Problem with the two slit experiment

Confused2

10th August 2007 - 09:01 PM

Hi LL,

a ) With slit A open and slit B closed we have 'interference prediction A'
b ) With slit B open and slit A closed we have 'interference prediction B'
c) With both slits open we have prediction A and prediction B together and we get 'interference prediction C'

A, B and C do not include any Laserlight effect.

Comparing the experimental results (dots) and 'interference prediction C' we notice the difference is very small:-

(click me)

This is a test of text book theory against reality .. Teachspin are selling to smart guys and gals .. if they lied they'd be caught out in no time. Does the Laserlight effect lie in the difference between the experimental result and predicted result or 'somewhere else'?

Best wishes -C2.

Howzabout every reference to an experiment counts as spotting a groundhog (I assume this is a good thing) .. Good Elf gets bonus groundhogs as and when required.

Montec

11th August 2007 - 12:47 AM

Hello Good Elf, Confused2, et al

Good Elf
Best wishes and a speedy recovery.

Confused2
Here is the Conceptual Tour that goes along with Techspin DSE device for those that want more info.

The Techspin web page for their DSE is http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml

This site gives a good rundown on photo diodes http://www.emergesemi.com/background.html

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 02:11 AM

Hi TRoc,

QUOTE

LL, "sometimes" is not a good place to start looking for Fundamental answers. The phenomenon need to be ALWAYS. Everyone here, has offered examples of when, where or why your idea can not be that Fundamental property. Yes, there are some examples, basically limited to metal slits, at SUB-wavelength slits, which is the opposite of the >wave sized slits in the DSE

What is one of the fundamental things that all DSE interference experiments
have in common to produce an interference pattern?
Answer: Multiple slits with the proper geometric relationship to change the
dynamics of waves, and generate multiple path lengths from a single wave, which
differentiate and produce an interference pattern.

See my response to C2 about solution sets and their unions, which yield composite
results, based upon interactions.

ALL MATTER, regardless of atomic structure, create matter waves
(fields) which couples it to "space". The kind of material involved is of no real
consequence, except that certain metals, are particularly efficient in how they
couple energy. This energy coupling that takes place between matter and space
is a resonance phenomenon, which also represents a refractive index of
proximity space.

When matter and energy "meet" there is always an energy exchange
that is observed as either absorption, reflection (re-emission), or refraction.

Why is this naturally occurring phenomenon so hard for people to grasp, as
it pertains to the DSE results? It is a cause and effect scenario that must be
included in the solution set. To ignore this would be like trying to go swimming
when there is no water in which to swim. It takes multiple coincidental factors
in order to produce a solution set result.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly my point! An individual solution set of fixed, limited possibilities
(probablities), can only produce a "limited" response. When other external
variables are introduced, the solution set of possible results changes to reflect
where the individual closed sets overlap.

It takes multiple changing influences to yield an interference pattern from
singular events.

If the frequency of the photons doesn't change, photon to photon, then what other
external influencing factor can cause each subsequent identical photon to
move to a different location and form a repeating pattern of "hits"?
Yes, it is interference, but what is the ROOT CAUSE that creates the interference
effect? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

QUOTE

To me, this is like watching a movie clip, where a cyclist runs into a wall. Then, we watch the clip in SLOW MOTION, and then are surprised and amazed when, after a period of time, the same result happens. Then, we proceed to invent wild hypotheses to explain this new "phenomenon".

This is kind of "inside the box" logic.
Time to venture outside of the box and view events from multiple, external perspectives.

Your example is just a matter of temporal relativity, as viewed by the observer.
Slow motion provides intricate details of sequential events, that would otherwise be
missed at full speed. It is like looking at the heavens and saying "Wow the
universe is big, and then looking thru a telescope at a nebula, and observing just
how intricate some of the finer details really are.

A change of perspective (and programmed thought processes), provides insights
that others, afraid to venture outside the box, miss. Expand your horizons.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

In order for there to be many, they must stem from one.
One is the fundamental unit! Even the most complex machine is
nothing more than an assemblage of individual simple parts and concepts.

QUOTE

When you ALREADY have ONE, any further dissection operates as DIVISION. Steady, incremental division produces a HARMONIC SERIES. When the "one" thing that you started with, has an "inverse property" (like frequency and wavelength), then your harmonic series has an inverse: the EXPONENTIAL series. The difference between these "measurements" (mathematically) will form "steps", or "discreet jumps" between the ANSWERS (the measurement). The answers are NOT the cause, as I'm sure we would all agree.

Very profound statement, with one different perspective. Harmonic series is
purely a repeating out of phase dependent relationship/situation.
1 + 1 = 2, unless they are "perfectly" and repetitively out of phase/timing.
It's either a linear response, or a non-linear repetitive response.

Comments? Discussion? Other opinions welcomed.
LL

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 02:25 AM

Hi All,

This discovery might upset the HUP to some degree, however it will not
change "probability".

http://www.physorg.com/news105972993.html

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 02:58 AM

Hi C2,

QUOTE

a ) With slit A open and slit B closed we have 'interference prediction A'

We have refraction pattern A

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

a ) With slit A open and slit B closed we have 'interference prediction A'

We have refraction pattern A

b ) With slit B open and slit A closed we have 'interference prediction B'

We have refraction pattern B

QUOTE

c) With both slits open we have prediction A and prediction B together and we get 'interference prediction C'

YES, agreed, we have INTERFERENCE PATTERN C.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

c) With both slits open we have prediction A and prediction B together and we get 'interference prediction C'

YES, agreed, we have INTERFERENCE PATTERN C.

A, B and C do not include any Laserlight effect.

Ignoring your personal attack mode once again, it is not a Laserlight effect,
it is physics. Mathematics and statistics is not physics...they are
analytical tools that provide the concept of "equality". Their results yield
predictable numerical solution sets.

Physics is the science of physical phenomena and how, and why, they
interact to produce observable results. In the case of the DSE, matter and
visible light interact to provide a physical result. Yes, it can be statistically
analyzed, but that won't explain the various mechanisms involved to produce the
final effect.

No slits, no interference.

You really should try to look over the top of the box, there is a whole new world
out here! You can bring your pet groundhog with you.

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 03:43 AM

Hi C2, and TRoc,

I've modified the color chart? Perhaps it will better illustrate what I have
been discussing about overlapping solution sets. Let me know if the link
doesn't work.

http://www.geocities.com/jpecic/interference.jpg

LL

Confused2

11th August 2007 - 04:26 PM

Hi TRoc,Laserlight,Montec,Good Elf et al,

I apologise for the personal attack mode .. I am trying to find a way through this .. I am (obviously) not very good at it .. sorry.

