How to understand the N-slit experiment

Greysky:

Your shears are getting dull. The electron matter wave is a complex entity.
It is very simplistic, even for you, to dismiss a complex wave by comparing
it to a classical mechanical wave. If portions of the matter wave actually
do pass through both slits, then when Franz does this experiment he sees an
electron in two places at once, but split into pieces. This has never been
observed to happen, and QM acknowledges this by saying nothing about the
path a single particle takes.

Look up the aharanov-bohm effect. The electron has to take both paths
around the solenoid in order to interfere with itself.

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Greysky:

Your shears are getting dull. The electron matter wave is a complex
entity.
It is very simplistic, even for you, to dismiss a complex wave by
comparing
it to a classical mechanical wave. If portions of the matter wave
actually
do pass through both slits, then when Franz does this experiment he sees
an
electron in two places at once, but split into pieces. This has never
been
observed to happen, and QM acknowledges this by saying nothing about the
path a single particle takes.

Look up the aharanov-bohm effect. The electron has to take both paths
around the solenoid in order to interfere with itself.



Well, the AB effect shows how a B (or E) vector potential can influence the
*interference pattern* of a matter wave. In the case of a closed loop path
where the electron leaves the emitter, goes through one slit, bounces off
the backplane and through the other slit to arrive back at the source, there
is much complex activity going on here. Modifying this is the solenoid
sitting in the middle of it all. Using imaginary electrons, it is almost a
trivial matter to understand conceptually what is happening though not so
trivial mathematically. (I do not use the word 'trivial' as an insult.) We
can't know which slit the electron chooses to go through, only that there is
a certain probability, defined within the experimental setup and not by the
particle itself, so ther will also exist an imaginary electron going the
opposite way - fully symmetrical to the real electron. With no solenoid, the
electron interferes not with itself, but with its imaginary counterpart
producing an interference pattern. With the solenoid on, there exists a B
field and this also is accompanied by its plethora of imaginary and virtual
photons. Even if there is no interaction between the real components of this
assemblage, the field potential does exert an influence on and in the space
around the experiment. The imaginary components of all this activity will
alter the space inside the double slit setup and this will in turn have its
effect on the path that the imaginary electron takes, and that will alter
the interference pattern - it is interesting that Feynamn got the
interference pattern wrong as he shows it to be the entire interference
envelope shifting from this small effect when in fact it is only a small
phase shift in just a portion of the envelope that is affected (see fig.
15-8, book 2 Lectures). As these are the results of imaginary - imaginary
interactions on an already miniscule effect, I wouldn't expect a global
effect to occure. I wonder if he knew he had made a mistake and why he never
bothered to correct it in future editions of his Lectures on Physics? Oh,
some physicists I have argued with don't seem to like the fact that an
imaginary potential can alter the 'real' character of the space within the
setup. An easier way to think of what is happening here is to look at it in
terms of the character of the vector potential itself. There is no real
influence on the electron path by the real part of the vector potential,
since it is zero. But this has nothing to say about how the imaginary paths
are affected - since all numbers in this path are imaginary, and it is not
possible to describe an *imaginary* zero, imaginaries can inflence each
other, and the product of two imaginary numbers is a real, which we can see
and therefor also see the effects. This is a nice example of how imaginary
information can have an effect on the "real" world.

Greysky

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

Greysky:
"Bilge" wrote in message

Look up the aharanov-bohm effect. The electron has to take both paths
around the solenoid in order to interfere with itself.



Well, the AB effect shows how a B (or E) vector potential can influence the
*interference pattern* of a matter wave.

No. The vector potential is A, not E or B. The E and B field in the
region is zero.

In the case of a closed loop path where the electron leaves the
emitter, goes through one slit, bounces off the backplane and
through the other slit to arrive back at the source, there
is much complex activity going on here. Modifying this is the solenoid
sitting in the middle of it all.

You have not looked at the experiment. The source is on one side
of the solenoid and the screen is on the opposite side.

Using imaginary electrons, it is almost a trivial matter to understand
conceptually what is happening though not so trivial mathematically.

Fine. Then rather than give me the "trivial explanation", which I find
dubious at best, give me the non-trivial mathematical explanation. If it's
as "non-trivial" as the quantum mechanical explanation, it shouldn't take
more than a couple of lines.


(I do not use the word 'trivial' as an insult.) We
can't know which slit the electron chooses to go through, only that there is
a certain probability, defined within the experimental setup and not by the
particle itself, so ther will also exist an imaginary electron going the
opposite way - fully symmetrical to the real electron.

Huh? What is all this "imaginary electron" non-sense? What is it that
compells you to create a scheme involving imaginary entities when there
is a perfectly simple explanation? Wasn't the simple one bizarre enough
for you? Most people are content with the level of bizarre that quantum
mechanics has to offer and if anything the tendency for some is to
try and make it less so.

With no solenoid, the
electron interferes not with itself, but with its imaginary counterpart
producing an interference pattern. With the solenoid on, there exists a B
field and this also is accompanied by its plethora of imaginary and virtual
photons.

The B-field outside the solenoid is zero. That is where the electron
is.

[...]
the interference pattern - it is interesting that Feynamn got the
interference pattern wrong as he shows it to be the entire interference
envelope shifting from this small effect when in fact it is only a small
phase shift in just a portion of the envelope that is affected (see fig.
15-8, book 2 Lectures).

I don't have that text, but I seriously doubt that feynman got it
wrong. It's not that hard to calculate and the experiments match the
theory.

