in this double slit experiment is it the act of observing "consciousness"changing the wave to a particle or is it the detector causing some kind of interference with the wave?
please keep your answers in laymens terms or as simple as you can. I have read other responses to the same question and they go on forever losing me with scientific language i have no knowledge of
Good question dissturbbed, but you will never get a scientist to talk about consciousness affecting the photon. It is pure speculation, it can't be proved.
My personal belief is that consciousness can NOT control a photon, but the photon can be affected by consciousness.... if that makes sense. But we will never know until science can prove WHAT consciousness is and WHAT a photon is.
I will see if I can drum up some movies that others have posted on wave interference. I know there have been some very simple ones that my 12 year old understood.
My personal belief is that consciousness can NOT control a photon, but the photon can be affected by consciousness.... if that makes sense. But we will never know until science can prove WHAT consciousness is and WHAT a photon is.
I will see if I can drum up some movies that others have posted on wave interference. I know there have been some very simple ones that my 12 year old understood.
Hi THEY, dissturbbed ,
The ripple tank is here.. (enjoy)
http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
I think this might be one for Alphanumeric.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The ripple tank is here.. (enjoy)
http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
I think this might be one for Alphanumeric.
Best wishes,
-C2.
didnt answer my question is it the detector or the observer causing it to turn into a particle
QUOTE (disturbed+Jan 19 2007, 01:09 AM)
in this double slit experiment is it the act of observing "consciousness"changing the wave to a particle or is it the detector causing some kind of interference with the wave?
None from the above. The double slit experiment (DES) has nothing to do with the observer or even observer's consciousness. It's highly improbable, the behavior of whole Universe would depend on the presence of some conscious creatures, or on the fact, it's observed/perceived by somebody.
The true explanation of DSE can be a much more natural, in fact. By AWT (Aether Wave Theory) the vacuum is formed by recursive foam and the particles are moving through such foam like dense undulating blobs of this foam.
Such dense object creates a spatial undulations (so called de Broglie wave) of Aether foam by the same way, like the fish swimming beneath water surface. Such undulation makes the Aether foam even more dense at this place, by the same way, like the soap foam becomes dense during shaking in evacuated vessel.
The particle itself is pretty small, but the deBroglie wave isn't. It can interfere with the double slit by the same way, like all the other waves under formation of typical flagellum patterns, which appears as the result of wave interference phenomena during passing of each the wave by double slit. These patterns are making the foam more dense at the place, where the intensity of undulations is most pronounced.
The particle wave moves through vacuum like standing wave packet, i.e. by the same way, like each other wave and it prefers the more dense places for its spreading We can say, the more dense vacuum appears as a more conductive for particles waves. After all, this is the reason, why the particles are attracted by massive objects, which are making the vacuum neighborhood more dense and why the space appears "curved", too. Therefore, the falling of matter in the presence of gravitational field gradient can be interpreted as a sort of optical phenomena, in fact.
Therefore in consecutive experiments the particle prefers the paths of flagellum patterns and such result doesn't depend on the observer, the human consciousness the less. The result of double slit experiment is pure wave mechanic phenomena and the result of foamy structure of vacuum, because whole the AWT relies upon the classical Newtonian mechanic without introducing of another postulates.
Was such explanation sufficiently clear for you? It's evident, the Paul Falstad's ripple tank applet is partially relevant to DES, but it supplies just a part of the whole explanation of this important effect. The AWT approach makes the explanations of relativity/quantum mechanic phenomena surprisingly intuitive and simple.
None from the above. The double slit experiment (DES) has nothing to do with the observer or even observer's consciousness. It's highly improbable, the behavior of whole Universe would depend on the presence of some conscious creatures, or on the fact, it's observed/perceived by somebody.
The true explanation of DSE can be a much more natural, in fact. By AWT (Aether Wave Theory) the vacuum is formed by recursive foam and the particles are moving through such foam like dense undulating blobs of this foam.
Such dense object creates a spatial undulations (so called de Broglie wave) of Aether foam by the same way, like the fish swimming beneath water surface. Such undulation makes the Aether foam even more dense at this place, by the same way, like the soap foam becomes dense during shaking in evacuated vessel.
The particle itself is pretty small, but the deBroglie wave isn't. It can interfere with the double slit by the same way, like all the other waves under formation of typical flagellum patterns, which appears as the result of wave interference phenomena during passing of each the wave by double slit. These patterns are making the foam more dense at the place, where the intensity of undulations is most pronounced.
The particle wave moves through vacuum like standing wave packet, i.e. by the same way, like each other wave and it prefers the more dense places for its spreading We can say, the more dense vacuum appears as a more conductive for particles waves. After all, this is the reason, why the particles are attracted by massive objects, which are making the vacuum neighborhood more dense and why the space appears "curved", too. Therefore, the falling of matter in the presence of gravitational field gradient can be interpreted as a sort of optical phenomena, in fact.
Therefore in consecutive experiments the particle prefers the paths of flagellum patterns and such result doesn't depend on the observer, the human consciousness the less. The result of double slit experiment is pure wave mechanic phenomena and the result of foamy structure of vacuum, because whole the AWT relies upon the classical Newtonian mechanic without introducing of another postulates.
Was such explanation sufficiently clear for you? It's evident, the Paul Falstad's ripple tank applet is partially relevant to DES, but it supplies just a part of the whole explanation of this important effect. The AWT approach makes the explanations of relativity/quantum mechanic phenomena surprisingly intuitive and simple.
Ok, and now in laymens terms:
Assume a wave is both a particle and a wave.
If you do not observe, you do not know which way the particle/wave will go.
So what you see is the result of a particle/wave going through both slits.
If you do observe at 1 slit, then you know where it's going , so no interference pattern.
In quantum mechanics the call this 'the collapse of the wave-function'.
You get the same result when you close one slit which is like detecting only particle/waves going through that slit. So it is the detection, not the consciousness.
I know not everyone will agree with me, but it's in laymens terms and explains somewhat what's going on.
Assume a wave is both a particle and a wave.
If you do not observe, you do not know which way the particle/wave will go.
So what you see is the result of a particle/wave going through both slits.
If you do observe at 1 slit, then you know where it's going , so no interference pattern.
In quantum mechanics the call this 'the collapse of the wave-function'.
You get the same result when you close one slit which is like detecting only particle/waves going through that slit. So it is the detection, not the consciousness.
I know not everyone will agree with me, but it's in laymens terms and explains somewhat what's going on.
QUOTE (MarsM+Jan 19 2007, 05:47 PM)
...it's in laymens terms and explains somewhat what's going on..
Whenever you're observing the particle before passing through double slit, you'll become entangled with it via shared energy, which is transferred between you and particle during observation. The behavior of such system is more predictable, then the particle, which is moving quite independently.
Whenever you're observing the particle before passing through double slit, you'll become entangled with it via shared energy, which is transferred between you and particle during observation. The behavior of such system is more predictable, then the particle, which is moving quite independently.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 19 2007, 03:56 PM)
Whenever you're observing the particle before passing through double slit, you'll become entangled with it via shared energy, which is transferred between you and particle during observation. The behavior of such system is more predictable, then the particle, which is moving quite independently.
What are you talking about?
I don't get entangled with anything! Through shared energy transferred between me and the particle?
No such thing...
What are you talking about?
I don't get entangled with anything! Through shared energy transferred between me and the particle?
No such thing...
QUOTE (MarsM+Jan 19 2007, 11:39 PM)
I don't get entangled with anything! Through shared energy transferred between me and the particle?... No such thing...
LOL, why not? You cannot observe any particle without exchanging of some energy with it. But at this moment the particle will stop undulate randomly and it gets synchronized with the undulations of the particle of observer. Such synchronized internal motion is called the quantum entanglement.
The animation illustrates, how one member of entangled pairs of particle wave packets stops be entangled after exchanging of some energy with the observer and how it will becomes entangled with the observer. This phenomena is the base of quantum cryptography - you cannot observe the entangled information during transport without destruction of such entanglement.
LOL, why not? You cannot observe any particle without exchanging of some energy with it. But at this moment the particle will stop undulate randomly and it gets synchronized with the undulations of the particle of observer. Such synchronized internal motion is called the quantum entanglement.
The animation illustrates, how one member of entangled pairs of particle wave packets stops be entangled after exchanging of some energy with the observer and how it will becomes entangled with the observer. This phenomena is the base of quantum cryptography - you cannot observe the entangled information during transport without destruction of such entanglement.
OK guys,
Here is an alternative idea.
Yes, the low intensity double slit experiment seems to imply that light and electrons are both waves and particles! But it just seems this way.
1) First light. The infamous low intensity double slit experiment. The light diffracts (wave) but little dots appear on the film like individual "photons" (particles) have hit the film. Read this:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_6.html
(cut and paste into browser. I'm a newbie, so they won't let me put in a link)
If you have read the above section, then you will realize that if you have a discrete detection medium (digital camera or film crystals), then this medium has a threshold intensity that is required to start activating it. When the incident light intensity just reaches this threshold, the discrete areas start activation producing dots, even though a continuous, low intensity wave is what that's hitting the medium (not light particles).
Take the water wave analogy. Have you ever been to the beach surfing? If waves were always pure and uniform, you never would have to "wait for a big one", now would you.? But you do!
When you are just below the threshold for the detector, it is these random "big ones" that put dots on the detector (film). And these "big ones" are not big all the way down the beach. Just in a small section.
But even if the light source were somehow made to have uniform emissions:
The film still has random sized crystals and randomly oriented defects.
So even if the incident light were one of those uniform "ideal" waves,
the randomness of the film would still take over and randomize the dots
that were produced.
I don't think that anyone would be able to claim that each silver bromide crystal is
uniformly spherical at exactly 10 nanometers, and that each has crystalline
defects (necessary for the silver bromide to be light sensitive at all) that are all
aligned the same with the same degree of defect.
What does this mean?
It means that initially, random dots form on the film near the maxima due to an incident light wave, not light particles. Real world.
2) Next, electrons. The famous electron interference experiment in an electron microscope. Read these:
forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11975&st=0
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html
If you have read these sections, you will see that a beam of coherent pulsating electron particles acts just like a pseudo-wave. In this experiment, the beam of particle electrons bends around a charged filament and the electrons overlap.
