 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2005Single photon double slit expe interpretation
In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would still come out with an interference pattern. What's your interpretation of it. Some say the photon splits and both pass thru the slits and interfere with itself. Some say quantum entanglement as in what the quantum eraser experiments show. One of you (Frank likely) may say just treat photon as particle with characteristics of wave and don't ask any questions. Well. How can a particle have a characteristic of wave unless the particle is also a wave. As the single photon comes out of the source, how can it morph into a wave and pass thru both slits at the same time and then re form on the screen, anyone can give an illustration of what happens behind the scene or the morphing step by step from particle to wave or something like that? Feymann said this is the only mystery of quantum physics that spook even Einstein. A hundred years later. Let's try to understand what's behind the scene. Landle > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Landle There is really a sensible way to understand the result of this experiment, despite how seemingly confused Feynman was on the subject. First, it's necessary to say up front that this result will also be applied to particles, which behave the same way as photons, because otherwise people would say that photons behave 'special' when compared with bits of matter. Taint so Charley Brown. OK. A (particle) gets to the slit structure and a 'desision' is made to move down one slit or the other. The particle has a probability of choosing either slit, and no matter what the chances of it choosing a particular slit is, we do know that the probability of it either being found in one slit or the other is 100% (or 0% if it hits the slit material). It is safe to say that for a particle that doesn't impact the slit barrier, path1 + path2 = 100% . Lets say the particle has a 60% chance of moving along path 1 and chooses it accordingly. Does this mean path 2 ceases to exist? Nope. Because there was a definite probability (40%) of this path being chosen, and because in a quantum decision, probability *must always be conserved*, this path still exists even though the particle did not choose it. Since the particle in one path would interact with a particle in the other path, and because we can not say which path the particle actually took, the particle will act as though it is being interfered with by a ghost particle traveling along the other path simultaneously. Another way of saying it is that the paths are what is interacting, and the particle just gets caught up in the phase distortion, so interference patterns are displayed. Even more fundamental, is that the paths are interacting even when there is no particle traveling along either one, but in this case the phase distortions are imaginary and we can't see them. Or, to put it another way, it takes a particle to make imaginary phase distortions visible. To learn more, look at my website: Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio What would happen if there were more than 2 slits? > What would happen if there were more than 2 slits? Bifurcation, that's what happens. The neatest interference pattern you can have is with only 2 slits contributing to the whole. The more slits you have the more pathways you get the more complex the resultant interference pattern will be. Eventually you will devolve the pattern stochastically to noise (no discernable pattern). But that's OK too - quantum randomness is what makes the world go around ;) Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to make a FTL radio. 'Ghost particles' or 'imaginary phase distortions' can be inveted only by Fucken metemathicians not by nature so if you dont know just say 'i dont know'!!!! Y.Porat -------------------------- > 'Ghost particles' or 'imaginary phase distortions' > can be inveted only by Fucken metemathicians > not by nature > so if you dont know just say 'i dont know'!!!! > Y.Porat > -------------------------- Not only do I know what's happenin', so do you and you don't need no fucken metematics either! Open a tap just a bit, you get a repetitive drip-drip-drip. Open it a bit more, you get drip-(drip, drip)-drip happening. Open it a bit more, and you get drip - drip, (drip, drip) - drip again repeating. In all cases you will get a repeating pattern tending towards increasing complexity until you get laminar fluid flow. It's a fractal pattern which you are watching. It's caused by the same distortions that makes those fringe patterns in a slit experiment. Or, don't tell me you hunt for oil, but never watched it drip? Tsk... Greysky > > 'Ghost particles' or 'imaginary phase distortions' > > can be inveted only by Fucken metemathicians [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that makes those fringe patterns in a slit experiment. Or, don't tell me you > hunt for oil, but never watched it drip? Tsk... You are drivelling, as is your wont. Franz "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1105328022.176812.135090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > spook even Einstein. A hundred years later. Let's try > to understand what's behind the scene. Quantum mechanics has nothing to say about occurrences which can not be observed. There is no way of observing which slit the photon chose without spoiling the interference effect, so qm has no answer to that question. All qm has to say is that the photon is a particle whose dynamics are determined by the behaviour of a wave. It is only the amplitude of the wave *at the detector*, wherever the detector may be, which determines what the probability is of finding the particle at that detector. You are welcome to speculate about hoe the paricle got from A to B, but don't expect qm to confirm or deny your speculations. Franz > > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > without spoiling the interference effect, so qm has no answer to that > question. If you move the detector along the particle pathway, you can generate a true representation of what the 2-D interference pattern is really showing: A 3 dimensional 'ripple' which actually is the way space responds to what is occuring in it. The pattern is of course revealed by the particle, but it is there even if there is no particle: The particle has nothing to do with creating the pattern, which is why qm has nothing to say about which slit the particle chose. You need another physics for that, one we don't have. > All qm has to say is that the photon is a particle whose dynamics are > determined by the behaviour of a wave. It is only the amplitude of > the wave *at the detector*, wherever the detector may be, which > determines what the probability is of finding the particle at that > detector. The physics can only tell you what you want to hear, or are willing to listen to, unfortunately. > You are welcome to speculate about hoe the paricle got from A to B, > but don't expect qm to confirm or deny your speculations. > > Franz The universe makes sense. A theory that is nonsensical is