I agree with TRoc's point that 'photons' etc are (somewhat) abstract concepts. Hopefully the game we are playing is to reduce the degree of 'abstraction' to the point where we can attach meanings to the words (where possible) and go on to make reasonably accurate predictions about any combination of photons/time/space/slits/electrons etc. (possibly a bit optimistic but never mind)

With a single experiment it is (apparently) very difficult to tell whether the DSE effects are the result of carefully crafted slits which can manipulate a photon with great precision OR the slits have allowed us to see some part of the properties of a photon that we would (apparently) rather not know about. If we look forwards in time (or backwards) to the delayed choice version of the DSE we can see that an entangled photon can switch the 'slit effect' between two entirely different modes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser ).

If anyone else agrees with the difficulty of drawing a conclusion from a single experiment .. could I suggest we deviate slightly and look at the mechanism of the MM interferometer?

Best wishes - C2.

Laserlight

11th August 2007 - 05:47 PM

Hi C2, TRoc, et All,

I don't think that we should get caught up in the argument about abstract
qualities. Being able to quantify an abstract concept provides
the necessary "substance" to maintain a formalized "structure". We can't
see sound, but we can perceive its influence on our physiology. It is the same
with other physiological "abstractions". We perceive their effects on the physical
world, and can predict their influence under specific and controlled conditions, and
that is enough to prove existence.

The fact that we are clever enough to provide "scale", with which to quantify their
operational ranges, makes these seeming abstractions into tangible/real influences.

I do agree that abstractions that we cannot quantify, or observe thru interactions,
should be discarded from the argument. It is either observable/measureable/quantifiable,
or it is not. That is the required criteria, IMO.

Single experiments offer clues/information and are only subsets of a much
larger phenomenon, like pieces of a puzzle. It is only when sufficient pieces are
all correctly assembled into a structured, connected pattern that the whole puzzle
collectively conveys all the necessary information to completely communicate
its elaborate nature.

Currently, we are still only looking at individual pieces and trying to fit them
all together. Unfortunately, IMO, some choose to toss out some key pieces because
they don't fit their preconceptions of what the final puzzle should look like.
Perhaps this is the reason the DSE puzzle is not completed....pieces are missing,
because they have been discarded as "unnecessary".

JMHO.
LL

TRoc

11th August 2007 - 07:20 PM

Hi all,

With so many "good thoughts" here, GE will be healed in no time.

LL,

First, let me point out our agreements, which are many. You are definitely "singing to the choir" here.

QUOTE

What is one of the fundamental things that all DSE interference experiments have in common to produce an interference pattern?
Answer: Multiple slits with the proper geometric relationship to change the dynamics of waves, and generate multiple path lengths from a single wave, which
differentiate and produce an interference pattern.

Agreed. I have said the same here. This does not make the slits "more special" than the OTHER 2 requirements: the screen (orthogonal plane/dimension change), and the distance (space) between them. Are you forgetting that if we change the distance, the pattern changes too? Are you forgetting, that if we angle the screen "oblique" to the a z axis (fundamental), the pattern also changes (for the "non-moving" observer)?

We need all 3 parameters, and let's not forget the wave-train, in order to have the DSE.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I couldn't agree more.

In our system, the electron is ALREADY "one". Any further quantization is redundant, IMO (and other theorists). The fields are not separate; everything is already connected. That is why the "2-way exchange" model is logical, even though we must re-interpret some "cause & effect" ideas (through a fundamental time).

QUOTE

If the frequency of the photons doesn't change, photon to photon, then what other external influencing factor can cause each subsequent identical photon to move to a different location and form a repeating pattern of "hits"?

We have no way of knowing, as of now, if the frequency does or does not change while "in flight". We simply know that it ends up the same. There is a slight, but important difference between those statements.

Personally, I have worked with frequency, and found a "pattern"; just as there are patterns in the "distance/wavelength", or "phasors", etc. These are mathematical models. They all make use of Pythagorean Theorem. My model does not use "imaginary numbers"; this does not make them "bad" to me. It is just that I have found the same ability to measure the "phase of the node" (imaginary) as the "sine wave" model, by simply measuring symmetric ratio beats of the "real" measurement, "frequency".

In fact, not only does this "dimensionless method" of measuring frequency create a spectrum that is more accurate than the current model, it automatically contains/produces the inverse: the measurement of wavelength.

If you are following with an open mind, or have heard me say this before, you have to realize that in order for what I'm saying to be true, then my model must also predict a constant "group" (wavelet combinations) velocity, and it MUST be " c ".

It does.

I hope, in the interest of the "pursuit of knowledge", everyone will forgive me for holding dearly onto this fact. I have done something that the Standard Model does NOT, and can not. Until that is done, I'm going to say "mine is better", in this context.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The example I gave was not from my point of view; it was an analogy of the Current Model paradigm. This is how I see them "measuring".

They ALREADY made the "error" of assuming that we were seeing it with the clarity of "slow motion". Meaning, the rate of passage did not conceal any details; it was "one". "One" infers that no further "slowing down" is possible. That would be "fundamental". The "photon as a particle" (one) model is wrong. As an EM wave, it MUST have internal "components"; these components are "divisible". That is the end of the "photon"~"one"~"fundamental"~"indivisible" model, for me. It went off the logic track.

QUOTE

Yes, it is interference, but what is the ROOT CAUSE that creates the interference effect? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

The very simple answer is: WAVE Interaction.

The space between waves is ALWAYS filled with lessor waves, which can (sometimes "must") move much faster than the "group envelope".

We ALWAYS measure waves with resonance; it MUST be either equal, or at integer # of cycles. Therefore, we have NOT learned to measure "broad-band", at a sampling rate of < 2x . If the wavelets in question are GREATER than this limit, our detectors can not "receive" the signal. What lies near the "border" of these 2 regimes, is PURPOSEFULLY "tuned out", as "dark current". That is the nail in the coffin of truth/logic.

These wavelets do not have the same limits as the envelope. They can, and do, WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to recreate the fundamental, at the point of measurement. This phenomenon goes by several (surprise!) names; QM terms it "quantum revival". It is real. We have the camera as evidence of our understanding/predicting this effect.

The "single photon" interpretation IGNORES this fact.

The space between these "individuals" is filled with "harmonic copies" of the original. How can "injecting more time" (slow motion analogy) between "photons", and THEN, measuring over a longer period, give us any different result than our original, "normal speed" DSE?