I know it sounds crazy, but:
If two electrons are turned "ON" when they overlap, they repel each other forcefully and do not continue on their original way to the film. This produces a minimum. If two electrons are turned "OFF" when they overlap, then they continue on to the film to a maximum.
Again, even though they seem like matter waves, electrons are really particles, just as one always suspected.
Andrew Gray
Here is an alternative idea.
Yes, the low intensity double slit experiment seems to imply that light and electrons are both waves and particles! But it just seems this way.
1) First light. The infamous low intensity double slit experiment. The light diffracts (wave) but little dots appear on the film like individual "photons" (particles) have hit the film. Read this:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_6.html
(cut and paste into browser. I'm a newbie, so they won't let me put in a link)
If you have read the above section, then you will realize that if you have a discrete detection medium (digital camera or film crystals), then this medium has a threshold intensity that is required to start activating it. When the incident light intensity just reaches this threshold, the discrete areas start activation producing dots, even though a continuous, low intensity wave is what that's hitting the medium (not light particles).
Take the water wave analogy. Have you ever been to the beach surfing? If waves were always pure and uniform, you never would have to "wait for a big one", now would you.? But you do!
When you are just below the threshold for the detector, it is these random "big ones" that put dots on the detector (film). And these "big ones" are not big all the way down the beach. Just in a small section.
But even if the light source were somehow made to have uniform emissions:
The film still has random sized crystals and randomly oriented defects.
So even if the incident light were one of those uniform "ideal" waves,
the randomness of the film would still take over and randomize the dots
that were produced.
I don't think that anyone would be able to claim that each silver bromide crystal is
uniformly spherical at exactly 10 nanometers, and that each has crystalline
defects (necessary for the silver bromide to be light sensitive at all) that are all
aligned the same with the same degree of defect.
What does this mean?
It means that initially, random dots form on the film near the maxima due to an incident light wave, not light particles. Real world.
2) Next, electrons. The famous electron interference experiment in an electron microscope. Read these:
forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11975&st=0
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html
If you have read these sections, you will see that a beam of coherent pulsating electron particles acts just like a pseudo-wave. In this experiment, the beam of particle electrons bends around a charged filament and the electrons overlap.
I know it sounds crazy, but:
If two electrons are turned "ON" when they overlap, they repel each other forcefully and do not continue on their original way to the film. This produces a minimum. If two electrons are turned "OFF" when they overlap, then they continue on to the film to a maximum.
Again, even though they seem like matter waves, electrons are really particles, just as one always suspected.
Andrew Gray
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 20 2007, 12:23 AM)
...It means that initially, random dots form on the film near the maxima due to an incident light wave, not light particles....
The random result of DSE is the result of chaotic density fluctuations of aether foam (so called zero point energy, ZPE). It has nothing to do with light interaction, as the same result appears in the darkness, too. Like I've said, the particles are forming a standing wave packets, which are following the path of the maximal density of vacuum. If this path is random due the density fluctuations, the motion of particles will be random, too.
Zephir,
I believe you are referring to the "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiment.
Well, I have looked into this. "One-electron-at-a-time" in a 100 cm microscope at 100 KeV corresponds to .05 nanoamps. Since I work in the electronics industry, I know that this small of current can easily be measured, but it cannot be regulated.
Electron double slit experiments typically are done in an electron microscope at 100,000 volts. Trying to regulate 100 Kev electrons to "one-at-a-time" would be like trying to drop birdseed into a feeder "one-at-a-time' with a backhoe.
What is happening with .05 nanoamp current at 100 KeV is that the electrons build up on the tip of the electron gun until they surge out in a group. Then there is pause. Then they build up again and surge again.
This occurs such that the average current is .05 nanoamps.
"One-particle-at-a-time" current regulation is not real world.
To give a feel for this current magnitude, I calculated the average drift velocity and how long one electron would take to get all the way back to the electron gun from the target down a hair-sized wire.
Well, I was stunned. Plugging in the values gives a drift velocity of
v = ( 50x10E-12 amps ) over { (8x10E22 per cubic cm)(5x10E-6 sq cm)(1.6x10E-19 Coul) }
v = 8 x 10E-10 cm/sec
Statistically, it takes 1.25 x 10E11 sec (4000 years) for the electron to go back the 100 cm to the top of the microscope. I could not believe my eyes, so I went back over and over again to check the arithmetic. Finding no mistake, I went back to find the error in Halliday & Resnick's expression for drift velocity. I could find none. I plugged my numbers into their examples. Still found no error. Perhaps I am crazy, but it appears that it is a gazillion times worse than we ever suspected. If the target electron pattern is just 1 micron across, it would take the electron 35 statistical hours to exit the target at this drift velocity. So trying to distinguish between 1-electron-per-3 nsec, 100-electrons-per-300nsec, or 1000-electrons-per-3-microseconds seems impossible. The system is just way too mushy. The reservoir of electrons in the equipment supplies all the current in this experiment for any reasonable duration. The analogy would be if someone were using eyedroppers to put water droplets in Lake Superior, and someone with a very accurate liquid flow meter at the other end of the lake was trying to distinguish between 1-drop-every-sec and 1000-drops-every-1000 sec.
If he claimed that the other guy was actually dropping in just "one-drop-at-a-time" at the other end of Lake Superior, he would be laughed out of town. Well, ...
Andrew Gray. Real World.
The random result of DSE is the result of chaotic density fluctuations of aether foam (so called zero point energy, ZPE). It has nothing to do with light interaction, as the same result appears in the darkness, too. Like I've said, the particles are forming a standing wave packets, which are following the path of the maximal density of vacuum. If this path is random due the density fluctuations, the motion of particles will be random, too.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 20 2007, 12:23 AM)
...If two electrons are turned "ON" when they overlap, they repel each other forcefully and do not continue on their original way to the film. This produces a minimum. If two electrons are turned "OFF" when they overlap, then they continue on to the film to a maximum....
The same result you can obtain even for proton or neutron particles without charge, so the explanation shouldn't depend on the particle mutual interaction. The main problem of your approach is, the double slit experiment proceeds consecutively, the time delay between individual particles can be infinitelly long. Such particles cannot interact mutually at all.
The physics is not philosophy, where each phenomena can be interpreted by many ways. Just a single description can be perfectly consistent with all experiment variations.
The same result you can obtain even for proton or neutron particles without charge, so the explanation shouldn't depend on the particle mutual interaction. The main problem of your approach is, the double slit experiment proceeds consecutively, the time delay between individual particles can be infinitelly long. Such particles cannot interact mutually at all.
The physics is not philosophy, where each phenomena can be interpreted by many ways. Just a single description can be perfectly consistent with all experiment variations.
Zephir,
Here is a typical neutron "diffraction" pattern. This is way different than a double slit experiment. Neutron diffraction must be done through a crystal lattice.
There is no neutron double slit experiment.
It cannot be done since neutrons do not act like very good pseudo-waves.
In my opinion, a neutron is a bound electron and proton. I believe that it is still pulsating:
ON+ OFF ON- OFF ON+ OFF ON-
or something like that. But the overall effect is neutral. So it still can have preferred directions through a crystalline lattice like a pseudo-wave.
Andrew
Here is a typical neutron "diffraction" pattern. This is way different than a double slit experiment. Neutron diffraction must be done through a crystal lattice.
There is no neutron double slit experiment.
It cannot be done since neutrons do not act like very good pseudo-waves.
In my opinion, a neutron is a bound electron and proton. I believe that it is still pulsating:
ON+ OFF ON- OFF ON+ OFF ON-
or something like that. But the overall effect is neutral. So it still can have preferred directions through a crystalline lattice like a pseudo-wave.
Andrew
QUOTE
The main problem of your approach is, the double slit experiment proceeds consecutively, the time delay between individual particles can be infinitelly long.
Zephir,
I believe you are referring to the "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiment.
Well, I have looked into this. "One-electron-at-a-time" in a 100 cm microscope at 100 KeV corresponds to .05 nanoamps. Since I work in the electronics industry, I know that this small of current can easily be measured, but it cannot be regulated.
Electron double slit experiments typically are done in an electron microscope at 100,000 volts. Trying to regulate 100 Kev electrons to "one-at-a-time" would be like trying to drop birdseed into a feeder "one-at-a-time' with a backhoe.
What is happening with .05 nanoamp current at 100 KeV is that the electrons build up on the tip of the electron gun until they surge out in a group. Then there is pause. Then they build up again and surge again.
This occurs such that the average current is .05 nanoamps.
"One-particle-at-a-time" current regulation is not real world.
To give a feel for this current magnitude, I calculated the average drift velocity and how long one electron would take to get all the way back to the electron gun from the target down a hair-sized wire.
Well, I was stunned. Plugging in the values gives a drift velocity of
v = ( 50x10E-12 amps ) over { (8x10E22 per cubic cm)(5x10E-6 sq cm)(1.6x10E-19 Coul) }
v = 8 x 10E-10 cm/sec
Statistically, it takes 1.25 x 10E11 sec (4000 years) for the electron to go back the 100 cm to the top of the microscope. I could not believe my eyes, so I went back over and over again to check the arithmetic. Finding no mistake, I went back to find the error in Halliday & Resnick's expression for drift velocity. I could find none. I plugged my numbers into their examples. Still found no error. Perhaps I am crazy, but it appears that it is a gazillion times worse than we ever suspected. If the target electron pattern is just 1 micron across, it would take the electron 35 statistical hours to exit the target at this drift velocity. So trying to distinguish between 1-electron-per-3 nsec, 100-electrons-per-300nsec, or 1000-electrons-per-3-microseconds seems impossible. The system is just way too mushy. The reservoir of electrons in the equipment supplies all the current in this experiment for any reasonable duration. The analogy would be if someone were using eyedroppers to put water droplets in Lake Superior, and someone with a very accurate liquid flow meter at the other end of the lake was trying to distinguish between 1-drop-every-sec and 1000-drops-every-1000 sec.
If he claimed that the other guy was actually dropping in just "one-drop-at-a-time" at the other end of Lake Superior, he would be laughed out of town. Well, ...
Andrew Gray. Real World.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 20 2007, 09:13 AM)
There is no neutron double slit experiment...
Since then particle interference has been demonstrated with electrons, photons, neutrons (1, 2), single neutral atoms and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70 fullerenes or even single oil droplets bouncing at the water surface.
