over the longer path. Obviously if detection occurred during the first 20.5 T's then somehow we would have to cancel the probability of a (later) detection from the second slit.
Your thoughts are most welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Unfortunately 10/ is where it all happens. I can't solve a time dependent Schrodinger Equation here (or anywhere else) but 'intuitively' the evolution of the 'sum over paths' would seem to allow for the possibility of detection for 20.5 T's before the canceling wavefunction has time to arrive over the longer path. Obviously if detection occurred during the first 20.5 T's then somehow we would have to cancel the probability of a (later) detection from the second slit.
Your thoughts are most welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+May 3 2007, 10:43 PM)
Unfortunately 10/ is where it all happens. I can't solve a time dependent Schrodinger Equation here (or anywhere else) but 'intuitively' the evolution of the 'sum over paths' would seem to allow for the possibility of detection for 20.5 T's before the canceling wavefunction has time to arrive over the longer path. Obviously if detection occurred during the first 20.5 T's then somehow we would have to cancel the probability of a (later) detection from the second slit.
Your thoughts are most welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
The wave packet is introduced to enforce a form of locality as well as having the characteristics of a wave (implied by the resulting interference pattern)
What ever happens at the moment of wave collapse might be a form of reflection and therefore 'self interference' which cuts the lenght of the wave packet in half when the center of the packet hits a detection screen. It might even be 'absorbed' by a proper resonator, anything goes I guess.. I still have to stop at that point since my knowledge in that respect is limited. This is exactly why I raised the question wheter momentum is conserved and could give a clue to how the 'path' was taken or if the path is effectively non determinable. The notion of seeing the space between the plates as a cavity would only be interesting if it was at distances of N times lambda and the waves were traveling at lightspeed.. I see no reason to introduce cavity in this model.
Maybe later I will give it a go to look into the time dependant Schrodinger equations (I have to anyway if I want to pass my next exams ;-) and look at the sizes of the wavepackets relative to the sizes of the length differences. Besides simple wave theory will tell that the part where the difference is 20T the position on the detection plate is at the 20th fringe.. thats far on the outer edges if it is detectable at all.. (the interference pattern is a superposition of two waves that each has a gaussian distribution over the detection plates so the intensity of a single slit setup at those edges would likely be near zero.)
Guess I am out of ideas for the moment..
Jan Rinze.
C2, Good Elf, jal, et al,
I understand your frustration dealing with this problem and I have tried to follow most when it did not go off on a tangent pun here.
But in the QM world there is a point that the intuitive not longer applies and we live in --> "Alice in Quantum Land" you might say.
Hope all is well and must get back to work now.
ciao_
yquantum
I understand your frustration dealing with this problem and I have tried to follow most when it did not go off on a tangent pun here.
But in the QM world there is a point that the intuitive not longer applies and we live in --> "Alice in Quantum Land" you might say.
Hope all is well and must get back to work now.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (yquantum+May 4 2007, 01:51 AM)
C2, Good Elf, jal, et al,
I understand your frustration dealing with this problem and I have tried to follow most when it did not go off on a tangent pun here.
But in the QM world there is a point that the intuitive not longer applies and we live in --> "Alice in Quantum Land" you might say.
Hope all is well and must get back to work now.
ciao_
yquantum
get alice in wonderland out of your vocaulary. It's crazy bullshit to compare quntum mechanics to alice in wonderland or mad hatter's disease.
I understand your frustration dealing with this problem and I have tried to follow most when it did not go off on a tangent pun here.
But in the QM world there is a point that the intuitive not longer applies and we live in --> "Alice in Quantum Land" you might say.
Hope all is well and must get back to work now.
ciao_
yquantum
get alice in wonderland out of your vocaulary. It's crazy bullshit to compare quntum mechanics to alice in wonderland or mad hatter's disease.
Hi NF,yquantum, janrinze,LL,GE et al,
One of the things that puzzles me is that we look at Feynman's sum over paths which is crazy but looks like it gives the right answer - on the assumption of some sort of continuous sinusoidal excitation.
We look at the DSE equations - simple and with integration of each slit - again these implicitly assume continuous sinusoidal excitation and give the right answer.