If we "adjust" for the time difference, in measurement period, and "number of estimated photons", because these photons have a definite relation to "rate of cycles per TIME", we will find that the "frequency" is either adjusted, or our definition of "frequency" is changed. Take your pick.

The result is a "slow motion" DSE, whose results are the same as when we watched it in "real time". Forget the silly arguments about "which slit did it go through", and the subsequent argument that "a photon, then, only interfere's with itself". It is not, and never is, or can be, the only energy, or "photon" present.

Welcome to the age of light! The "dark ages" of Science are behind us now, save for the last of the "old-timers", and their old texts.

All energy is connected; it is the mass of bodies that create the illusion of separation.

Headlines of the day: (July issue of New Journal of Physics [1,2] and featured on the cover of Science (August 10, 2007), and physorg.com/news)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Yes, it is interference, but what is the ROOT CAUSE that creates the interference effect? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

The unsaid is more important: we have NEVER seen a "single cycle" contain all of the energy of a "quanta" of radiation. E = hf works; it works because we SET UP to measure the single " f " in the equation. All other frequencies are relative to this (the speed of light is INPUT in this model of wave frequency).

QUOTE

This single, large amplitude, field oscillation is used to exert a well-controlled ultrastrong force on charged particles, such as electrons, allowing unprecedented precise control of their motion in and around atoms.

Notice they resisted calling that "one photon", even though it "walks and talks" like one.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Notice they resisted calling that "one photon", even though it "walks and talks" like one.

The ultra-strong, single wave cycle of the hypershort laser pulse, results in the emission of vastly different frequencies (colours) within the X-ray pulse.

Now, my argument that a "photon" has more than one cycle, each with a different frequency, will be even MORE difficult to understand, for those who choose not to "believe". Here is evidence that JUST one cycle can also contain more than one frequency. No matter how many wheels (phase nodes), no matter how many riders (energy), and no matter how many gears (frequency rate), we can only use one gear at a time. This is the "mechanics" that a model produces, by MEASURING at a time and place. It does not tell us about other places and times "on the way". Could our rider(s) have used other gears, when we weren't looking? Looking at the rise and fall of the amplitude, I think it is "safe" to say that "ALL" gears would be used, each creating some "potential path".

QUOTE

In the near future these X-ray pulses will allow researchers to take “freeze-frame” snapshots of electrons moving in molecules, allowing reconstruction of the motions that control information transfer on molecular scales as well as structural changes of both small and large (bio-) molecules [4].

But, not yet. Imagine how naive the picture was circa 1900? This is what the current model is built on. They thought that they had the "slowest motion" possible, because of the group velocity limit. Only much later, with better equipment, did we "prove" the phase velocity "exceptions" to that. We will not have "ultimate clarity" until this "freeze frame" picture is taken, and analyzed.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

11th August 2007 - 07:27 PM

Hi Laserlight,

By 'conventional' analysis all we need is two paths to the same point to get our interference pattern .. where o is the opening the slits can (for example) happily be

___o-------o __ or ----o__----o___

Would the results of a test with stepped slits be a fair test of LL theory? A path length analysis predicts the interference pattern might be slightly off centre by a distance no more than about half the distance between the peaks .. what does the LL theory predict?

Best wishes - C2

TRoc .. just seen your post .. I'll have to come back to it later.

TRoc

12th August 2007 - 03:23 AM

Hi all,

Just because I don't feel that I emphasized enough, that I fully agree that the slits play an integral role in the DSE pattern, let me add this..

Regardless of what we use as "slits", even things that are definitely not really "slits", like a diffraction grating, gravitational lensing, crystal symmetry, intense beams of light, etc., we have (IMO) the following "conditions":
[my hypothesis]

The energy, "passing in wave form", will be most dense, between the masses of the "slit edges" (or whatever is acting as a "barrier"). Conversely, the energy density will decrease as you approach the edge, and end at "zero" within the mass itself.

At the same time, the phase velocity is forced by the "shape" of the energy density, to follow exactly the same pattern: the velocity "just inside" the mass is zero, and gradually increases towards the center, where it is the highest.

We now have the seeds for the "curvature" of the slit being treated as a new source (near field is "refreshed"), along with the wavefront mechanics of Huygens principle.

The curvature of this energy density form creates a "virtual lens". By considering the mass~energy relationship, the "matter wave density" will be in an inverse form. The "matter waves" (or the advanced wave) will be the most dense at the slit edge, and the least in the center of the slit.

Alternatively, you could just say that the area around the slit constitutes a new medium. (if you don't agree to either "matter waves", or Wheeler-Feynman, Cramer's) This "local medium" would have the least affect (delta-RI) at the center (~the same as the rest of the medium), and the most at the slit edges.

Any way you want to slice it, we get the following "phase geometry", forming a virtual biconcave lens

also known as a diverging lens.

It diverges a wave, and that is the "phenomenon" we are describing. (at the slits)
User posted image

[For fun, imagine that we were looking at a laser beam under a "zoom lens", and "discovered" that it was NOT just "end to end" photons, but also "side by side". Imagine that, a collimated, coherent beam of light; that sounds like "more than one" is required! ]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29

There is still one more part to this, that I will include next time. Good, thoughtful questioning will possibly expose this other ground-hog.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 08:30 AM

Hi TRoc, LL et al,

TRoc: A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

In a real slit it is the phase changes across the slit that cause the interference patterns. By modelling the slit as a diverging lens you have replaced the phase changes from the slit by a spherical wave .. this leads me to suspect that your subsequent analysis of a spherical wave will probably not give a viable explanation of the DSE effect.

Compare your analysis with LL's which seems to replace the slit by a lens that is somehow equivalent to the phase changes across the slit... this has the advantage of having the right answer built into it .. the debug process should involve testing the properties and plausibility of such a lens against other possible explanations.

Best wishes - C2.

Edit.. belatedly it occurs to me that a 'spherically expanding' wavefront won't produce any interference effects .. this might explain the need for 'cavities' (etc) to generate the missing ground-hog.

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 02:32 PM

Hi TRoc, C2, JanRinze, GE, Montec, Wulf, et al,

Your post nearly brought a tear to my eye.

It seems that we are converging into a common focal point of the "mechanics"
of the DSE. I'm sure that we have some room for improvement, but we are
at least moving in the right direction, IMO.

What you have thus far described, which is nearly identical, in description, to a
post of mine in the Jan-Feb timeframe, only applies to a single slit, which is
the wave diffusing mechanism for diffraction, and how it creates a spherical wave
from a nearly planar source wave.

