Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1

Begin Part One

In chapter one, book three, of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics", Professor
Richard Feynman had this to say about the double slit experiment:

"We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely
impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart
of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot
make the mystery go away by explaining how it works. We will just tell you
how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the
basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics."

This single experiment forms the foundation of quantum mechanics. I contend
it is also the most misunderstood. Clearly, quantum mechanics as a whole is
a very successful description of how physical reality operates. Yet, how
much more successful, more powerful, would it be if we understood it better?
The thing that limits us from a more complete understanding of the theory is
not a limitation in our ability to think up complex experiments to test our
hypothesis upon, but in our ability to transform what the experiments are
telling us into concrete visualizations our human brains can grasp.

This is precisely what Professor Feynman is talking about when he starts off
his book on quantum mechanics with the double slit experiment. See, he can
and does describe the physical setup of his experiment, and also goes into
much detail explaining the results, and how they differ from what would be
expected if, say, you replaced the electrons with bullets shot from a gun.

It is a common practice in physics to solve a complex problem by breaking it
up into many smaller pieces and then solving each piece separately. It
would seem that in order to apply this process to the double slit
experiment, it is necessary to first begin with but a single slit. This is
about as simple as you can get - even the good professor doesn't devote too
much time discussing the travails of a particle and its interaction with
just one slit. This is unfortunate. It turns out there is much to be learned
from this most humble and simplest of all experiments in quantum action.

The single slit experiment turns out to be a tiger masquerading as a
pussycat. Properly understanding what happens to the electron in this
experiment will go a long way toward clearing up any confusion about its
more complex brethren, experiments where N, the number of slits, is some
number other than one.

At first glance, it seems only too simple. You have a setup where you have
an electron emitter which is able to shoot a single electron at a time
through a slit which can be arbitrarily open or closed, and detectors of
some type able to register an electron hit (or miss) on the far side of the
slit (the target). There are two solutions possible:

1) Slit open. The electron passes through the slit and a detection event is
registered on the detector at the target.
or,
2) Slit closed. The electron is stopped by the slit material and no
detection event is registered at the target.

An important thing to keep in mind for both these solutions is that the
total probability of action along the path for the electron is 100%. In
other words, if the electron is stopped at the slit, then it didn't make it
to the target. A percentage below 100 indicates electrons missing and a
percentage above 100 indicates you have an electron both stopped by the slit
and detected at the target. This leads to a simple statement about
probability: It is a conserved quantity.

If you put the electron emitter on a movable track such that it moves
parallel to the slit material, you could control how successful the
electron will be in hitting the detector at the target by moving the
electron emitter along the track.. At some point directly in line with the
slit material, the probability that an electron will pass through the open
slit to be detected at the target is 100%, while at some other point along
the track the probability of passing through the slit decreases to 0%.
Please note how probability is always conserved in these examples:

For an arbitrary position where the electron has, say, a 40% chance of
passing through the slit, there is a corresponding 60% chance that it will
not. If the total probability, P(t), is the sum of the path probabilities
where P(s) = the probability where the electron is stopped at the slit and
P(d) = the probability where the electron is detected at the target.

P (t) = P (s) + P (d) = 100

It may seem inane, but knowing that probability is conserved in all cases
and under all conditions will become an important fact when thinking about
the double slit experiment later on.

End Part One

At this point I invite the curious to browse my web site, where I have much
more to say concerning the foundations of QM, and where we went wrong in
interpreting what the universe has to tell us.


Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"greysky" wrote in message
t...

Begin Part One

In chapter one, book three, of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics",
Professor
Richard Feynman had this to say about the double slit experiment:

======================================

I must object, strenuously - to the following.

"We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely
impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart
of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We
cannot
make the mystery go away by explaining how it works. We will just tell you
how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the
basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics."


======================================


This single experiment forms the foundation of quantum mechanics. I
contend
it is also the most misunderstood. Clearly, quantum mechanics as a whole
is
a very successful description of how physical reality operates. Yet, how
much more successful, more powerful, would it be if we understood it
better?
The thing that limits us from a more complete understanding of the theory
is
not a limitation in our ability to think up complex experiments to test
our
hypothesis upon, but in our ability to transform what the experiments are
telling us into concrete visualizations our human brains can grasp.