We then discard our two right answers in favour of a wavepacket which is absolutely NOT a continuous sinewave excitation and doesn't seem to give the right answer.
One of the things that puzzles me is that we look at Feynman's sum over paths which is crazy but looks like it gives the right answer - on the assumption of some sort of continuous sinusoidal excitation.
We look at the DSE equations - simple and with integration of each slit - again these implicitly assume continuous sinusoidal excitation and give the right answer.
We then discard our two right answers in favour of a wavepacket which is absolutely NOT a continuous sinewave excitation and doesn't seem to give the right answer.
QUOTE (JR+)
The wave packet is introduced to enforce a form of locality as well as having the characteristics of a wave (implied by the resulting interference pattern)
I agree the 'answer' has the characteristics of a wave but it isn't just any old wave - it seems to be the superposition of a continuous sinusoidal type wave of a single frequency. If wavepackets and the attempt to enforce a form of locality don't predict the observed result then might this be trying to tell us something?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Incidentally I don't think the diffraction result is a gaussian - looks like it but isn't.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
Edit .. a clearer link to diffraction http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1
I agree the 'answer' has the characteristics of a wave but it isn't just any old wave - it seems to be the superposition of a continuous sinusoidal type wave of a single frequency. If wavepackets and the attempt to enforce a form of locality don't predict the observed result then might this be trying to tell us something?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Incidentally I don't think the diffraction result is a gaussian - looks like it but isn't.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ffracon.html#c1
Edit .. a clearer link to diffraction http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 4 2007, 02:42 AM)
get alice in wonderland out of your vocaulary. It's crazy bullshit to compare quntum mechanics to alice in wonderland or mad hatter's disease.
NF,
I understand your frustration NF but until you can elucidate QM beyond just using probabilities to define result.
I think it naive to tell me to change a simple example which expresses the weirdness to explain a very unintuitive field of work on such a micro world.
I am sure you want to be constructive in your comments and for that I thank you for your input.
When it comes to QM, QED, QCD, etc. the weirdness will cause your eyes glaze over - if not you really do not understand the dynamics of the quantum.
Unfortunately it cannot be explained in exact results (UCT) but we do know it works in a very successful way.
I am sure you work in a facility which expresses this in a very profound way.
Regards,
yquantum
NF,
I understand your frustration NF but until you can elucidate QM beyond just using probabilities to define result.
I think it naive to tell me to change a simple example which expresses the weirdness to explain a very unintuitive field of work on such a micro world.
I am sure you want to be constructive in your comments and for that I thank you for your input.
QUOTE
It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them. R. Oppenheimer
When it comes to QM, QED, QCD, etc. the weirdness will cause your eyes glaze over - if not you really do not understand the dynamics of the quantum.
Unfortunately it cannot be explained in exact results (UCT) but we do know it works in a very successful way.
I am sure you work in a facility which expresses this in a very profound way.
Regards,
yquantum
QUOTE (yquantum+May 4 2007, 03:39 PM)
NF,
I understand your frustration NF but until you can elucidate QM beyond just using probabilities to define result.
I think it naive to tell me to change a simple example which expresses the weirdness to explain a very unintuitive field of work on such a micro world.
I am sure you want to be constructive in your comments and for that I thank you for your input.
When it comes to QM, QED, QCD, etc. the weirdness will cause your eyes glaze over - if not you really do not understand the dynamics of the quantum.
Unfortunately it cannot be explained in exact results (UCT) but we do know it works in a very successful way.
I am sure you work in a facility which expresses this in a very profound way.
Regards,
yquantum
Hi yquantum,
Nobody here has disputed that the theories are successful.
The current state of affairs with QM, QED, QCD etc. are indeed such that it cannot be 'understood' in any conventional manner. The main weirdness is that it irrevocably stems from the interpretation of experiments into mathematical descriptions whereas those interpretations themselves are based on conventional explanations such as chance, particles and waves.. If we would live in a quantum world (being the size of an electron or even smaller) these analogies would have never been used to create theories of how things work.
On the other hand, any set functions that match experimental data can be used to form a theory about almost anything. The lack of experimental data and especially the exclusion of measurability of states under specific conditions makes the theory prone to lack of understanding. If QM etc. is inherently incomprehensible then this is either a flaw in the theory or a flaw in the concept of comprehension itself.