QUOTE

The energy, "passing in wave form", will be most dense, between the masses of the "slit edges" (or whatever is acting as a "barrier"). Conversely, the energy density will decrease as you approach the edge, and end at "zero" within the mass itself.

Please explain the highlighted text, it seems contradictory to the following,
which I agree with.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Please explain the highlighted text, it seems contradictory to the following,
which I agree with.

The curvature of this energy density form creates a "virtual lens". By considering the mass~energy relationship, the "matter wave density" will be in an inverse form. The "matter waves" (or the advanced wave) will be the most dense at the slit edge, and the least in the center of the slit.

Now, we have the basis for describing the mechanism (again) for different
path lengths of two overlapping spherical wavefronts who's products/superpositions
yield an interference pattern, that C2 has been fixated on for SOOOooo LOOonnng.

Hark! There is light at the end of the long dark tunnel.

And on the 323rd day, LL said "Let there be light" so that all can see!

Comments, and snide remarks welcomed!

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 02:50 PM

Hi C2, TRoc, and All,

QUOTE

TRoc: A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly the point for a single diffracting slit, which is the model that
TRoc has provided. Now consider two slits producing two spherical wavefronts
that are "in phase"....Voila! Interference of the wavefronts at superposition points!

In a real slit it is the phase changes across the slit that cause the interference patterns. By modelling the slit as a diverging lens you have replaced the phase changes from the slit by a spherical wave .. this leads me to suspect that your subsequent analysis of a spherical wave will probably not give a viable explanation of the DSE effect.

Hmmm. It is the phase delays. caused by the interaction of the photons with
the matter waves (surface polaritons) that create the timing delays in the planar
wavefront (the lensing action), which produces the spherical wavefront.

QUOTE

Compare your analysis with LL's which seems to replace the slit by a lens that is somehow equivalent to the phase changes across the slit... this has the advantage of having the right answer built into it .. the debug process should involve testing the properties and plausibility of such a lens against other possible explanations.

I'm in shock! Did your pet groundhog bite you?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I'm in shock! Did your pet groundhog bite you?

Edit.. belatedly it occurs to me that a 'spherically expanding' wavefront won't produce any interference effects .. this might explain the need for 'cavities' (etc) to generate the missing ground-hog.

Perhaps my earlier statements will change your opinion on this mechanism.
Remember, we need to assemble ALL parts of the puzzle to produce a final
picture.

Comments?
LL

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 03:25 PM

Hi All,

A new member of PhysOrg has proposed an alternative theory about how TIME
relates to mass and the Grand Unification Theory. While I don't necessarily totally
agree with his conceptualized GRID THEORY , his proposal offers some intriquing
questions about how we relate time to mass and space-time events. I have
commented some perspectives about his theory on that board, but some of the
ideas may be worthy topics of discussion and development on this board also,
since we have tried to incorporate all quantum theories into the fabric of our dialog.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry247022

The topic relates to space-time, and its relationship to mass, which I equate to
a gradient energy displacement of space, which surrounds massive objects.
Essentially, if space is warped, time must also be warped. In other words
it is not a linear function in close proximity to mass, and must also follow the
gradient tenets of the ISL, as does energy. I have proposed that time follows
an exponential curve that matches the energy curve of the ISL.

A possible reason that the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) has not been possible
is that science has been using the human conceptualization of a linear time
function, instead of a gradient exponential time function to try to model specific
phenomena from the quantum level and the macro universe, and tie them
together.

If time is relative, then there must be a way of scaling that temporal relativity so
that it fits the scale of the physical/energetic geometries with which it is
associated. This idea could open a whole new metric, and tie many loose ends
of QM, QED, QCD, Relativity, and Cosmology all together.

Thoughts? Comments?
LL

TRoc

12th August 2007 - 03:50 PM

Hi all,

WOW! This really is something. This looks JUST like some kind of conversation!

You BOTH read my post, saw my point, AND ran right to the hole that for sure, that groundhog is in!

YEE-HAAW!

C2-

QUOTE

A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

I agree on both points.
Huygens' principle states the wave-front will form "one" frequency or phase at the outer edge. Yes, we may have some "aberration" that stretches the vertical component a bit. I don't think this poses a problem; the pattern on the wall is also stretched in both dimensions. (wider and taller than the original image/slit)

C2-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

A diverging lens turns a plane wave (in 3d) into a sort of spherical wave .. if you don't agree I'll try to find some references. The point is that the spherically expanding bit is all of one phase.

That's good too. That was covered by my stating: "..the slits play an integral role in the DSE pattern..", and "It diverges a wave, and that is the "phenomenon" we are describing. (at the slits)"

I see a specific lack of the word "spherical", in my post. The closest I came was "curved". Reason: fractals are my form of choice. I can not give too much on this now, but a couple of snips from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal.

QUOTE

A fractal as a geometric object generally has the following features:

It has a fine structure at arbitrarily small scales.
It is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language.
It is self-similar (at least approximately or stochastically).
It has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve).
It has a simple and recursive definition.[2]

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Karl Weierstrass gave an example of a function with the non-intuitive property of being everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable.

QUOTE

Georg Cantor also gave examples of subsets of the real line with unusual properties—these Cantor sets are also now recognized as fractals.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Georg Cantor also gave examples of subsets of the real line with unusual properties—these Cantor sets are also now recognized as fractals.

Objects in the phase space of a dynamical system can be fractals (see attractor).

and, more to the point, another example:

QUOTE

The Koch snowflake is the result of an infinite number of these iterations, and has an infinite length, while its area remains finite. For this reason, the Koch snowflake and similar constructions were sometimes called "monster curves."

Think about the properties of light, that we have all more or less agreed on, that (counter intuitively) suggest an "infinite expanding wavefront" that fills the space and seeks all paths, yet at the same time maintains a constant area, or "wave-length".

There is no other form that I know of that can satisfy the results of the experimental data that we are using.

Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/f_noise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata

As you can see, I've gone too far off-track.

Back to C2-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Back to C2-By modeling the slit as a diverging lens you have replaced the phase changes from the slit by a spherical wave..

OK, first, I'm not sure that it is fair to describe this as "modeling". The geometry that I described IS the geometry of the slit. Now, certainly, there is room for "quibbling" here, but, as I see it, UNTIL we can have a literal "nano-view" of the slit edges, to confirm my suspicion that we will not find "smooth curves" there, but "jagged edges", I think that it is FAIR, and SAFE to say this:

There will ALWAYS be "less" matter at the center of the slit, than at the slit edge itself. There will ALWAYS be more energy at the center of the slit, and less at the slit edges.