This is precisely what Professor Feynman is talking about when he starts
off
his book on quantum mechanics with the double slit experiment. See, he can
and does describe the physical setup of his experiment, and also goes into
much detail explaining the results, and how they differ from what would be
expected if, say, you replaced the electrons with bullets shot from a gun.

It is a common practice in physics to solve a complex problem by breaking
it
up into many smaller pieces and then solving each piece separately. It
would seem that in order to apply this process to the double slit
experiment, it is necessary to first begin with but a single slit. This
is
about as simple as you can get - even the good professor doesn't devote
too
much time discussing the travails of a particle and its interaction with
just one slit. This is unfortunate. It turns out there is much to be
learned
from this most humble and simplest of all experiments in quantum action.

The single slit experiment turns out to be a tiger masquerading as a
pussycat. Properly understanding what happens to the electron in this
experiment will go a long way toward clearing up any confusion about its
more complex brethren, experiments where N, the number of slits, is some
number other than one.

At first glance, it seems only too simple. You have a setup where you have
an electron emitter which is able to shoot a single electron at a time
through a slit which can be arbitrarily open or closed, and detectors of
some type able to register an electron hit (or miss) on the far side of
the
slit (the target). There are two solutions possible:

1) Slit open. The electron passes through the slit and a detection event
is
registered on the detector at the target.
or,
2) Slit closed. The electron is stopped by the slit material and no
detection event is registered at the target.

An important thing to keep in mind for both these solutions is that the
total probability of action along the path for the electron is 100%. In
other words, if the electron is stopped at the slit, then it didn't make
it
to the target. A percentage below 100 indicates electrons missing and a
percentage above 100 indicates you have an electron both stopped by the
slit
and detected at the target. This leads to a simple statement about
probability: It is a conserved quantity.

If you put the electron emitter on a movable track such that it moves
parallel to the slit material, you could control how successful the
electron will be in hitting the detector at the target by moving the
electron emitter along the track.. At some point directly in line with
the
slit material, the probability that an electron will pass through the open
slit to be detected at the target is 100%, while at some other point along
the track the probability of passing through the slit decreases to 0%.
Please note how probability is always conserved in these examples:

For an arbitrary position where the electron has, say, a 40% chance of
passing through the slit, there is a corresponding 60% chance that it will
not. If the total probability, P(t), is the sum of the path probabilities
where P(s) = the probability where the electron is stopped at the slit
and
P(d) = the probability where the electron is detected at the target.

P (t) = P (s) + P (d) = 100


======================================

"probability is conserved"

It may seem inane, but knowing that probability is conserved in all cases
and under all conditions will become an important fact when thinking about
the double slit experiment later on.

======================================

End Part One

At this point I invite the curious to browse my web site, where I have
much
more to say concerning the foundations of QM, and where we went wrong in
interpreting what the universe has to tell us.


Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

======================================

I must object, strenuously - to the following.

"We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely
impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the
heart
of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We
cannot
make the mystery go away by explaining how it works.

======================================


For an arbitrary position where the electron has, say, a 40% chance of
passing through the slit, there is a corresponding 60% chance that it
will
not. If the total probability, P(t), is the sum of the path
probabilities
where P(s) = the probability where the electron is stopped at the slit
and
P(d) = the probability where the electron is detected at the target.

P (t) = P (s) + P (d) = 100


======================================

"probability is conserved"

It may seem inane, but knowing that probability is conserved in all
cases
and under all conditions will become an important fact when thinking
about
the double slit experiment later on.

======================================



A very interesting statement "probability is conserved"

What do you suppose the old sheister actually meant by that ?

"greysky" wrote in message
t...
|
| Begin Part One
|
| In chapter one, book three, of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics",
Professor
| Richard Feynman had this to say about the double slit experiment:
|
| "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely
| impossible, to explain in any classical way,


Nothing is impossible when it comes to explanations. Feynmann was a fool
for saying that, "classical" is far to broad a description. In classical
physics,
it was predicted Feynmann would die. Feynmann is dead, classical physics
is proven correct.




Begin rant:
------
[snip rant]
------
|
| 1) Slit open. The electron passes through the slit and a detection event
is
| registered on the detector at the target.