It is like being born blind and trying to understand colours... Those born with vision cannot explain colours to the blind.. (a technical conversation about wave lengths would not help there.)
In my opinion it will be worthwhile to spend time to come up with an interpretation which incorporates the current (working) QM concepts and maths into a more comprehensible theory. Analogies of concepts should work whereas analogies of everyday observable phenomena are prone to fail. This is the biggest problem since the attempt to prove aether which later on evolved into what we now believe is space or 'the vacuum'. It seems to have become the modern day homonculus i.m.h.o.
Lastly I would like you to elaborate on your comments regarding probabilities. To me it seems that the experiments lead to a induction reasoning which is inherently flawed but yields within certain domains correct results. Heisenberg solved this domain problem by defining uncertainty. Dissalowing correlation at a certain point is implicit in QM and that is where Einstein did not want to follow. Neither do I but I am nowhere near an Einstein..
Jan Rinze.
I understand your frustration NF but until you can elucidate QM beyond just using probabilities to define result.
I think it naive to tell me to change a simple example which expresses the weirdness to explain a very unintuitive field of work on such a micro world.
I am sure you want to be constructive in your comments and for that I thank you for your input.
When it comes to QM, QED, QCD, etc. the weirdness will cause your eyes glaze over - if not you really do not understand the dynamics of the quantum.
Unfortunately it cannot be explained in exact results (UCT) but we do know it works in a very successful way.
I am sure you work in a facility which expresses this in a very profound way.
Regards,
yquantum
Hi yquantum,
Nobody here has disputed that the theories are successful.
The current state of affairs with QM, QED, QCD etc. are indeed such that it cannot be 'understood' in any conventional manner. The main weirdness is that it irrevocably stems from the interpretation of experiments into mathematical descriptions whereas those interpretations themselves are based on conventional explanations such as chance, particles and waves.. If we would live in a quantum world (being the size of an electron or even smaller) these analogies would have never been used to create theories of how things work.
On the other hand, any set functions that match experimental data can be used to form a theory about almost anything. The lack of experimental data and especially the exclusion of measurability of states under specific conditions makes the theory prone to lack of understanding. If QM etc. is inherently incomprehensible then this is either a flaw in the theory or a flaw in the concept of comprehension itself.
It is like being born blind and trying to understand colours... Those born with vision cannot explain colours to the blind.. (a technical conversation about wave lengths would not help there.)
In my opinion it will be worthwhile to spend time to come up with an interpretation which incorporates the current (working) QM concepts and maths into a more comprehensible theory. Analogies of concepts should work whereas analogies of everyday observable phenomena are prone to fail. This is the biggest problem since the attempt to prove aether which later on evolved into what we now believe is space or 'the vacuum'. It seems to have become the modern day homonculus i.m.h.o.
Lastly I would like you to elaborate on your comments regarding probabilities. To me it seems that the experiments lead to a induction reasoning which is inherently flawed but yields within certain domains correct results. Heisenberg solved this domain problem by defining uncertainty. Dissalowing correlation at a certain point is implicit in QM and that is where Einstein did not want to follow. Neither do I but I am nowhere near an Einstein..
Jan Rinze.
Hi Jan,
Very well stated and I must confess you have expressed this problem of QM much more diplomatic in its strangeness.
You might be not be like A.Einstein - I sure cannot make such a claim - but your reason reminds me of P.A.M. Dirac.
We have so much work to do and I wish all on this post the very best of success in this process.
Best Regards
ciao_
yquantum
Very well stated and I must confess you have expressed this problem of QM much more diplomatic in its strangeness.
You might be not be like A.Einstein - I sure cannot make such a claim - but your reason reminds me of P.A.M. Dirac.
QUOTE
.the main object of physical science is not the provision of pictures, but is the formulation of laws governing phenomena and the application of these laws to the discovery of new phenomena. If a picture exists, so much the better; but whether a picture exists or not is of secondary importance. In the case of atomic phenomena no picture can be expected to exist in the usual sense of the word "picture," by which is meant a model functioning essentially on classical lines. P.A.M. Dirac
We have so much work to do and I wish all on this post the very best of success in this process.
Best Regards
ciao_
yquantum
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.