These are the kind of statements that I can stand behind. They are too "simple" to find fault with.. provided they are not "too simple".

Since mass and energy are "interactive systems", and this experiment is not static, we also must see that this effect TAPERS off at the boundaries. There is no "abrupt edge". This is critical to the "virtual lens".

The other part of your statement talks about "replacing the phase changes at the slit", which I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

IF I understand you correctly, then I disagree that I have "changed anything". We are allowed to treat the slit as a new source. Any "phase change" would have to be measured at different points on the screen (except for the central max, of course). This changing of position of measurement is what allows us to see the "whole wave length differences" contributing to the DSE pattern.

Let me post this, and answer LL separately, to keep the flow going.

ciao!

T.Roc

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 04:42 PM

Hey TRoc, C2, et al,

QUOTE

There will ALWAYS be "less" matter at the center of the slit, than at the slit edge itself. There will ALWAYS be more energy at the center of the slit, and less at the slit edges.

Maybe it is semantics or just the way you said it vs what I interpret you to have
stated, but there is no matter at the center of the slit, since it is open.
Unless, you are speaking about the slit sidewalls of the rectangle that is
the structure of the slit, in which case the surface sidewalls expose less surface
area than the comparable area at the 90 degree corners of the slits.

Also, why wouldn't there be more energy concentrated along the surface planes
of the slit sidewalls than in the center of the slit? Unless you are inferring that
the focal properties of the matter waves are more concentrated in the center of
the slit. This would be directly proportional to the width of the slit, with narrower
slits concentrating more energy into the slit cavity per exposed surface area, since
the opposite sidewalls and associated matter fields are closer together, in
narrower slit geometries. This effect changes the refractive index, according to
local energy density within the slit cavity(ies).

Edit added: Also, as a side topic the quantum energy of different wavelengths
would interact differently with the qualities of the lensing action, based upon
deflection characteristics and the energy momentum of the wave. Longer
wavelengths will disperse more than more energetic shorter wavelengths that
have a higher energy "density" per unit area.
user posted image

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap27...raction/app.htm

Comments, discussion?
LL

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 05:25 PM

Hi TRoc, LL et al,
Of lenses and slits .. I agree, not spherical .. a slit would be kinda cylindricalish whether actual lens or Huygens.
My objection to the lack of interference with a single wavefront was that diffraction does seem to involve interference. The path to (say) the screen is longer from one side of the slit than the other (except in the middle).. maybe this doesn't matter at this stage.
Looking at wiki and the path integral formulation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ) .. it is a very tricky thing.

QUOTE (wiki+)

In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time, it would be correct to include histories in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, histories in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral includes them all.

I think I see where your space filling patterns are coming from .. it may be that they are 'not wrong' or even 'not wrong enough' - I don't know. To get to the point of some agreement on this thread I'm tempted to overlook some of the more bizarre paths and concentrate on those which contribute to a (near) classical optics result.

QUOTE (TRoc/me+)

"replacing the phase changes at the slit", which I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

As we see from LL's last post .. he seems quite serious about a change of refractive index across the width of the slit. By 'refractive index' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index ) I'm pretty sure he means the speed of light.isn't constant across the slit. .. if you change the speed of light in some places and not others you get a phase change .. (back to the lens effect) . You could (if you wished) make a lens that would (directly) give either or both of the diffraction/double slit pattern. Is LL really serious about this? I can't tell. If groundhog day made sense it wouldn't be groundhog day.

I still maintain that the only phase changes are due to the differences in path lengths and that's all you need to know to get the right answer... but that's just my pet groundhog... I may as well be saying "Meet Gerald" .

Best wishes - C2.

QUOTE (Wiki+)

[ ..of "Groundhog day".. ] The character (played by Bill Murray ) is forced to relive the day over and over again until he can learn to give up his selfishness and become a better person.

TRoc

12th August 2007 - 05:40 PM

Hi all,

I see LL's subsequent post, and something were already addressed there.

One thing: LL is right in that I only suggested the geometry of ONE slit, but then referenced the "DSE". Just "double" my statement.

Let me re-iterate the difference between these 2 statements:

QUOTE

The energy, "passing in wave form", will be most dense, between the masses of the "slit edges" (or whatever is acting as a "barrier"). Conversely, the energy density will decrease as you approach the edge, and end at "zero" within the mass itself.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The curvature of this energy density form creates a "virtual lens". By considering the mass~energy relationship, the "matter wave density" will be in an inverse form. The "matter waves" (or the advanced wave) will be the most dense at the slit edge, and the least in the center of the slit.

One is "energy-wave density", which would be our groundhog, in "photons' clothing"; the other is "matter-wave density" which could be real, or we could just say that this form takes the opposite/inverse symmetry.

It is simply a container, and the "air" that it contains. (analogy) The air takes the form that the box allows. We are "quite sure" that the box is made of straight lines, but we KNOW that this is not true when we "crank up" the magnification. It would look much more like a sponge network of cavities.

Now, that analogy does not explain the whole picture, but I think you can see the point better with that picture in mind?

At this point, I will have to offer something "new", and "untested", AFAIK. That is why I saved it for last. It should not deter in understanding the basic phenomenon that I have described above.

Before, I do, let me also re-state why I don't think that the "interference" is happening at the slits, and that the slits just "set the stage" for that effect "on the way" to the screen.

The surface polaritons that you mention are in the lattice of the slit material, and move at MUCH slower velocities than light. I stated before that I don't think that there is reaction time (zone) for those waves to effect our passing light wave.

There is also the matter of coupling energies (frequency) being too far from each other to have "strong coupling" (fast).

Last, the polaritons behave (or not exist at all) differently in different materials. Just when we had made the painstaking calculations for the material in our experiment, we would have to start over for each different material. Atomically, all of the elements are different, having different energy, mass, absorption/emission, etc. and would couple differently (or not at all) to certain frequencies.

So, this "other" point (that was caught by both of you) is I left off a bit of the "geometry".

Two slits would, as LL pointed out, restore the "phase question" of C2, and also create the following (poor ASCII art):

...l..l...
...\./...
.........
.../.\...
...l..l...
...l..l...
...\./...
.........
.../.\...
...l..l...

[the ".." represent nothing, they are just for spacing of characters]

The "tooth" that I am always referring to, takes the FORM of a biconvex lens. The slits always (even in 3D, or aperture) take the form of biconcave lens.

We might think of the tooth being a lens for dark energy; alternatively, for the phase nodes (zero amplitude). (*there is something measurable there)

We also could think of the "dual" affects of the density forms that I mentioned, and LL questioned.