either wrong or being misinterpreted. QM is not wrong... and my interpretation of the theory makes sense. You can of course, have faith in your own interpretation. I don't mind. Greysky > > > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > > > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > If you move the detector along the particle pathway, Then you are obseving a whole sequence of diferent particles, one after thge other. > you can generate a true > representation of what the 2-D interference pattern is really showing: A 3 > dimensional 'ripple' which actually is the way space responds to what is > occuring in it. You aredrivelling. > The pattern is of course revealed by the particle, but it is > there even if there is no particle: The particle has nothing to do with > creating the pattern, which is why qm has nothing to say about which slit > the particle chose. You need another physics for that, one we don't have. You are talking nonsense. > > All qm has to say is that the photon is a particle whose dynamics are > > determined by the behaviour of a wave. It is only the amplitude of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The physics can only tell you what you want to hear, or are willing to > listen to, unfortunately. > > You are welcome to speculate about hoe the paricle got from A to B, > > but don't expect qm to confirm or deny your speculations. > The universe makes sense. A theory that is nonsensical is either wrong or > being misinterpreted. QM is not wrong... and my interpretation of the theory > makes sense. You can of course, have faith in your own interpretation. I > don't mind. Franz > > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > them. Or, to put it another way, it takes a particle to make imaginary phase > distortions visible. To learn more, look at my website: That was one large heap of garbage. Franz This is the classical split brain answer. It violates conservation of linear intelligence. I would suggest laying off the Lysergic acid until your brain resurfaces! > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would > still come out with an interference pattern. What's your > interpretation of it. Quantum mechanics. Read the refereed literature. [snip]  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would > still come out with an interference pattern. What's your > interpretation of it. The photon must satisfy the Maxwell Equations (all FOUR of them) simultaneously. These equations have been shown to be the equivalent of ONE equation in FOUR dimensions - space and time - per Special Relativity and Lorentz Invariance. This one equation is a wave equation using the four-dimensional equivalent of the Laplacian - an operator called the d'Alembertian - applied to a four-dimensional tensor. In the absence of fixed charges or magnetic fields, the solution to this wave equation is a fourth order tensor with periodic (sinusoidal) and non-periodic (Gaussian) components. Anything *done* to the photon to detect its presence will require applying an operator to the tensor which will either transform it into a diagonalized tensor (particle) or an off-diagonal tensor (wave). Depending on *what you do to the photon* you will see either one OR the other representation of the photon tensor. Run it through a two-slit grating and you will "see" a wave - run it into a photoelectric detector and you will "see" a particle. The presence of the slits forces the interference pattern to occur, even with 'one photon at a time.' Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > > In the single photon double slit experiment where you shoot > > single photon (one at a time) for a month. The screen would [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA Great mathematics. Do you know what happen physically or non-physically to the photon while traveling in mid-air in between the source and the slits.. I'd like to know the objective mechanism of how the particle has wave like characteristic... like does the photon send some kind of mini-virtual photons to the two slits to measure or put some kind of frame of reference. Feymann said the photon actually enter both slits and cause interference to itself. Some believe the photon creates a higher dimensional wave function that enter both slits and then lock into the signal of the wave function. What is your interpretation of what's going on behind the scene, behind the mathematics. That's what I'm interested. Thanks. Landle >Great mathematics. Do you know what happen physically or >non-physically to the photon while traveling in mid-air [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Landle Some ideas : Why the space topology should be the same for the particle as it is at the human scale ? Why the particle should see both slits as two seperate sets of points ? In General Topology there are plenty of topologies examples wich are not separated . Why wouldn't that be the case for the space "as seen by the particle"? Speaking the topology langage, It would mean that : given two points x and y (some given points inside the slits) , and two neighborhoods of x and y (slits) , those neighborhoos always have common points (this is not the case of the "natural" topology used in QM). So the particle could travel across both slits, without breaking in two pieces. It could be a ponctual object along its whole travel , with a trajectory in a non-seperated space. The wave behaviour part of a particle could be a space property (topology property) rather than a particle property. Obviously this space would'nt be directly accesible to experiments and a non-bijective function (continuous ?) would map the particle topology onto the natural topology. This model (if valid) would explain why all particles exhibits both wave and ponctual object behaviours. Pierre (France) pierre.c Guys, Supposed, just supposed for sake of discussion that a particle is really composed of smaller waves that instruments couldn't detect yet, can it explain how the single photon can still cause interference in the one month long experiment where single photon at a time is shot to the wall with slits in between? Also there is something I didn't quite get. When they say the single photon can cause interference, is it intereference of the single photon with respect to itself, or with respect to other photons? Hope someone can clarify this. Landle > Guys, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > interference in the one month long experiment where single photon > at a time is shot to the wall with slits in between? No. You are drivelling > Also there is something I didn't quite get. That's the understatement of the year. > When they say the > single photon can cause interference, is it intereference of > the single photon with respect to itself, Yes. > or with respect to > other photons? Hope someone can clarify this. Is it clarified now? Franz i would like to ask an kibitzer question: apparently long before asked but anyway: what is the wave length of that experimented photon compaied to the distance between the two slits ?? -------------- TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.