The car passes beneath the bridge.


| or,
| 2) Slit closed. The electron is stopped by the slit material and no
| detection event is registered at the target.

The bridge has collapse across the road.

|
| An important thing

[snip rant]


| For an arbitrary position where the electron has, say, a 40% chance of
| passing through the slit,

If you aim the car at the bridge abutment it will bounce off at an angle.
|
| End Part One

Thank gawd for that.
An important thing to keep in mind is that this tirade was suppose to
explain
double slit that couldn't be done classically.

Androcles.

Greysky Nicely posted. Two slit experiment has put me asleep many nights
as I searched for a common sense solution for this mystery. First common
thought is why would a single electron that passes through the right
slit should not have the slightest care that there happens to be a left
slit,and vice versa.But it does and that's the kicker. Born explained
this mystery by associating a probability wave to each electron(I can
live with that even though my own answer is that the two slit experiment
is proving my theory that submicroscopic particles always travel in
pairs with a wave between them. Greysky Feynman had his own answer.
Tell us about his answer. You type much better than I Interesting is
that you have motion as an answer,and I believe you can't fit that in.
Reason is change in motion changes the experiment itself.?? My answer
is simply tiny stuff go in pairs,and this is again proven by the fact
that a bucky ball,and a single virus will give the same two interference
pattern as a single electron. This just jumped in Read some
where that a single photon can go through one million tiny holes at once
Go figure Bert

"greysky" wrote in message
t...

Begin Part One

In chapter one, book three, of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics",
Professor Richard Feynman had this to say about the double slit
experiment:

"We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely
impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart
of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We
cannot make the mystery go away by explaining how it works. We will just
tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you
about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics."

This single experiment forms the foundation of quantum mechanics. I
contend it is also the most misunderstood. Clearly, quantum mechanics as
a whole is a very successful description of how physical reality operates.
Yet, how much more successful, more powerful, would it be if we understood
it better? The thing that limits us from a more complete understanding of
the theory is not a limitation in our ability to think up complex
experiments to test our hypothesis upon, but in our ability to transform
what the experiments are telling us into concrete visualizations our human
brains can grasp.

This is precisely what Professor Feynman is talking about when he starts
off his book on quantum mechanics with the double slit experiment. See, he
can and does describe the physical setup of his experiment, and also goes
into much detail explaining the results, and how they differ from what
would be expected if, say, you replaced the electrons with bullets shot
from a gun.

It is a common practice in physics to solve a complex problem by breaking
it up into many smaller pieces and then solving each piece separately. It
would seem that in order to apply this process to the double slit
experiment, it is necessary to first begin with but a single slit. This
is about as simple as you can get - even the good professor doesn't devote
too much time discussing the travails of a particle and its interaction
with just one slit. This is unfortunate. It turns out there is much to be
learned from this most humble and simplest of all experiments in quantum
action.

The single slit experiment turns out to be a tiger masquerading as a
pussycat. Properly understanding what happens to the electron in this
experiment will go a long way toward clearing up any confusion about its
more complex brethren, experiments where N, the number of slits, is some
number other than one.

At first glance, it seems only too simple. You have a setup where you have
an electron emitter which is able to shoot a single electron at a time
through a slit which can be arbitrarily open or closed, and detectors of
some type able to register an electron hit (or miss) on the far side of
the slit (the target). There are two solutions possible:

1) Slit open. The electron passes through the slit and a detection event
is registered on the detector at the target.
or,
2) Slit closed. The electron is stopped by the slit material and no
detection event is registered at the target.

An important thing to keep in mind for both these solutions is that the
total probability of action along the path for the electron is 100%. In
other words, if the electron is stopped at the slit, then it didn't make
it to the target. A percentage below 100 indicates electrons missing and a
percentage above 100 indicates you have an electron both stopped by the
slit and detected at the target. This leads to a simple statement about
probability: It is a conserved quantity.

If you put the electron emitter on a movable track such that it moves
parallel to the slit material, you could control how successful the
electron will be in hitting the detector at the target by moving the
electron emitter along the track.. At some point directly in line with
the slit material, the probability that an electron will pass through the
open slit to be detected at the target is 100%, while at some other point
along the track the probability of passing through the slit decreases to
0%. Please note how probability is always conserved in these examples:

For an arbitrary position where the electron has, say, a 40% chance of
passing through the slit, there is a corresponding 60% chance that it will
not. If the total probability, P(t), is the sum of the path probabilities
where P(s) = the probability where the electron is stopped at the slit
and P(d) = the probability where the electron is detected at the target.