You should know something about experimental physics, before starting to babble about it. The double slit experiment interpretation shouldn't require some particle-particle interaction at all, the particle charge the less, because it works perfectly both with charged particles, both with neutral particles without charge. You can feel free to delete your pages from the Internet without problem, as they're based on the nonsenses and false assumptions.
Yes young man,
your point makes perfect sense.
Zephir,
10 electrons per second corresponds to:
(10/sec)*1.6E-19 Coulombs = 1.6 x 10E-18 amps.
This is .0000016 picoamps. Claiming this kind of current regulation is incompetant.
You are so far removed from real world, it seems like a dark age of physics is coming.
Have you had any experience in electronics? Can you describe for us the method that smoothly regulates this magnitude of current?
Or do you think that because you see 10 macroscopic dots on the film per second, then that means 10 electrons per second hit the film?
Next,
Zephir,
10 electrons per second corresponds to:
(10/sec)*1.6E-19 Coulombs = 1.6 x 10E-18 amps.
This is .0000016 picoamps. Claiming this kind of current regulation is incompetant.
You are so far removed from real world, it seems like a dark age of physics is coming.
Have you had any experience in electronics? Can you describe for us the method that smoothly regulates this magnitude of current?
Or do you think that because you see 10 macroscopic dots on the film per second, then that means 10 electrons per second hit the film?
Next,
[The double slit experiment]... works even for photons and other uncharged particles as well
For your "one-photon-at-a-time" experiments, read this:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_6.html
And let's see some of your uncharged particle double slit interference patterns, and allow others see how definitive they are.
Andrew
Since then particle interference has been demonstrated with electrons, photons, neutrons (1, 2), single neutral atoms and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70 fullerenes or even single oil droplets bouncing at the water surface.
You should know something about experimental physics, before starting to babble about it. The double slit experiment interpretation shouldn't require some particle-particle interaction at all, the particle charge the less, because it works perfectly both with charged particles, both with neutral particles without charge. You can feel free to delete your pages from the Internet without problem, as they're based on the nonsenses and false assumptions.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 20 2007, 09:13 AM)
.."One-particle-at-a-time" current regulation is not real world....
The single electron double slit experiment was subject of particular interest and they were first performed in Milan laboratory (Am. J. Phys. 44 306-7) and subsequently repeated in much more better experimental arrangement by Tonomura and others later [A Tonomura, J Endo, T Matsuda, T Kawasaki and H Ezawa 1989 Demonstration of single-electron build-up of an interference pattern, American Journal of Physics 57 117-120].
The picture above illustrates the single-electron events build up over a 20 minute exposure to form an interference pattern in this double-slit experiment by Akira Tonomura and co-workers. [a) 8 electrons; [
270 electrons; [C 2000 electrons; [d) 60,000. A video of this experiment is available on the Hitachi web.
As there is only one electron in the apparatus at a given time, the figures show how an interference pattern can be built up from single-electron events. These experiments were carried out from beginning to end with constant and extremely low electron intensities - fewer than 1000 electrons per second - so there was no chance of finding two or more electrons in the apparatus at the same time. This removed any possibility that the fringes might be due to interactions between the electrons. The electrons arriving at the detector were detected with almost 100% efficiency. Therefore, the detection error in Tonomura experiment was limited to less than 1%.
It is also worth noting that the double-slit experiment with single electrons was actually a by-product of research into the practical applications of electron interferometry.
The single electron double slit experiment was subject of particular interest and they were first performed in Milan laboratory (Am. J. Phys. 44 306-7) and subsequently repeated in much more better experimental arrangement by Tonomura and others later [A Tonomura, J Endo, T Matsuda, T Kawasaki and H Ezawa 1989 Demonstration of single-electron build-up of an interference pattern, American Journal of Physics 57 117-120].
The picture above illustrates the single-electron events build up over a 20 minute exposure to form an interference pattern in this double-slit experiment by Akira Tonomura and co-workers. [a) 8 electrons; [
270 electrons; [C 2000 electrons; [d) 60,000. A video of this experiment is available on the Hitachi web. As there is only one electron in the apparatus at a given time, the figures show how an interference pattern can be built up from single-electron events. These experiments were carried out from beginning to end with constant and extremely low electron intensities - fewer than 1000 electrons per second - so there was no chance of finding two or more electrons in the apparatus at the same time. This removed any possibility that the fringes might be due to interactions between the electrons. The electrons arriving at the detector were detected with almost 100% efficiency. Therefore, the detection error in Tonomura experiment was limited to less than 1%.
It is also worth noting that the double-slit experiment with single electrons was actually a by-product of research into the practical applications of electron interferometry.
Zephir,
When there are dots on the film, they are single-dot-events, not single-electron-events. One film dot does not correspond to one electron. Many electrons collide with the film and do not produce dots. One electron does not a dot make. It could be that one dot corresponds to 10 electron events.
Also, like I pointed out before, one-electron-at-a-time current regulation is impossible, even laughable.
Andrew
When there are dots on the film, they are single-dot-events, not single-electron-events. One film dot does not correspond to one electron. Many electrons collide with the film and do not produce dots. One electron does not a dot make. It could be that one dot corresponds to 10 electron events.
Also, like I pointed out before, one-electron-at-a-time current regulation is impossible, even laughable.
Andrew
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 20 2007, 11:49 PM)
..One film dot does not correspond to one electron. Many electrons collide with the film and do not produce dots. One electron does not a dot make. ...
This is exactly why I've quoted the articles, linked above:
These experiments were carried out from beginning to end with constant and extremely low electron intensities - fewer than 1000 electrons per second - so there was no chance of finding two or more electrons in the apparatus at the same time. This removed any possibility that the fringes might be due to interactions between the electrons. The electrons arriving at the detector were detected with almost 100% efficiency.
These electrons were accelerated to 50,000 V, and therefore the speed is about 40 % of the speed of the light, i. e., it is 120,000 km/second. These electrons can go around the earth three times in a second. So, they pass through a one-meter-long electron microscope in 1/100,000,000 of a second. It is all right to think that each electron is detected in an instant after it is emitted.
Interference fringes are produced only when two electrons pass through both sides of the electron biprism simultaneously. If there were two electrons in the microscope at the same time, such interference might happen. But this cannot occur, because there is no more than one electron in the microscope at one time, since only 10 electrons are emitted per second.
After all, this discussion is solely waste of time, because the double slit experiment is working even for photons and other uncharged particles as well, where no mutual particle interactions are possible for your explanation. I'd recommend you to forget the explanations of yours and face the reality of experiments: the result of DSE doesn't depend on the mutual interactions of the particle involved.
This is exactly why I've quoted the articles, linked above:
These experiments were carried out from beginning to end with constant and extremely low electron intensities - fewer than 1000 electrons per second - so there was no chance of finding two or more electrons in the apparatus at the same time. This removed any possibility that the fringes might be due to interactions between the electrons. The electrons arriving at the detector were detected with almost 100% efficiency.
These electrons were accelerated to 50,000 V, and therefore the speed is about 40 % of the speed of the light, i. e., it is 120,000 km/second. These electrons can go around the earth three times in a second. So, they pass through a one-meter-long electron microscope in 1/100,000,000 of a second. It is all right to think that each electron is detected in an instant after it is emitted.
Interference fringes are produced only when two electrons pass through both sides of the electron biprism simultaneously. If there were two electrons in the microscope at the same time, such interference might happen. But this cannot occur, because there is no more than one electron in the microscope at one time, since only 10 electrons are emitted per second.
After all, this discussion is solely waste of time, because the double slit experiment is working even for photons and other uncharged particles as well, where no mutual particle interactions are possible for your explanation. I'd recommend you to forget the explanations of yours and face the reality of experiments: the result of DSE doesn't depend on the mutual interactions of the particle involved.
THINK SMALL - GO IN CIRCLES.
THINK BIG - FIND ANSWERS.
If we assume that the reality we see in front of us, is all that there is to be seen, and so therefore is all that there is, period, then we have a problem !
We exist in a Relativistic reality. Everything is related to another. To do so, everything is broken down into separate quanta.
But a Relativistic reality must also be related. Let us assume that it is related to a Holistic reality.
Our reality is always within the present time. What if the Holistic reality is at a 90 degree angle relative to out own. This means that the Holistic reality extends across ALL time. Basically our reality exists within the second Holistic reality.
If this were the case, then you would have two realities that are connected together, and therefore you have two different realities that govern singular events.
If we then proceed to watch a double slit experiment, and just look at the outcome of the event, then we have defined this singular event itself as that which occurs across the time period between the beginning and the end of the experiment, and only then do we proceed to examine the " EVENT " by looking at the outcome / finish of the event.
From the Holistic point of view, one sees across time, unlike our point of view which does not, and so every complete path of every electron of or photon would be seen all at the same time. Therefore a complete conditional agreement of non-interference would have to develop to allow the particles to move from the start to the finish.
In short, if these spinning particles create a corkscrew shaped path from the start to the finish, then this will determine the shape of what paths will be clear, and what paths will not, and therefore determine the interference patterns.
However, if we monitor the electrons or photons as they pass through the slits during the " EVENT " described above, then we have instead created smaller events, which in turn prevent the huge Holistically governed event from occurring at all, due to this act of replacement.
The Holistic governing of the large event has been eliminated.
Instead, the governing is now done from the Relativistic side of reality.
Particle , or real time events, are now restored rather than allowing the possible " Time Period " governed events having the opportunity to occur.
THINK BIG - FIND ANSWERS.
If we assume that the reality we see in front of us, is all that there is to be seen, and so therefore is all that there is, period, then we have a problem !
We exist in a Relativistic reality. Everything is related to another. To do so, everything is broken down into separate quanta.
But a Relativistic reality must also be related. Let us assume that it is related to a Holistic reality.
Our reality is always within the present time. What if the Holistic reality is at a 90 degree angle relative to out own. This means that the Holistic reality extends across ALL time. Basically our reality exists within the second Holistic reality.
If this were the case, then you would have two realities that are connected together, and therefore you have two different realities that govern singular events.
If we then proceed to watch a double slit experiment, and just look at the outcome of the event, then we have defined this singular event itself as that which occurs across the time period between the beginning and the end of the experiment, and only then do we proceed to examine the " EVENT " by looking at the outcome / finish of the event.