The energy-wave density-form, being convex for the reasons I gave, would converge the anti-node elements of the wave. At the same time (and slit), the "matter-wave density form", being concave for the reasons I gave, would diverge the node elements.

Because of the distance to slit parameter, these 2 causes could combine, and help understand why we have the different phenomenon of 1. The Talbot length "revivals", 2. The near field Fresnel model, and 3. The far field Fraunhoffer model. This is in addition to basic lens characteristics like focal length, the Abbe number (another place where the line is blurred between "human perception", and theoretical Physics). The Abbe number makes (inadvertent) use of the triad, and the working of the eye to set these parameters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_number

QUOTE

nD, nF and nC are the refractive indices of the material at the wavelengths of the Fraunhofer D-, F- and C- spectral lines (589.2 nm, 486.1 nm and 656.3 nm respectively).

[note: colors are yellow, cyan, and orange, respectively]

in this equation $user posted image$

I am trying to make use of virtual positive and negative lenses, to spread our positive and negative phased wave. The intensity does not matter; it is always focused to the center of the pattern. The intensity parameter is shaped by the energy-wave density-form (well known self-focusing). The bands of light and dark however, are all about "phases". Compare the 2 photos, and imagine a specific distance range, and the combined affect of the 2 phenomena that I am proposing:

User posted image

Here is a link to a very good article on Talbot.
Quantum Carpets
Michael Berry, Irene Marzoli and Wolfgang Schleich (June, 01)

This is very important, because it "carries through" the other 2 models (Fres/Fraun), even though they are not "complimentary" to each other (in their limits). It also measures the "russian doll ~ harmonics" at fractional revival lengths.

"On the way" is full of surprises!

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 07:00 PM

Hi TRoc,

I'm sorry .. I can't make any sense of your slits .../.\......l..l...
Two slits is normally something like ______ ______________ ________
Are you trying to draw light-pipes?

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

The intensity parameter is shaped by the energy-wave density-form (well known self-focusing).

Well known? Is that the effect that requires super-high power lasers .. powerful enough to warm the air so its refractive index changes?
Best wishes - C2

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 10:25 PM

Hi C2,

???? You quoted me as the source of this statement, when it was TRoc.

QUOTE

QUOTE (Laserlight)
The intensity parameter is shaped by the energy-wave density-form (well known self-focusing).

Well known? Is that the effect that requires super-high power lasers .. powerful enough to warm the air so its refractive index changes?

Confused2

12th August 2007 - 10:52 PM

Sorry about that.
Best wishes - C2.

Any prediction on the stepped slit front?

CODE

-------- ________ -----------

and ---------- ______------- _________

Zarabtul

12th August 2007 - 10:59 PM

QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 11 2007, 04:26 PM)

It just again brings me back to our solar system reminding me a lot of our chemical make-up. It also definatly makes me look at biology closely. Everything has some reason though.

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 11:24 PM

Troc, C2, and All, (Where is everyone else?)

TRoc quotes:

QUOTE

Before, I do, let me also re-state why I don't think that the "interference" is happening at the slits, and that the slits just "set the stage" for that effect "on the way" to the screen.

The surface polaritons that you mention are in the lattice of the slit material, and move at MUCH slower velocities than light. I stated before that I don't think that there is reaction time (zone) for those waves to effect our passing light wave.

IMO, the polaritons are responsible for coupling the matter waves/fields to
the adjacent proximity space. There should be a latency delay time for photons to
interact when they couple their energy component to matter. IMO, it is the same
energy coupling effect. Any EM wave energy that "grazes" the sidewalls is being
distorted/delayed by this wave/energy coupling latency action. Shouldn't this
latency phase delay phenomenon be considered wave interference? This sets the
stage for the optical lensing effect.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Hmmm, for the reason given above, this would be a form of oblique photon
reflection, where the normally straight path is deflected at a critical angle. I know
this technique is used for x-ray steering, so why wouldn't it work equally well
for less energetic photons in the visible spectrum?

QUOTE

Last, the polaritons behave (or not exist at all) differently in different materials. Just when we had made the painstaking calculations for the material in our experiment, we would have to start over for each different material. Atomically, all of the elements are different, having different energy, mass, absorption/emission, etc. and would couple differently (or not at all) to certain frequencies.

There may some validity to this statement, unless one considers that
all matter couples energy to and from space via a similar phenomenon.

Even if the ambient space is unlighted by photons in the visible spectrum, there
is energy coupling between matter and space, in the form of unseen matter
waves (and IR frequencies). I have proposed that this coupling is produced by the
surface polaritons/fields, that are created by electron-positron dipole antenna
elements that reside at the surface of all matter, and physically couple
energy to and from immediate proximity space via wave resonance.

When visible spectrum photons irradiate, and couple, their quantum EM energy
"component" into these surface dipole elements, an energy transfer takes place
and the energy is either resonantly absorbed, reflected, or refracted, according to
the wavelength/frequency of the photons, and the resonance qualities of the
surface dipoles of the matter being irradiated.

This is why we observe different textures, colors, and visual characteristics
according to the different types and resonance qualities of the specific matter
being irradiated.

Keep in mind that the slits are being irradiated by photons in the visible spectrum
and an energy transfer must be occuring, or else we would not be seeing the
matter that makes up the slits.

Again, I reiterate that we cannot just discard puzzle pieces out of convenience,
if we really want to develop a complete puzzle model.

I think C2 will be happy if the puzzle turns out to be a picture of his pet groundhog.

Comments? Discussion? Other opinions?
LL

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 11:31 PM

Hey C2,

QUOTE

Any prediction on the stepped slit front?

I think the pattern sequence/separation will be distorted, or offset, from
a typical "barred" interference pattern that is typically observed.

The reason that I say this is that we have changed the symmetry of the slit
geometries, and the relative wave timing relationships. Those changes should
change the wave phasing, and the diffraction qualities, of the offset slit walls.

Perhaps this can be simulated on one of our applets. ???

Your comments, predictions?
LL

Laserlight

12th August 2007 - 11:54 PM

Just to provide a basis for understanding in discussions.

From Wikipedia - Polariton

QUOTE

In physics, polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. They are an expression of the common quantum phenomenon known as level repulsion, also known as the anti-crossing principle. Polaritons describe the crossing of the dispersion of light with any interacting resonance.

Thus, a polariton is the result of the mixing of a photon with an excitation of a material. The most discussed types of polaritons are phonon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of an infrared photon with an optic phonon; exciton-polaritons, resulting from coupling of visible light with an exciton; and surface plasmon-polaritons, resulting from coupling of surface plasmons with light (the wavelength depends on the substance).