[...]
other, and the product of two imaginary numbers is a real, which we can see
and therefor also see the effects. This is a nice example of how imaginary
information can have an effect on the "real" world.

Something which affects the real world, is not imaginary. Besides,
why would try to do something so strange when it's very simple to
just use a real electron? Somehow, I hae the feeling that this is going
to be like your "faster than light" telescope. Lots of claims, but
no mathematical backing.

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...


[snip]

Well, the AB effect shows how a B (or E) vector potential

Never heard of it. Do you mean E, B or A?

Franz

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Greysky:

Your shears are getting dull. The electron matter wave is a complex
entity.
It is very simplistic, even for you, to dismiss a complex wave by
comparing
it to a classical mechanical wave. If portions of the matter wave
actually
do pass through both slits, then when Franz does this experiment he
sees
an
electron in two places at once, but split into pieces. This has never
been
observed to happen, and QM acknowledges this by saying nothing about
the
path a single particle takes.

Look up the aharanov-bohm effect. The electron has to take both paths
around the solenoid in order to interfere with itself.



Well, the AB effect shows how a B (or E) vector potential can influence
the
*interference pattern* of a matter wave. In the case of a closed loop path
where the electron leaves the emitter, goes through one slit, bounces off
the backplane and through the other slit to arrive back at the source,
there
is much complex activity going on here.

Is your model local in the Einstein causality sense? Does the electron
bounce back in direction only or does it reverse in time as well?

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...


[anip]

it is interesting that Feynamn got the
interference pattern wrong as he shows it to be the entire interference
envelope shifting from this small effect when in fact it is only a small
phase shift in just a portion of the envelope that is affected (see fig.
15-8, book 2 Lectures).

As might be expected, Feynman is right and Greysky is wrong He may, if he
is capable of doing so, work out for himself
the difference in the line integral of A along any two paths, one of which
passes to the left and the other passing to the right of the solenoid.

[snip]

Franz

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

[snip]

Well, the AB effect shows how a B (or E) vector potential can influence
the
*interference pattern* of a matter wave. In the case of a closed loop path
where the electron leaves the emitter, goes through one slit, bounces off
the backplane and through the other slit to arrive back at the source,

You are not talking about the Aharonov-Bohm experiment, but of some fiction
of your imagination.
Are you sure you know what the experiment consisted of?

[snip]

Franz

Greysky wrote:

Feynman in his lecture series on quantum mechanics goes into great detail
describing the double slit experiment, and how on a conceptual level how
there are limits to understanding the results we get when performing it. He
calls it one of the greatest mysteries of the physical universe, the
implications being that only in the math will the results we can see be
explainable, but phenomenologically can not ever be understood. Humbug.
Actually, the results can be understood with but a slight effort by those
willing extend their view beyond the maths, and that the explanation can be
made to seem almost classical.

Lets say you have a slit set up such that the wavefunction has a 60% chance
of passing through slit A and a 40% chance of passing through slit B.

What do you mean by "the wavefunction ... passing through slit A"? The
wavefunction is a function defined for all positions "at once". It
doesn't move.

Do you perhaps mean a wavepacket???



While
it is true that one can never predict with infinite precision which slit the
wavefunction will pass through, it can be said the probability that the
wavefunction will pass through both slits is equal to 100%. It matters not
which slit a matter wave passes through - the probability of slit choice
will always be 100% ie: 60% + 40%. The path probability remains unaffected
by what the matter wave does. These probabilities exist independently of the
matter wave, and remain constant even if there is no particle being emitted
to the pathway. Sice there is no way to determine which slit has been taken,
the electron behaves as if it takes both paths simultaneously and therefore
interacts with itself, yielding the interference patterns we observe.

Beside your strange stuff about "wavefunction passing through a slit",
this looks very similar to the standard QM explanation...


Classically, this yields a simple interpretation. If an electron for
example, goes through slit A, an identical but imaginary electron will go
through slit B,

Where does this additional imaginary electron come from, and when does
it appear? Does "imaginery" somehow mean that you need no energy, charge
and momentum to create it?


and even though one of the electrons is imaginary, they will
both behave as if they were real and interact with each other producing
familiar interference patterns.

Why should they? This "imaginary" is totally vague and undefined. What
is it supposed to mean physically?


The character of the resultant interference
patterns are determined by the 60 - 40 probability built into the experiment

How?


and not by the electrons traveling down the pathways. Which electron is the
real one and which is the imaginary one? Who knows, or cares? This
interpertation is also useful for revealing a fundamentl truth about the
universe we live in: at the quantum level the nature of reality is
undefined.

Again a vague, handwavy statement.


The universe can't tell the difference between real and imaginary
particles, or forces.

Well, you can't do this, too, apparently.


This is why imaginary forces can produce real work,
without 'breaking' any of the conservation laws we know about.

What do you mean by "imaginary forces"? Example?


Truthfully, even the humble *single* slit experiment has not been given
justice. My new model shows even this experiment is a tiger masquerading as
a pussycat. And this experiment is the fundamental building block upon
which all of quantum physics rests upon. Up till now we only have seen half
the story. For much more detail about this and other simple truths go to my
web site and get your eyes opened.

If you say so.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Greysky" wrote in message
om...
SNIP

Another nut case to add to the killfile.

*PLONK*

" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
om...
SNIP

Another nut case to add to the killfile.

*PLONK*

Hey! You're quick on the uptake!