From the Holistic point of view, one sees across time, unlike our point of view which does not, and so every complete path of every electron of or photon would be seen all at the same time. Therefore a complete conditional agreement of non-interference would have to develop to allow the particles to move from the start to the finish.
In short, if these spinning particles create a corkscrew shaped path from the start to the finish, then this will determine the shape of what paths will be clear, and what paths will not, and therefore determine the interference patterns.
However, if we monitor the electrons or photons as they pass through the slits during the " EVENT " described above, then we have instead created smaller events, which in turn prevent the huge Holistically governed event from occurring at all, due to this act of replacement.
The Holistic governing of the large event has been eliminated.
Instead, the governing is now done from the Relativistic side of reality.
Particle , or real time events, are now restored rather than allowing the possible " Time Period " governed events having the opportunity to occur.
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff+Jan 21 2007, 01:31 AM)
think small - go in circles. think big - find answers.
Yep, I think, the Universe is sort of pink Marshmallow. Do you?
Yep, I think, the Universe is sort of pink Marshmallow. Do you?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 20 2007, 10:51 PM)
Yep, I think, the Universe is sort of pink Marshmallow. Do you?
I assume you in particular are talking about the miniature ( SMALL ) marshmallows !
I assume you in particular are talking about the miniature ( SMALL ) marshmallows !
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff+Jan 21 2007, 02:06 AM)
I assume you in particular are talking about the miniature marshmallows !
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 20 2007, 11:50 PM)
You can consider this video for better understanding of problem...
This example, still does not include the second point of view.
David Bohm came very close to understanding the completeness of what you call a " problem ".
On page 187 of his book " Wholeness and the implicate order " there is fig. 7.1 showing that his understandings were just one step away from getting it right.
This drawing was part of section 4 of the last chapter, and was called " QUANTUM THEORY AS AN INDICATION OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPLICATE ORDER".
In the drawing he has a fish tank, a fish, two TV camera's, and two TV monitors, with each camera attached to a separate one of the two monitors.
One camera is pointed towards the front of the tank, and the other camera is pointed towards one of the two sides.
On each monitor is the picture of a fish. On one monitor the fish is facing sideways, and on the other the fish is looking directly at the camera.
Watch the monitors for a minute, and you begin to notice that these aren't two different fish, but that they are one in the same.
In truth, however, what we have as part of reality, is two separate points of view of reality, as his example implies, but the events that go on at the point of intersection of these two points of view, can be governed from either side.
The outcome of the event reveals to us, which side has governed the EVENT, the Relativistic side, or the Holistic side.
About the Video. Well that was a good laugh. It reminded me of long long ago when I too used to examine reality with mere 3 dimensional thinking.
Here too then event was not being viewed as a whole, but the video showed only the making of the event. Meaning that the singular " EVENT " was broken down such that it could be viewed from a time lapsed point of view. Hence, " Time " was added into the view.
However, when the actual Wave-like event occurs, " Time " is NOT included in the equation as a component that determines the nature of the event.
For those who continue to think 3 dimensionally, these events will continue to be seen from only one point of view of a two view point system.
This example, still does not include the second point of view.
David Bohm came very close to understanding the completeness of what you call a " problem ".
On page 187 of his book " Wholeness and the implicate order " there is fig. 7.1 showing that his understandings were just one step away from getting it right.
This drawing was part of section 4 of the last chapter, and was called " QUANTUM THEORY AS AN INDICATION OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPLICATE ORDER".
In the drawing he has a fish tank, a fish, two TV camera's, and two TV monitors, with each camera attached to a separate one of the two monitors.
One camera is pointed towards the front of the tank, and the other camera is pointed towards one of the two sides.
On each monitor is the picture of a fish. On one monitor the fish is facing sideways, and on the other the fish is looking directly at the camera.
Watch the monitors for a minute, and you begin to notice that these aren't two different fish, but that they are one in the same.
In truth, however, what we have as part of reality, is two separate points of view of reality, as his example implies, but the events that go on at the point of intersection of these two points of view, can be governed from either side.
The outcome of the event reveals to us, which side has governed the EVENT, the Relativistic side, or the Holistic side.
About the Video. Well that was a good laugh. It reminded me of long long ago when I too used to examine reality with mere 3 dimensional thinking.
Here too then event was not being viewed as a whole, but the video showed only the making of the event. Meaning that the singular " EVENT " was broken down such that it could be viewed from a time lapsed point of view. Hence, " Time " was added into the view.
However, when the actual Wave-like event occurs, " Time " is NOT included in the equation as a component that determines the nature of the event.
For those who continue to think 3 dimensionally, these events will continue to be seen from only one point of view of a two view point system.
Yes young man,
your point makes perfect sense.
QUOTE
since only 10 electrons are emitted per second.
Zephir,
10 electrons per second corresponds to:
(10/sec)*1.6E-19 Coulombs = 1.6 x 10E-18 amps.
This is .0000016 picoamps. Claiming this kind of current regulation is incompetant.
You are so far removed from real world, it seems like a dark age of physics is coming.
Have you had any experience in electronics? Can you describe for us the method that smoothly regulates this magnitude of current?
Or do you think that because you see 10 macroscopic dots on the film per second, then that means 10 electrons per second hit the film?
Next,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| since only 10 electrons are emitted per second. |
Zephir,
10 electrons per second corresponds to:
(10/sec)*1.6E-19 Coulombs = 1.6 x 10E-18 amps.
This is .0000016 picoamps. Claiming this kind of current regulation is incompetant.
You are so far removed from real world, it seems like a dark age of physics is coming.
Have you had any experience in electronics? Can you describe for us the method that smoothly regulates this magnitude of current?
Or do you think that because you see 10 macroscopic dots on the film per second, then that means 10 electrons per second hit the film?
Next,
[The double slit experiment]... works even for photons and other uncharged particles as well
For your "one-photon-at-a-time" experiments, read this:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_6.html
And let's see some of your uncharged particle double slit interference patterns, and allow others see how definitive they are.
Andrew
OK,
Here is the Zeiling et.al. neutron double slit pattern:
www.modelofreality.org/neutron.gif
(cut & paste into a browser. Newbies cannot link)
The figure text says:
A classic double slit neutron diffraction pattern by Zeilinger et al [22]. Note that the visibility of the fringes even at the center of the pattern is barely 0.6 which indicates the detection (arrival of) a large number of neutrons at the null regions. We explain this as arrival of some random single neutrons besides simultaneous arrival of even number of neutrons with opposite phases. The phase we hypothesize is due to some actual internal sinusoidal undulations of the particles that dictate interactions capability with the detectors. The “opposite phases” required to generate the null fringes is not due to de Broglie “Pilot Waves”.
Reread this gobbledygook:
We explain this as arrival of some random single neutrons besides simultaneous arrival of even number of neutrons with opposite phases. The phase we hypothesize is due to some actual internal sinusoidal undulations of the particles that dictate interactions capability with the detectors. The “opposite phases” required to generate the null fringes is not due to de Broglie “Pilot Waves”.
So is this neutron pattern definitive for neutron waves? Probably not.
The 2nd null region has a higher intensity than the 5th bright fringe.
This more likely shows a preferred direction to the target of a neutron "pseudo-wave" beam, and it also shows that the neutron beam was not coherent. That is, the groups of neutrons heading towards the target were not pulsating in unison. This also re-enforces the idea that a matter pseudo-wave beam cannot "cancel itself out", like a wave can. Since nothing is really "waving", there is no negative for 180 degrees like a wave has. You are left with positive or nothing.
That brings up another point. If this indeed is a "one-neutron-at-a-time" wave phenomena, what difference is the neutron phase? Can a single neutron be out of phase with itself? If it is 180 degrees out of phase at the detector, then it should cancel itself out if it is a wave. What difference does the particular value for the phase make?
The answer is that if a single neutron does go through one of the slits alone, then there are no others to interfere with its path to the minima, and you get many neutrons landing in the minima as expected.
In the electron double slit experiment, you always have a group of coherent electrons surging out of the electron gun simultaneously. This allows clear minima.
There is no mechanism in the neutron source for this.
Andrew Gray
double slit pattern found at:
www.physics.uconn.edu/~chandra/06-Enrgy.Drk.Frng.SPIE-V.6285.pdf
Here is the Zeiling et.al. neutron double slit pattern:
www.modelofreality.org/neutron.gif
(cut & paste into a browser. Newbies cannot link)
The figure text says:
A classic double slit neutron diffraction pattern by Zeilinger et al [22]. Note that the visibility of the fringes even at the center of the pattern is barely 0.6 which indicates the detection (arrival of) a large number of neutrons at the null regions. We explain this as arrival of some random single neutrons besides simultaneous arrival of even number of neutrons with opposite phases. The phase we hypothesize is due to some actual internal sinusoidal undulations of the particles that dictate interactions capability with the detectors. The “opposite phases” required to generate the null fringes is not due to de Broglie “Pilot Waves”.
Reread this gobbledygook:
We explain this as arrival of some random single neutrons besides simultaneous arrival of even number of neutrons with opposite phases. The phase we hypothesize is due to some actual internal sinusoidal undulations of the particles that dictate interactions capability with the detectors. The “opposite phases” required to generate the null fringes is not due to de Broglie “Pilot Waves”.
So is this neutron pattern definitive for neutron waves? Probably not.
The 2nd null region has a higher intensity than the 5th bright fringe.
This more likely shows a preferred direction to the target of a neutron "pseudo-wave" beam, and it also shows that the neutron beam was not coherent. That is, the groups of neutrons heading towards the target were not pulsating in unison. This also re-enforces the idea that a matter pseudo-wave beam cannot "cancel itself out", like a wave can. Since nothing is really "waving", there is no negative for 180 degrees like a wave has. You are left with positive or nothing.
That brings up another point. If this indeed is a "one-neutron-at-a-time" wave phenomena, what difference is the neutron phase? Can a single neutron be out of phase with itself? If it is 180 degrees out of phase at the detector, then it should cancel itself out if it is a wave. What difference does the particular value for the phase make?
The answer is that if a single neutron does go through one of the slits alone, then there are no others to interfere with its path to the minima, and you get many neutrons landing in the minima as expected.
In the electron double slit experiment, you always have a group of coherent electrons surging out of the electron gun simultaneously. This allows clear minima.
There is no mechanism in the neutron source for this.