P (t) = P (s) + P (d) = 100

It may seem inane, but knowing that probability is conserved in all cases
and under all conditions will become an important fact when thinking about
the double slit experiment later on.

Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an electron-wave. Would
that model accomodate observations?


End Part One

At this point I invite the curious to browse my web site, where I have
much more to say concerning the foundations of QM, and where we went
wrong in interpreting what the universe has to tell us.


Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

| Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an electron-wave.
Would
| that model accomodate observations?


No.
Cars are not waves. Electrons are not waves. Photons are not waves.
Wave models are incorrect. Replace them with field models and particle
models if you wish to understand.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lina/Drive.htm
Androcles

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Greysky Nicely posted. Two slit experiment has put me asleep many nights
as I searched for a common sense solution for this mystery. First common
thought is why would a single electron that passes through the right
slit should not have the slightest care that there happens to be a left
slit,and vice versa.But it does and that's the kicker. Born explained
this mystery by associating a probability wave to each electron(I can
live with that even though my own answer is that the two slit experiment
is proving my theory that submicroscopic particles always travel in
pairs with a wave between them. Greysky Feynman had his own answer.
Tell us about his answer. You type much better than I Interesting is
that you have motion as an answer,and I believe you can't fit that in.
Reason is change in motion changes the experiment itself.?? My answer
is simply tiny stuff go in pairs,


Then how do you explain the Triple Slit Experiment?


and this is again proven by the fact
that a bucky ball,and a single virus will give the same two interference
pattern as a single electron. This just jumped in Read some
where that a single photon can go through one million tiny holes at once
Go figure Bert


So can Santa Claus with those chimneys, else he could never complete
his rounds in one night!

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Greysky Nicely posted. Two slit experiment has put me asleep many nights
as I searched for a common sense solution for this mystery. First common
thought is why would a single electron that passes through the right
slit should not have the slightest care that there happens to be a left
slit,and vice versa.But it does and that's the kicker. Born explained
this mystery by associating a probability wave to each electron(I can
live with that even though my own answer is that the two slit experiment
is proving my theory that submicroscopic particles always travel in
pairs with a wave between them. Greysky Feynman had his own answer.
Tell us about his answer. You type much better than I Interesting is
that you have motion as an answer,and I believe you can't fit that in.
Reason is change in motion changes the experiment itself.?? My answer
is simply tiny stuff go in pairs,


Then how do you explain the Triple Slit Experiment?


and this is again proven by the fact
that a bucky ball,and a single virus will give the same two interference
pattern as a single electron. This just jumped in Read some
where that a single photon can go through one million tiny holes at once
Go figure Bert


So can Santa Claus with those chimneys, else he could never complete
his rounds in one night!

Double-A

If Bert doesn't believe in God, I doubt that he believes in Satan(sic)
Clause.

OHJ

| Suppose that the electron is the minimum quantum of an electron-wave.
Would
| that model accomodate observations?


No.
Cars are not waves. Electrons are not waves. Photons are not waves.
Wave models are incorrect. Replace them with field models and particle
models if you wish to understand.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lina/Drive.htm
Androcles


Katzebrude.

The electron is a particle. The electron is a wave. It is both.

Fields are places where ones finds dogs mating.

Wave-particle duality is the result of a continuous-discrete duality, and
this continuous-discrete duality is easily explained by allowing
Plancklength graduations to be oriented arbitrarily, not fixed, but sliding
arbitrarily.

Cars are indeed waves, electrons are waves, photons are waves, and sometimes
bull**** comes in waves like a tsunami.

The universe has no geometric origin. There is no cosmic (0,0,0,0). Planck
length chunks of dimension are not numbered. Their configuration is
arbitrary, and so is the location of the origin (as a corollary).

I explained the whole thing already. For Pete's sakes -

For any two points in the universe there is a path of zero distance
connecting those points. It has zero length because it is composed of
trivial points. Obviously, there are also points which are not trivial, and
so ........


gotta run -------