Of interest:
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~brown/beauty/Spacing/spacing.html

Laserlight

13th August 2007 - 01:01 AM

TRoc

13th August 2007 - 03:08 AM

Hi all,

C2, I understand your confusion. My chart was not labeled at all!

Let me try again.

This is a "top, down" look at the DSE. The " \ " and " / " are "knife edges", and the straight parts, " l " are the perpendicular slit wall. Where there is just " ... ", there is nothing, IE the center of the slit.

...l..l...
...\./...
......... { center of 1st "virtual biconcave lens"
.../.\...
...l..l...
...l..l... { the "tooth" is a virtual biconvex lens (dark energy, - frequency..)
...\./...
......... { 2nd virtual biconcave lens; center of the slit
.../.\...
...l..l...

------->>> direction of light

LL-

QUOTE

Maybe it is semantics or just the way you said it vs what I interpret you to have stated, but there is no matter at the center of the slit, since it is open.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is "no matter" (I'll use the value >0, since we're in a medium) in the center of the slits, and that is why we will find the highest level of energy (relative to this locality) there, too.

I do think that we have agreed to this "lens explanation" at one time or another. The "knife edge causes diffraction" was not in question, to my knowledge.

We are still addressing the core issue, IMO: interference - when and where does it happen. I am going back to the slit to try again to show that it (the final answer) can NOT be "computed" there (at the slits). It needs time to "develop", as it were.

With the polariton argument, I'm still not sure you have a big enough understanding of the whole picture. I'm not sure that I do either, but I keep running into "limitations", and I'm not finding the direct connection between "matter and free space", as you've described.

This is vibrations IN the lattice or solid, like a crystal. The light needs to be inside the (transparent?) solid for the coupling to take place.

I gave this link before, to a Thesis on Polaritonics. It is actually the source now for the wiki link that you gave. At 400+ pages, it is certainly more "thorough".

Polaritonics: An intermediate regime between Electronics and Photonics

It is (apparently) not allowed to quote from this PDF, so I'll have to direct to the reading of pages 45 & 46. I see, in an outline of "possibilities", these following materials that allow these "quasi-particle" interactions: 1. ferromagnetic solid , 2. semiconductor , and 3. a ferroelectric crystal. I am not seeing (nor have) a way for these quasi-particles to interact directly with "free space", or "photons" therein. "Guidance" of the wave is a requirement for the phenomenon to happen (read that: limit degrees of freedom). We have no such control over our beam of light; it has the potential to "take all paths".

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

13th August 2007 - 04:09 AM

Hi TRoc, C2, and All,

QUOTE

We are still addressing the core issue, IMO: interference - when and where does it happen. I am going back to the slit to try again to show that it (the final answer) can NOT be "computed" there (at the slits). It needs time to "develop", as it were.

Let me give you something to think about that should be a similar analogy to
our slit lens hypothesis.

Consider a movie projector lens. You can move the screen from some far
away fixed position and reposition it closer to the lens, and still get the same,
but smaller sized, image being projected. You can get a perfect image all the
way up to the focal point just beyond the lens....If you move past the focal
point into the nearfield region, all the way up to the surface of the
lens, you will get a non-inverted out of focus image, depending upon the
configuration/style of the lens.

If you consider that an image is nothing more than wave interference, and we
are taking a plane wave and converting it into a spherical wavefront within the
confines of slit cavities, then we must conclude that the slits are where the
signal mixing (interference) is taking place, and raditating spherically from the
trailing edge focal point of the slits/virtual lens.
-----

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Let me simplify the concept. With no illuminating photons, matter is still connected
to space via dipole resonances that are at some "minimal" energetic vibrational
level. We cannot see physical matter in this "non-energized" state because it is
not reflecting energy.

If we now apply photons in the visible spectrum (irradiate/illuminate), we
resonantly energize these dipoles to a higher level and they respond by coupling in
the applied energy. Some of the energy is absorbed, and some is reemitted
depending upon the frequencies irradiating the target. The reemitted energy
will reflect an image, according to the resonance pattern determined by the
resonant atomic structure of the surface. We can then see/detect the result of this
resonant energy coupling, that occurs between matter and the visible spectrum of
light. The colors reflected from the surfaces are rejected/re-emitted, while
other colors are absorbed.

So, it would seem that most physical matter (I can't say all) must possess
specific frequency resonance absorption and rejecion "bands" according to the
atomic resonances available at the surface dipoles.

This should provide proof of concept about matter coupling EM energy to and from
"space".

Yes, matter energetically "vibrates" at the atomic level, but it doesn't end at the
surface interface. Recall a previous discussion about a guitar string plucked
in a vacuum. There is no medium to physically transfer the vibrations across
space, but the string is still vibrating and releasing energy to space, in the
form of IR/heat, so there is still coupling of energy going on.

Comments? Discussion?
LL

TRoc

13th August 2007 - 04:08 PM

Hi all,

C2-

QUOTE

Well known? Is that the effect that requires super-high power lasers .. powerful enough to warm the air so its refractive index changes?

No, no, no. I have explained before, C2, that the example that I gave of "white light supercontinuum" from "high power" lasers is a FUNDAMENTAL process.

If we turn down the power (sound familiar?), we get the "same pattern", just at different energy/frequency. The next octave down (reduce by 1/2), would produce a "near infra-red continuum"; turn it down still further, and we would get a "far infra-red supercontinuum", and so on.

The experimental evidence, over the last 15+ years, shows that, when we actually "draw all paths", we find that nature creates geometric pictures. You need to follow (for a while) in the footsteps of M.Berry, where he took the concept of "geometric phase" to another level. This culminates (for him) at "quantum carpets", which are "woven" by the dynamical relationship of the change in phase. They use the terms "canals" and "ridges" for the "straight lines" that are always formed by the evolving wave-center (as opposed to the wave-front). This is what I am trying to explain. "Caustics" was used early on, but appears to have been changed.

Of course, a bunch of changing lines are going to take geometrical form, and there are distinct patterns inside this area. The patterns can be described by math as well, of course.

I implore you, and everyone who is interested, to read up on this phenomenon.

Caustics, Mutiply Reconstructed by Talbot Interference

Multi-mode Interference: Highly Regular Pattern Formation In Quantum Wave Packets

Multi-mode Interference - Identifying Canals and Ridges in Quantum Probability Distributions

There are many, many more.

The "other well known focusing effect" goes all the way back (I believe) to Nineveh, and the "fire stones" that they ground and polished until they could light FIRE with this "lens".