Andrew Gray
double slit pattern found at:
www.physics.uconn.edu/~chandra/06-Enrgy.Drk.Frng.SPIE-V.6285.pdf
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 22 2007, 10:23 PM)
Claiming this kind of current regulation is incompetent
Why not? Of course, the number of electrons released by cathode is much more higher, but the number of electrons can be controlled with high precisions by the slits and electrostatic shutters.
But the more important point is, the double slit experiment (DSE) is working well even with photons or neutrons, which cannot undergo the mutual interactions, used in the explanation of yours. Therefore, you should try to find some better/universal model for DSE explanation.
The explanation of DSE by AWT doesn't require the consideration of particle mutual interactions at all.
Zephir,
You are not correct about the "slits". There really are no slits in the electron "double slit experiment". The electrons in the microscope are bent around a positively charged wire. The size of the "slits" is theoretically very large. There is nothing to control.
You are also wrong about the electrostatic shutters. A high voltage electron spends about 5 nanoseconds in the microscope. After an electron went through, you would have much less time than this to close the shutter, as a whole group of them would be on their way. Again, this extremely small time element is beyond the capability of modern electronics.
Zephir,
You are not correct about the "slits". There really are no slits in the electron "double slit experiment". The electrons in the microscope are bent around a positively charged wire. The size of the "slits" is theoretically very large. There is nothing to control.
You are also wrong about the electrostatic shutters. A high voltage electron spends about 5 nanoseconds in the microscope. After an electron went through, you would have much less time than this to close the shutter, as a whole group of them would be on their way. Again, this extremely small time element is beyond the capability of modern electronics.
But the more important point is, the double slit experiment (DSE) is working well even with photons or neutrons
Again, photons. Zephir, slow-forming film dots would happen with a low intensity incident wave, as I have previously stated. As you raise the faint light intensity up from below the threshold, the most light sensitive silver bromide crystals start to randomly activate first. You do not need photons to imagine the formation of random dots on discrete film. The film is the discrete thing, not the light wave.
And finally, neutrons. As seen in the above link, the double slit neutron scattering pattern is really a lousy diffraction pattern. There are many neutrons striking the minima. In my opinion, there are several reasons for this:
1) matter "cannot cancel itself out" like a wave can.
2) the neutrons are not very coherent
3) the neutrons probably have a bell curve velocity distribution, hence the De Broglie frequencies are not sharply uniform.
I disagree with this also. In my opinion, a neutron is a bound proton and electron (yes, quarks are gobbledygook). In my Model of Reality theory, protons and electrons are pulsating charges, turning their electric fields ON and OFF. So neutrons are pulsating charges, turning their fields ON POSITIVE, OFF, ON NEGATIVE, OFF..., or something like this. So two neutrons traveling beside each other would still be electrically neutral. But if there were correlations in their pulsations, then they could still attract, repel, or have no force for each other in this rare situation.
Thus a neutron beam with a narrow velocity distribution would act similarly to an interfering electron beam, only the neutron beam would make a lousier pseudo-wave interference pattern.
First remind yourself just how electron interference works. Read this:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html
So neutron double slit scattering would work something like this:
1) Neutrons traveling by themselves would go through the slits and hit the detector without any interference, the only interaction being with the slits themselves. This would imply that the quality of the pattern would depend on the neutron intensity.
2) Neutrons traveling next to other neutrons with the same velocity would either attract, repel, or have no force on each other, depending on the phase of their pulsations.
3) Neutrons with force between them would soon not be traveling next to each other. Neutrons with no force between them would continue on their way.
4) These neutrons with no force between them would go through the slits, and if they interacted after going through the slits, they would continue on their way only if their pathlength differences allow for integral pulsation lengths. So there would only be a tendency for the neutrons to strike the maxima.
5) This would make a "diffraction" pattern, but a lousy one.
Why not? Of course, the number of electrons released by cathode is much more higher, but the number of electrons can be controlled with high precisions by the slits and electrostatic shutters.
But the more important point is, the double slit experiment (DSE) is working well even with photons or neutrons, which cannot undergo the mutual interactions, used in the explanation of yours. Therefore, you should try to find some better/universal model for DSE explanation.
The explanation of DSE by AWT doesn't require the consideration of particle mutual interactions at all.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 22 2007, 10:23 PM)
This also re-enforces the idea that a matter pseudo-wave beam cannot "cancel itself out", like a wave can
The wave interference patterns are never quite ideal, even at the case of pure wave diffraction patterns. The neutrons in real experiments are having some speed distribution, therefore the deBroglie waves aren't sharp, so the cannot coincide in sharp patterns. Your extrapolations of this fact are funny.
The wave interference patterns are never quite ideal, even at the case of pure wave diffraction patterns. The neutrons in real experiments are having some speed distribution, therefore the deBroglie waves aren't sharp, so the cannot coincide in sharp patterns. Your extrapolations of this fact are funny.
The Dr Quantum movie would seem to have been pirated from this site...
http://www.whatthebleep.com/download/
-C2
http://www.whatthebleep.com/download/
-C2
QUOTE
...the number of electrons released by cathode is much more higher, but the number of electrons can be controlled with high precisions by the slits and electrostatic shutters.
Zephir,
You are not correct about the "slits". There really are no slits in the electron "double slit experiment". The electrons in the microscope are bent around a positively charged wire. The size of the "slits" is theoretically very large. There is nothing to control.
You are also wrong about the electrostatic shutters. A high voltage electron spends about 5 nanoseconds in the microscope. After an electron went through, you would have much less time than this to close the shutter, as a whole group of them would be on their way. Again, this extremely small time element is beyond the capability of modern electronics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...the number of electrons released by cathode is much more higher, but the number of electrons can be controlled with high precisions by the slits and electrostatic shutters. |
Zephir,
You are not correct about the "slits". There really are no slits in the electron "double slit experiment". The electrons in the microscope are bent around a positively charged wire. The size of the "slits" is theoretically very large. There is nothing to control.
You are also wrong about the electrostatic shutters. A high voltage electron spends about 5 nanoseconds in the microscope. After an electron went through, you would have much less time than this to close the shutter, as a whole group of them would be on their way. Again, this extremely small time element is beyond the capability of modern electronics.
But the more important point is, the double slit experiment (DSE) is working well even with photons or neutrons
Again, photons. Zephir, slow-forming film dots would happen with a low intensity incident wave, as I have previously stated. As you raise the faint light intensity up from below the threshold, the most light sensitive silver bromide crystals start to randomly activate first. You do not need photons to imagine the formation of random dots on discrete film. The film is the discrete thing, not the light wave.
And finally, neutrons. As seen in the above link, the double slit neutron scattering pattern is really a lousy diffraction pattern. There are many neutrons striking the minima. In my opinion, there are several reasons for this:
1) matter "cannot cancel itself out" like a wave can.
2) the neutrons are not very coherent
3) the neutrons probably have a bell curve velocity distribution, hence the De Broglie frequencies are not sharply uniform.
QUOTE
[neutrons] ...cannot undergo the mutual interactions used in the explanation of yours. Therefore, you should try to find some better/universal model for DSE explanation.
I disagree with this also. In my opinion, a neutron is a bound proton and electron (yes, quarks are gobbledygook). In my Model of Reality theory, protons and electrons are pulsating charges, turning their electric fields ON and OFF. So neutrons are pulsating charges, turning their fields ON POSITIVE, OFF, ON NEGATIVE, OFF..., or something like this. So two neutrons traveling beside each other would still be electrically neutral. But if there were correlations in their pulsations, then they could still attract, repel, or have no force for each other in this rare situation.
Thus a neutron beam with a narrow velocity distribution would act similarly to an interfering electron beam, only the neutron beam would make a lousier pseudo-wave interference pattern.
First remind yourself just how electron interference works. Read this:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html
So neutron double slit scattering would work something like this:
1) Neutrons traveling by themselves would go through the slits and hit the detector without any interference, the only interaction being with the slits themselves. This would imply that the quality of the pattern would depend on the neutron intensity.
2) Neutrons traveling next to other neutrons with the same velocity would either attract, repel, or have no force on each other, depending on the phase of their pulsations.
3) Neutrons with force between them would soon not be traveling next to each other. Neutrons with no force between them would continue on their way.
4) These neutrons with no force between them would go through the slits, and if they interacted after going through the slits, they would continue on their way only if their pathlength differences allow for integral pulsation lengths. So there would only be a tendency for the neutrons to strike the maxima.
5) This would make a "diffraction" pattern, but a lousy one.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 29 2007, 10:33 AM)
There really are no slits in the electron "double slit experiment". The electrons in the microscope are bent around a positively charged wire.
This makes no difference concerning the relevance of the hypothesis, the interference patterns are the result of mutual interaction of particles in subsequent experiments. By my model the particles are curling the vacuum foam by the similar way, like the fish swimming beneath the water surface. This wave (so called the deBroglie wave) interferes with the neighboring obstacles under formation of flabelliform patterns, which are making the vacuum more dense in radial zones, so they're focusing the further particle spreading.
This mechanism is very simple in fact, it follows the classical wave mechanic without any ad-hoc assumptions about hidden variables, parallel universes and/or another BS's and it's working well despite the fact, the obstacle is formed by the double slit or single wire. And the most important thing is, it doesn't require the mutual interference of individual particles: each the particle affects the probability of its further spreading independently. So it's fully consistent with the experimental observations, the mutual interaction of particles plays no role in double slit experiments. The simplicity of this explanation can serves as another indirect evidence of the relevancy of AWT model of reality as such.
This makes no difference concerning the relevance of the hypothesis, the interference patterns are the result of mutual interaction of particles in subsequent experiments. By my model the particles are curling the vacuum foam by the similar way, like the fish swimming beneath the water surface. This wave (so called the deBroglie wave) interferes with the neighboring obstacles under formation of flabelliform patterns, which are making the vacuum more dense in radial zones, so they're focusing the further particle spreading.
This mechanism is very simple in fact, it follows the classical wave mechanic without any ad-hoc assumptions about hidden variables, parallel universes and/or another BS's and it's working well despite the fact, the obstacle is formed by the double slit or single wire. And the most important thing is, it doesn't require the mutual interference of individual particles: each the particle affects the probability of its further spreading independently. So it's fully consistent with the experimental observations, the mutual interaction of particles plays no role in double slit experiments. The simplicity of this explanation can serves as another indirect evidence of the relevancy of AWT model of reality as such.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 29 2007, 10:33 AM)
Again, this extremely small time element is beyond the capability of modern electronics.
Nope, you just didn't understood the trick. The carrying out of double slit experiment with "single electrons" doesn't require the usage of "extremely small cathode currents" or "extremely fast electronic shutters". Instead of this, everything, what is required to do is to throttle/collimate the stream of electrons emanated by the cathode by the system of sufficiently small nozzles/holes, so that the probability/frequency of the electrons passing through such system into experiment remains sufficiently low. If the detention period of electron in DSE apparatus remains sufficiently low with compare to the average time interval between consecutive electrons comming into apparatus, we can say with corresponding probability, just the single electron exists in the apparatus during experiment.
Zephir,
Here is where you are wrong. There are no electron detections. JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS!!!!! Let me repeat so you do not read over this:
JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS. NO ELECTRON DETECTIONS.
Again, one-electron-at-a-time current in a 100 KeV electron microscope implies that the electrons would spend about 10 ns in the microscope. This corresponds to about 16 picoamps, or to about 100,000,000 electrons per second.
So, if 10 dots per second are seen forming ON THE FILM, then this implies that about 10,000,000 electrons are striking the film each time a dot is formed.
How can this be? There is a threshold electron-flux for film dot formation, just like there is a threshold intensity for light to produce dots on film! (Or like there is a threshold intensity to produce dots in a digital camera, etc ). Imagine many of the electrons striking the film and doing NOTHING to the silver bromide crystals! Enough electrons must strike near a crystal defect of the silver bromide lattice, or nothing happens! No dots are formed after the development process! A silver bromide crystal with no crystal defects is not film-dot sensitive at all! 10 quadrillion electrons could strike this crystal, and NOTHING would happen.
Moreover, even if the experimenter measures (not regulates) the 16 picoamp current, he could not tell the difference between:
1) one-electron-at-a-time (one electron each 10 ns)
2) two-electrons-at-a-time (two electrons each 20 ns)
3) 100 electrons-at-a-time (100 electrons each 1000 ns)
In each case, the pico ammeter would measure the 16 picoamps, as it averages the current flow. But it can say nothing about how it was regulated, perhaps like case 1), case 2), or perhaps like case 3).
And since high voltage "cross-the-gap" current tends to surge (like lightning from a thunderstorm), it is much more likely that the microscope is sending out surges of electrons instead of one-electron-at-a-time. This allows for multiple electron interaction to explain the interference pattern. Again, "one-electron-at-a-time" claims are nonsense. And "how-can-it-interfere-with-itself" questions are nonsense to a higher degree.
Zephir,
Here is where you are wrong. There are no electron detections. JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS!!!!! Let me repeat so you do not read over this:
JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS. NO ELECTRON DETECTIONS.
Again, one-electron-at-a-time current in a 100 KeV electron microscope implies that the electrons would spend about 10 ns in the microscope. This corresponds to about 16 picoamps, or to about 100,000,000 electrons per second.
So, if 10 dots per second are seen forming ON THE FILM, then this implies that about 10,000,000 electrons are striking the film each time a dot is formed.
How can this be? There is a threshold electron-flux for film dot formation, just like there is a threshold intensity for light to produce dots on film! (Or like there is a threshold intensity to produce dots in a digital camera, etc ). Imagine many of the electrons striking the film and doing NOTHING to the silver bromide crystals! Enough electrons must strike near a crystal defect of the silver bromide lattice, or nothing happens! No dots are formed after the development process! A silver bromide crystal with no crystal defects is not film-dot sensitive at all! 10 quadrillion electrons could strike this crystal, and NOTHING would happen.
Moreover, even if the experimenter measures (not regulates) the 16 picoamp current, he could not tell the difference between:
1) one-electron-at-a-time (one electron each 10 ns)
2) two-electrons-at-a-time (two electrons each 20 ns)
3) 100 electrons-at-a-time (100 electrons each 1000 ns)
In each case, the pico ammeter would measure the 16 picoamps, as it averages the current flow. But it can say nothing about how it was regulated, perhaps like case 1), case 2), or perhaps like case 3).
And since high voltage "cross-the-gap" current tends to surge (like lightning from a thunderstorm), it is much more likely that the microscope is sending out surges of electrons instead of one-electron-at-a-time. This allows for multiple electron interaction to explain the interference pattern. Again, "one-electron-at-a-time" claims are nonsense. And "how-can-it-interfere-with-itself" questions are nonsense to a higher degree.
to throttle/collimate the stream of electrons emanated by the cathode by the system of sufficiently small nozzles/holes
Zephir, I do not believe that this can be done. The beam strikes the film and produces a pattern that is typically a few micrometers across. Are you suggesting aligning a "hole nozzle", on the micrometer scale, in line with the experiment to throttle the entire incident beam? Get onto Google or the physics archive and show me where this is done. I have seen "donuts" that are put in the electron beam and projected onto the film, but I have not seen throttling holes aligned perfectly to reduce the electron flux of the entire experiment.
And even if you could put a micrometer scale hole in a plate that was put in line with the experiment, it would have to be a conductor so one could read the current (amperage) coming from it (otherwise, you would not know how many electrons it blocked). But such a conductive plate (with some sort of voltage) would seriously alter the electron beam, ruining the experiment.
Andrew Gray
Getting us back to the Real World.
Nope, you just didn't understood the trick. The carrying out of double slit experiment with "single electrons" doesn't require the usage of "extremely small cathode currents" or "extremely fast electronic shutters". Instead of this, everything, what is required to do is to throttle/collimate the stream of electrons emanated by the cathode by the system of sufficiently small nozzles/holes, so that the probability/frequency of the electrons passing through such system into experiment remains sufficiently low. If the detention period of electron in DSE apparatus remains sufficiently low with compare to the average time interval between consecutive electrons comming into apparatus, we can say with corresponding probability, just the single electron exists in the apparatus during experiment.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 29 2007, 10:33 AM)
there are several reasons for this 3) the neutrons probably have a bell curve velocity distribution, hence the De Broglie frequencies are not sharply uniform.
The last reason seems to be most correct. It's not so easy to create the stream formed by the neutrons of uniform speed, just because they're neutral particles, so they cannot be collimated by quadruple filter or by some other way. Instead of this, they're fulfill the Boltzmann's speed distribution, because they're moving like the mutually colliding particles of gas.
The last reason seems to be most correct. It's not so easy to create the stream formed by the neutrons of uniform speed, just because they're neutral particles, so they cannot be collimated by quadruple filter or by some other way. Instead of this, they're fulfill the Boltzmann's speed distribution, because they're moving like the mutually colliding particles of gas.
QUOTE
If the detention [detection] period of electron in DSE apparatus remains sufficiently low with compare to the average time interval between consecutive electrons comming into apparatus, we can say with corresponding probability, just the single electron exists in the apparatus during experiment.
Zephir,
Here is where you are wrong. There are no electron detections. JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS!!!!! Let me repeat so you do not read over this:
JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS. NO ELECTRON DETECTIONS.
Again, one-electron-at-a-time current in a 100 KeV electron microscope implies that the electrons would spend about 10 ns in the microscope. This corresponds to about 16 picoamps, or to about 100,000,000 electrons per second.
So, if 10 dots per second are seen forming ON THE FILM, then this implies that about 10,000,000 electrons are striking the film each time a dot is formed.
How can this be? There is a threshold electron-flux for film dot formation, just like there is a threshold intensity for light to produce dots on film! (Or like there is a threshold intensity to produce dots in a digital camera, etc ). Imagine many of the electrons striking the film and doing NOTHING to the silver bromide crystals! Enough electrons must strike near a crystal defect of the silver bromide lattice, or nothing happens! No dots are formed after the development process! A silver bromide crystal with no crystal defects is not film-dot sensitive at all! 10 quadrillion electrons could strike this crystal, and NOTHING would happen.
Moreover, even if the experimenter measures (not regulates) the 16 picoamp current, he could not tell the difference between:
1) one-electron-at-a-time (one electron each 10 ns)
2) two-electrons-at-a-time (two electrons each 20 ns)
3) 100 electrons-at-a-time (100 electrons each 1000 ns)
In each case, the pico ammeter would measure the 16 picoamps, as it averages the current flow. But it can say nothing about how it was regulated, perhaps like case 1), case 2), or perhaps like case 3).
And since high voltage "cross-the-gap" current tends to surge (like lightning from a thunderstorm), it is much more likely that the microscope is sending out surges of electrons instead of one-electron-at-a-time. This allows for multiple electron interaction to explain the interference pattern. Again, "one-electron-at-a-time" claims are nonsense. And "how-can-it-interfere-with-itself" questions are nonsense to a higher degree.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the detention [detection] period of electron in DSE apparatus remains sufficiently low with compare to the average time interval between consecutive electrons comming into apparatus, we can say with corresponding probability, just the single electron exists in the apparatus during experiment. |
Zephir,
Here is where you are wrong. There are no electron detections. JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS!!!!! Let me repeat so you do not read over this:
JUST FILM DOT FORMATIONS. NO ELECTRON DETECTIONS.
Again, one-electron-at-a-time current in a 100 KeV electron microscope implies that the electrons would spend about 10 ns in the microscope. This corresponds to about 16 picoamps, or to about 100,000,000 electrons per second.
So, if 10 dots per second are seen forming ON THE FILM, then this implies that about 10,000,000 electrons are striking the film each time a dot is formed.
How can this be? There is a threshold electron-flux for film dot formation, just like there is a threshold intensity for light to produce dots on film! (Or like there is a threshold intensity to produce dots in a digital camera, etc ). Imagine many of the electrons striking the film and doing NOTHING to the silver bromide crystals! Enough electrons must strike near a crystal defect of the silver bromide lattice, or nothing happens! No dots are formed after the development process! A silver bromide crystal with no crystal defects is not film-dot sensitive at all! 10 quadrillion electrons could strike this crystal, and NOTHING would happen.
Moreover, even if the experimenter measures (not regulates) the 16 picoamp current, he could not tell the difference between:
1) one-electron-at-a-time (one electron each 10 ns)
2) two-electrons-at-a-time (two electrons each 20 ns)
3) 100 electrons-at-a-time (100 electrons each 1000 ns)
In each case, the pico ammeter would measure the 16 picoamps, as it averages the current flow. But it can say nothing about how it was regulated, perhaps like case 1), case 2), or perhaps like case 3).