FOCUSING is a "run-away" effect. The process "keeps growing" until "something gives" (changes state). Ionization WILL take place, and THAT is what "changes" the medium. Temperature is not the dominant feature.

RI is wave-length DEPENDENT. Every frequency present in the envelope WILL be traveling at different velocities. This can cause spreading. Yes, there are "other ways" of describing this; I prefer to work with "frequency".

LL,

You are talking about effects "within" the solid. I am talking about effects OUTSIDE of the solid. This has been the case from the beginning. The "cause" you are seeking lies in the MEDIUM, not the slits. The MEDIUM is what connects the solid with the light waves. When we "change" gears, from "photon" to "whatever-ton", we are CHANGING energy levels. This STRICTLY means, that the emission of the original frequency is not possible. There is loss there, too. So, yes, they can have some effect, but it is WAY down the chain. Probably, there is a way to incorporate both, but I'm not aware of it.

You have described the "interference" at the slit. How then, could we get a different "interference" effect, by just adding more slits? The ONLY way, is for some other part of the process to be involved with the "final answer".

A question for you and C2: why/how would "whole path-lengths" have one effect, when just one slit is used, and the OPPOSITE when both slits are used? In other words, for more than one slit, we CHANGE effects when we go from 1/2 wavelength difference, to whole wavelength difference.

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

13th August 2007 - 06:37 PM

Yo TRoc, C2, and anyone else standing in the shadows,

QUOTE

You have described the "interference" at the slit. How then, could we get a different "interference" effect, by just adding more slits? The ONLY way, is for some other part of the process to be involved with the "final answer".

I think you are misreading/misinterpreting my explanation of the origination of
the interference effect. The slits are the start point for the whole
interference mechanism to proceed. Phase shifting starts within the slit cavities.
This is not to say that wave superposition, after the fact, due to phase/timing
"signal overlap" occurring in the far field, is not a continuation of the total
interference model. We can't have one without the other. It is a
progressive geometric effect, with the origin of interference starting within the slit
cavities, which are the locus for the wave expansion/interference detection result.

More slits, just adds more complexity to the final result. You just can't throw
out pieces of the puzzle that you don't want, for the sake of convenience.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You can't have 1/2 a wavelength. It is all or nothing. That would be like trying
to grow 1/2 an apple.

The whole interference issue has to do with wave/energy symmetry, and how
those symmetries interact to yield whole integer numbers.

There is the issue of wave superpostion, as it relates to phase "overlap", which is a
wave intensity summation result. Remember we are talking about squaring
the amplitude to get the intensity.

I am not sure where you are going with this question, and am not even sure
that I understand what you are asking. Can you rephrase/clarify your question?

LL

Confused2

13th August 2007 - 08:36 PM

Hi TRoc, Laserlight et al,

QUOTE (TRoc+)

Using this drawing http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...sinslit.html#c1

For convenience assume a uniform plane wave entering from the left..
The width of the slit is a , distance to screen is D which is large (see later) and we're going to sum at point y on the screen. The letters he uses could hardly have been less convenient but it's a pretty diagram.

Rashly I'm going to use 'x' to scan over the slit .. where x runs from the bottom of the slit to the top (as drawn) .. it would have been nice if the point on the screen hadn't been called 'y' because here x and y are not orthogonal .. but there it is.
Let x=0 be in the middle of the slit .. so the slit runs from -a/2 to +a/2
For a small but finite number I'd normally use D (or Delta) but the diagram has hijacked this as the distance to the screen so I'm going to use 'd' .

Let's look at a very narrow bit of the slit .. a section at x with a width d.x where d is a very small number.. .. what we want to do is find the phase of the wave when it gets from this region to our point y on the screen.
We hit our first problem .. intensity is defined in Watt/m^2 .. y is a point with no area whatsoever and the bit of slit we've chosen has a length d.x which doesn't give exactly give us an area either. What now? Let's make the assumption that we're looking at a slice of the thing of thickness t, also that the width of the 'point' at y is d.y where d.y =d.x
The area of our chosen bit of the slit is now t.d.x (where '.' is just multiplication) and the area of our 'point' on the screen is now t.d.y . As before we're going to add all the little t.d.x bits to produce a final result at 'y'. Hopefully we can see the distance between x and y changes as we scan (adding) across the slit .. we need to work out the phase of the wave as it arrives at 'y' for every position across the slit. Lets use L for the length of the path from x to y. From Pythagoras we can see that
L = sqrt( D^2 + (y-x)^2)
Now we know L we can calculate the phase of a wave from x as it arrives at y.

Any problems so far? Should I carry on or give up?

Best wishes - C2.

Advance notice .. if we had two slits we'd sum the amplitude and phase from two slits in exactly the same way.

Edit .. If anyone spots any horrible errors .. don't hesitate to point them out... I know I make mistakes (this could be one..)

Confused2

13th August 2007 - 09:56 PM

Gerald, my 'sum over paths' groundhog, has just bitten me.

d.x = d.y ? What nonsense is that ? .. all I meant was that the width of both elements is the same and very small .. I might even let it tend towards infinitely small if I carry on with this.

Gerald won't give up .. he's right. It's over 35 years since I had to do this sort of thing from first principles ..

We take a small number 'd' .. our element runs from x to x+d .. it will work out fine in the end .. honest.

Wulf

14th August 2007 - 01:05 AM

Woot, it looks like this tread is on track again. I can't wait untill I have time to spare to look over some the latest ideas.

It is nice to see everyone looking at how their ideas and viewpoints converge rather than differ.

TRoc

14th August 2007 - 01:56 AM

Hi all,

LL-

QUOTE

The slits are the start point for the whole interference mechanism to proceed.

me-

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The slits are the start point for the whole interference mechanism to proceed.

me-The ONLY way, is for some other part of the process to be involved with the "final answer".

We are in agreement, then. My only opposition is to the " one way trips" that these new (quanta of energy) "quasi-particles" make, into the lattice. We need bound electrons to be resonantly excited, in order to produce "photons" in the standard model. The excitations in the lattice are moving through the lattice, never again (at least in anything resembling a DSE) to return as a "photon". It is a "one time coupling" (from photon to a polariton), and that is why it is "not stable", or "virtual". This does not preclude the idea that the Standard Model could be improved upon, at the expense of "strong belief" in the "photon" as something "indivisible", by just describing energy as it moves through different media.

LL-

QUOTE

(quoting me) A question for you and C2: why/how would "whole path-lengths" have one effect, when just one slit is used, and the OP