And since high voltage "cross-the-gap" current tends to surge (like lightning from a thunderstorm), it is much more likely that the microscope is sending out surges of electrons instead of one-electron-at-a-time. This allows for multiple electron interaction to explain the interference pattern. Again, "one-electron-at-a-time" claims are nonsense. And "how-can-it-interfere-with-itself" questions are nonsense to a higher degree.
to throttle/collimate the stream of electrons emanated by the cathode by the system of sufficiently small nozzles/holes
Zephir, I do not believe that this can be done. The beam strikes the film and produces a pattern that is typically a few micrometers across. Are you suggesting aligning a "hole nozzle", on the micrometer scale, in line with the experiment to throttle the entire incident beam? Get onto Google or the physics archive and show me where this is done. I have seen "donuts" that are put in the electron beam and projected onto the film, but I have not seen throttling holes aligned perfectly to reduce the electron flux of the entire experiment.
And even if you could put a micrometer scale hole in a plate that was put in line with the experiment, it would have to be a conductor so one could read the current (amperage) coming from it (otherwise, you would not know how many electrons it blocked). But such a conductive plate (with some sort of voltage) would seriously alter the electron beam, ruining the experiment.
Andrew Gray
Getting us back to the Real World.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 30 2007, 11:37 PM)
...that the electrons would spend about 10 ns in the microscope. This corresponds to about 16 picoamps...
And? What's the problem? Did you ever see for example the beta-ray scintillation?
And? What's the problem? Did you ever see for example the beta-ray scintillation?
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 30 2007, 11:37 PM)
...In each case, the pico ammeter would measure the 16 picoamps...
Where did you read this?
Zephir,
Ok, I agree with this. The main point is that there is no way to know when a group of electrons comes off the electron gun tip, or how many come off.
Even if you had a femtoammeter, the drift velocities are so tiny, and the circuits are so mushy, you have no chance of one-electron resolution at the electron gun tip. Even if you somehow had this resolution at the input to the gun ahead of the tip, you still cannot tell what happened at the tip. There is such an enormous reservoir of electrons in all the wires and fixtures of the apparatus, it is hopeless to think that you could measure one-at-a-time electron expulsion at the tip. If you had 10 femtoamps flowing into the gun ahead of the tip, then the drift time for a statistical electron to get to the tip is probably thousands of years. Just figure the drift velocity and see for yourself. This means that what happens in one part of a circuit is not immediately connected to what happens somewhere else. Think about Avagodro's number worth of electrons in the wires and fixtures.
Again, the analogy is having a very accurate one-water-droplet-at-a-time source at one end of Lake Superior, and then claiming that one-water-droplet-at-a-time was coming out at the other end of Lake Superior.
Andrew Gray
Getting Back to the Real World
Where did you read this?
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 30 2007, 11:37 PM)
...but I have not seen throttling holes aligned perfectly to reduce the electron flux of the entire experiment...
Such hole is a part of each electron microscope, which was used as an apparatus for the DSE. Of course it's not aligned perfectly, the throttling doesn't requires to be at all.
Such hole is a part of each electron microscope, which was used as an apparatus for the DSE. Of course it's not aligned perfectly, the throttling doesn't requires to be at all.
Zephir,
There is no problem with the 16 pico amps. But the definition of an amp is charge(coulombs) per second. So
1e/10ns = 2e/20ns = 100e/1000ns = 16 picoamps
I did not read this, I calculated it. Do you think that the picoammeter would flash the different pulses every few nanoseconds or so, or just give the average current?
So if there is a throttling hole in an electron microscope, can one tell how many electrons were removed?
Andrew Gray
There is no problem with the 16 pico amps. But the definition of an amp is charge(coulombs) per second. So
1e/10ns = 2e/20ns = 100e/1000ns = 16 picoamps
I did not read this, I calculated it. Do you think that the picoammeter would flash the different pulses every few nanoseconds or so, or just give the average current?
So if there is a throttling hole in an electron microscope, can one tell how many electrons were removed?
Andrew Gray
QUOTE (andrewgray+Jan 31 2007, 05:48 AM)
So 1e/10ns = 2e/20ns = 100e/1000ns = 16 picoamps
But 10 ns is the retention time of electron in DSE apparatus, not the delay (time difference) between consecutive electrons. This value has nothing to do with the electron current on the electron screen (which in turn has nothing to with the cathode current...).
But 10 ns is the retention time of electron in DSE apparatus, not the delay (time difference) between consecutive electrons. This value has nothing to do with the electron current on the electron screen (which in turn has nothing to with the cathode current...).
QUOTE
But 10 ns is the retention time of electron in DSE apparatus, not the delay (time difference) between consecutive electrons. This value has nothing to do with the electron current on the electron screen (which in turn has nothing to with the cathode current...).
Zephir,
Ok, I agree with this. The main point is that there is no way to know when a group of electrons comes off the electron gun tip, or how many come off.
Even if you had a femtoammeter, the drift velocities are so tiny, and the circuits are so mushy, you have no chance of one-electron resolution at the electron gun tip. Even if you somehow had this resolution at the input to the gun ahead of the tip, you still cannot tell what happened at the tip. There is such an enormous reservoir of electrons in all the wires and fixtures of the apparatus, it is hopeless to think that you could measure one-at-a-time electron expulsion at the tip. If you had 10 femtoamps flowing into the gun ahead of the tip, then the drift time for a statistical electron to get to the tip is probably thousands of years. Just figure the drift velocity and see for yourself. This means that what happens in one part of a circuit is not immediately connected to what happens somewhere else. Think about Avagodro's number worth of electrons in the wires and fixtures.
Again, the analogy is having a very accurate one-water-droplet-at-a-time source at one end of Lake Superior, and then claiming that one-water-droplet-at-a-time was coming out at the other end of Lake Superior.
Andrew Gray
Getting Back to the Real World
QUOTE (andrewgray+Feb 1 2007, 02:56 AM)
...The main point is that there is no way to know when a group of electrons comes off the electron gun tip, or how many come off....
At first, the electrons are mutually repulsing particles, here is no reason to consider some sort of particle aggregation. The repelling force of electrons is easily observable.
Zephir,
I have done so. But we shall do so here.
We have proposed that electrons pulse their electric fields ON and OFF.
The electrons group together because high voltage "cross-the-gap" currents almost always surge. The pulsating electrons congregated at the tip of the gun where the voltage got very high, then they surged out as a coherent pulse. They all had to be in the ON state when they exited or they would not have exited at all.
So we now have a coherent pulse of electrons traveling down the microscope, through the magnetic focus, and towards the positively charged wire that will bend them towards each other.
The wire, which cuts the group in half, forces the electrons to cross over each other. Where each crossing takes place, if the electrons are OFF, then they will continue on their way to the film and form a maxima. If the electrons are ON where they cross, then there is a tremendous repulsion, and the electrons will veer off their path and a minima is formed where no electrons will go. Here is a more detailed description:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html (cut & paste to a browser)
Zephir,
I have done so. But we shall do so here.
We have proposed that electrons pulse their electric fields ON and OFF.
The electrons group together because high voltage "cross-the-gap" currents almost always surge. The pulsating electrons congregated at the tip of the gun where the voltage got very high, then they surged out as a coherent pulse. They all had to be in the ON state when they exited or they would not have exited at all.
So we now have a coherent pulse of electrons traveling down the microscope, through the magnetic focus, and towards the positively charged wire that will bend them towards each other.
The wire, which cuts the group in half, forces the electrons to cross over each other. Where each crossing takes place, if the electrons are OFF, then they will continue on their way to the film and form a maxima. If the electrons are ON where they cross, then there is a tremendous repulsion, and the electrons will veer off their path and a minima is formed where no electrons will go. Here is a more detailed description:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html (cut & paste to a browser)
If you don't like electron guns and electron beam throttling by nozzles, you can bring up a wisp of potassium salt and repeat the DSE with the electrons, forming the beta rays as the result of potassium 40K beta-decay, so you can imagine the experimental arrangement of "One-at-a-time" quantum interference easily.
Zephir,
I wish you would attempt this experiment. I can see that this would create very low electron flow rates. I predict that you would have no coherency, and that you would not be able to get an interference pattern from this condition. In my opinion, "one-electron-at-a-time" matter will not create an interference pattern, as matter cannot cancel itself out like a wave can.
Zephir,
I wish you would attempt this experiment. I can see that this would create very low electron flow rates. I predict that you would have no coherency, and that you would not be able to get an interference pattern from this condition. In my opinion, "one-electron-at-a-time" matter will not create an interference pattern, as matter cannot cancel itself out like a wave can.
That is exactly what should happen according to QM.
It should not matter if the electrons come as a group or just as a single electron.
If it would matter then there should be some form of 'memory' in the entire system that accounts for all the electrons that have passed either slit.
Just my thoughts.
Jan Rinze.
At first, the electrons are mutually repulsing particles, here is no reason to consider some sort of particle aggregation. The repelling force of electrons is easily observable.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Feb 1 2007, 02:56 AM)
...you have no chance of one-electron resolution at the electron gun tip.....
Like I've said , the number of electrons at the electron gun tip plays no role in frequency of electrons in the DSE. It's evident, you cannot even imagine, how the electron nozzle is working... Welcome back to the Real World..
After all, even if we'd suppose, some the cluster of electrons can move like the single particle, how can you derive the wave interference pattern from such assumption?
Like I've said , the number of electrons at the electron gun tip plays no role in frequency of electrons in the DSE. It's evident, you cannot even imagine, how the electron nozzle is working... Welcome back to the Real World..
After all, even if we'd suppose, some the cluster of electrons can move like the single particle, how can you derive the wave interference pattern from such assumption?
Zephir,
I see what you are saying about the electron gun nozzle. I am just saying that it is impossible to do.
I am saying that the likeliest scenario is that the electrons surge out of the electron-gun's tip in a group. This is like other "cross-the-gap" high voltage phenomena.
I am saying that a "nozzle" would not be able to convert a group/pulse of electrons down to just one electron by itself.
Yes, easy to imagine.
No, not possible to do.
I am saying that what is easy to imagine might be extremely difficult to do in the Real World.
One is most likely going to end up with a group of electrons in each pulse, so that electron interference will have plenty of electrons to interfere with each other. "One-at-a-time" quantum interference is nonsense.
Andrew
I see what you are saying about the electron gun nozzle. I am just saying that it is impossible to do.
I am saying that the likeliest scenario is that the electrons surge out of the electron-gun's tip in a group. This is like other "cross-the-gap" high voltage phenomena.
I am saying that a "nozzle" would not be able to convert a group/pulse of electrons down to just one electron by itself.
Yes, easy to imagine.
No, not possible to do.
I am saying that what is easy to imagine might be extremely difficult to do in the Real World.
One is most likely going to end up with a group of electrons in each pulse, so that electron interference will have plenty of electrons to interfere with each other. "One-at-a-time" quantum interference is nonsense.
Andrew
QUOTE (andrewgray+Feb 2 2007, 11:40 PM)
I am saying that what is easy to imagine might be extremely difficult to do in the Real World. "One-at-a-time" quantum interference is nonsense.
OK, but WHY? Just because you've spent some time with the quite different model?
This is not enough for relevant reasoning. You should propose the mechanism of such electron grouping at first. At second, you should demonstrate, how such grouping can explain the DSE patterns.
If you don't like electron guns and electron beam throttling by nozzles, you can bring up a wisp of potassium salt and repeat the DSE with the electrons, forming the beta rays as the result of potassium 40K beta-decay, so you can imagine the experimental arrangement of "One-at-a-time" quantum interference easily.
OK, but WHY? Just because you've spent some time with the quite different model?
This is not enough for relevant reasoning. You should propose the mechanism of such electron grouping at first. At second, you should demonstrate, how such grouping can explain the DSE patterns.
If you don't like electron guns and electron beam throttling by nozzles, you can bring up a wisp of potassium salt and repeat the DSE with the electrons, forming the beta rays as the result of potassium 40K beta-decay, so you can imagine the experimental arrangement of "One-at-a-time" quantum interference easily.
QUOTE
You should propose the mechanism of such electron grouping at first. At second, you should demonstrate, how such grouping can explain the DSE patterns.
Zephir,
I have done so. But we shall do so here.
We have proposed that electrons pulse their electric fields ON and OFF.
The electrons group together because high voltage "cross-the-gap" currents almost always surge. The pulsating electrons congregated at the tip of the gun where the voltage got very high, then they surged out as a coherent pulse. They all had to be in the ON state when they exited or they would not have exited at all.
So we now have a coherent pulse of electrons traveling down the microscope, through the magnetic focus, and towards the positively charged wire that will bend them towards each other.
The wire, which cuts the group in half, forces the electrons to cross over each other. Where each crossing takes place, if the electrons are OFF, then they will continue on their way to the film and form a maxima. If the electrons are ON where they cross, then there is a tremendous repulsion, and the electrons will veer off their path and a minima is formed where no electrons will go. Here is a more detailed description:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html (cut & paste to a browser)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You should propose the mechanism of such electron grouping at first. At second, you should demonstrate, how such grouping can explain the DSE patterns. |
Zephir,
I have done so. But we shall do so here.
We have proposed that electrons pulse their electric fields ON and OFF.
The electrons group together because high voltage "cross-the-gap" currents almost always surge. The pulsating electrons congregated at the tip of the gun where the voltage got very high, then they surged out as a coherent pulse. They all had to be in the ON state when they exited or they would not have exited at all.
So we now have a coherent pulse of electrons traveling down the microscope, through the magnetic focus, and towards the positively charged wire that will bend them towards each other.
The wire, which cuts the group in half, forces the electrons to cross over each other. Where each crossing takes place, if the electrons are OFF, then they will continue on their way to the film and form a maxima. If the electrons are ON where they cross, then there is a tremendous repulsion, and the electrons will veer off their path and a minima is formed where no electrons will go. Here is a more detailed description:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_7.html (cut & paste to a browser)
If you don't like electron guns and electron beam throttling by nozzles, you can bring up a wisp of potassium salt and repeat the DSE with the electrons, forming the beta rays as the result of potassium 40K beta-decay, so you can imagine the experimental arrangement of "One-at-a-time" quantum interference easily.
Zephir,
I wish you would attempt this experiment. I can see that this would create very low electron flow rates. I predict that you would have no coherency, and that you would not be able to get an interference pattern from this condition. In my opinion, "one-electron-at-a-time" matter will not create an interference pattern, as matter cannot cancel itself out like a wave can.
QUOTE (andrewgray+Feb 4 2007, 06:03 AM)
Zephir,
I wish you would attempt this experiment. I can see that this would create very low electron flow rates. I predict that you would have no coherency, and that you would not be able to get an interference pattern from this condition. In my opinion, "one-electron-at-a-time" matter will not create an interference pattern, as matter cannot cancel itself out like a wave can.
That is exactly what should happen according to QM.
It should not matter if the electrons come as a group or just as a single electron.
If it would matter then there should be some form of 'memory' in the entire system that accounts for all the electrons that have passed either slit.
Just my thoughts.
Jan Rinze.
Something that does bother me with the 2 slit experiment is that even thoug we cannot detect the route that one electron had taken withouth disturbing the interference pattern, we should be able to determine the momentum of the electron when 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 a dissapearance 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 forming of an interference pattern. (that is in time as well as in location) None have tried to measure it after the interference pattern has formed. (sufficiently far away from the two slits)
It may be that I am far off the chart here but it keeps lingering in my mind..
Jan Rinze.
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 a dissapearance 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 forming of an interference pattern. (that is in time as well as in location) None have tried to measure it after the interference pattern has formed. (sufficiently far away from the two slits)
It may be that I am far off the chart here but it keeps lingering in my mind..
Jan Rinze.
Andrew,
I like the idea you're presenting though this would seem to imply the interference pattern should be alterable, at least to a minor degree, by increasing or decreasing the average current through the apparatus.
If we assume the electrons build up enough potential to break down some spacial barrier and flow as a group (possibly until some equalibrium is restored), it would seem that by greatly increasing the current, more electrons should be available for such an action, when it occurs (even if this only provides a relatively minor increase in the "per packet" number of electrons, depending upon how short such a "window" would be). That increase should result in the appearance of a stronger statistical coupling and a dependence of the characteristic wavelength upon the density of electrons (though their velocity/inertia would also influence this).
I do agree that without some very novel measurement techniques, accurately measuring current transients associated with the motion of a single electron wouldn't be realistically possible for current technology (I haven't dug in to this specifically but for such short time periods, it seems highly unlikely such precise current measurements would be possible ... you have the equivalent of the uncertainty principle, but realistically scaled up quite a bit when working with larger mechanical systems).
I don't know if your view is correct or not but it's a very interesting consideration.
I like the idea you're presenting though this would seem to imply the interference pattern should be alterable, at least to a minor degree, by increasing or decreasing the average current through the apparatus.
If we assume the electrons build up enough potential to break down some spacial barrier and flow as a group (possibly until some equalibrium is restored), it would seem that by greatly increasing the current, more electrons should be available for such an action, when it occurs (even if this only provides a relatively minor increase in the "per packet" number of electrons, depending upon how short such a "window" would be). That increase should result in the appearance of a stronger statistical coupling and a dependence of the characteristic wavelength upon the density of electrons (though their velocity/inertia would also influence this).
I do agree that without some very novel measurement techniques, accurately measuring current transients associated with the motion of a single electron wouldn't be realistically possible for current technology (I haven't dug in to this specifically but for such short time periods, it seems highly unlikely such precise current measurements would be possible ... you have the equivalent of the uncertainty principle, but realistically scaled up quite a bit when working with larger mechanical systems).
I don't know if your view is correct or not but it's a very interesting consideration.
QUOTE (janrinze+Apr 27 2007, 07:36 PM)
It should not matter if the electrons come as a group or just as a single electron
The electron can be interpreted as a dense cluster of many particles, controlled by the forces of surface tension (of both positive, both negative curvatures).
From such perspective the Andrew's insight has a certain meaning, but the DSE definitely doesn't require the presence of more electrons in the DSE apparatus at the same moment.
The electron can be interpreted as a dense cluster of many particles, controlled by the forces of surface tension (of both positive, both negative curvatures).
From such perspective the Andrew's insight has a certain meaning, but the DSE definitely doesn't require the presence of more electrons in the DSE apparatus at the same moment.
QUOTE (dissturbbed+Jan 18 2007, 10:09 PM)
...is it the act of observing "consciousness"changing the wave to a particle or is it the detector causing some kind of interference with the wave?.
Can't help feeling this has strayed a bit from Dissturbed's original question...
I too am a newbie layperson, so apologies if I've got this wrong. My understanding is that the Copenhagen Interpretation really does assert that the collapse of the wave function into an elementary particle is caused directly by the effect of an observing consciousness. Not surprisingly, this is a very controversial idea!
Does anyone know of any experimental evidence which either confirms or contradicts this explicit interpretation. For example, has anyone done an experiment where:
1. The interference pattern/clumping patterns are recorded for a series of separate double-slit experiments
2. During the same series of experiments a detector records the passage of particles through one or other of the slits
3. Half of the slit-based recordings from point 2 (above) are destroyed without anyone ever being consciously aware of their content
4. The other half of the slit-based recordings are "observed"
5. The recorded patterns are then checked to see if those which have been "observed" show two bands of clumping whereas the "unobserved" show interference.
Could this experiment possibly work? Just a thought
Can't help feeling this has strayed a bit from Dissturbed's original question...
I too am a newbie layperson, so apologies if I've got this wrong. My understanding is that the Copenhagen Interpretation really does assert that the collapse of the wave function into an elementary particle is caused directly by the effect of an observing consciousness. Not surprisingly, this is a very controversial idea!
Does anyone know of any experimental evidence which either confirms or contradicts this explicit interpretation. For example, has anyone done an experiment where:
1. The interference pattern/clumping patterns are recorded for a series of separate double-slit experiments
2. During the same series of experiments a detector records the passage of particles through one or other of the slits
3. Half of the slit-based recordings from point 2 (above) are destroyed without anyone ever being consciously aware of their content
4. The other half of the slit-based recordings are "observed"
5. The recorded patterns are then checked to see if those which have been "observed" show two bands of clumping whereas the "unobserved" show interference.
Could this experiment possibly work? Just a thought
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.