How to understand the N-slit experiment

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. 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.

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, 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. The character of the resultant interference
patterns are determined by the 60 - 40 probability built into the experiment
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. The universe can't tell the difference between real and imaginary
particles, or forces. This is why imaginary forces can produce real work,
without 'breaking' any of the conservation laws we know about.

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.

Greysky

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

"Greysky" wrote in message
om...
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.

Here is where you start going wrong. The wave incident on the slits is
spread over space and actually portions of it pass through both slits. Do
it with water waves and two slits, and you will see what I mean.
If you do not understand this elementary property of a wave, the rest of
your screed is bound to be valueless, so I snip it

[snip]

Franx

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!

"Greysky" wrote in message . com...
[snipper]
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, 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.
[snap]

Ahem. Classically, the electron is a point particle that acts like
a ball bearing. It does not go through both slits. It does not
interfere with itself. It has a definite, specific, determinate
path, a definite position, time, and energy at each and every point
along that path. Only in quantum mechanical descriptions do you
get the things you are talking about. There is no classical
interpretation of quantum mechanics, since classically, there is
no way to get the results of quantum mechanics.

Your imaginary electron cannot interfere destructively, but only
additively, unless you include the quantum character. Otherwise
things go in the manner of spray paint comming from two nozzles.
This is not the nature of the results of various slit experiments.
The image to keep in mind is how water waves interact when passing
through slits. You find places beyond the slit where the water
is affected doubly by the wave, and places where it is not affected
at all. This is how slit diffraction works.

The character of the resultant interference
patterns are determined by the 60 - 40 probability built into the experiment
and not by the electrons traveling down the pathways.

A hearty big RTFM. It is not the probabilities that interfere, it
is the the wave function. The probabilities are given by (usually
integrals of) the square of the amplitude of the wave function.
But the wave function is a complex-valued function with a phase
and an amplitude, and so can interfere constructively or
destructively. Hence the interference patterns of various slit
experiments.

There is a good reason that highschool students are forced to do
all those tedious ripple tank experiments. You ought to return to
that and see if you can't maybe develop a small amount of understanding
of diffraction before you return. You should also see if you can't
convince yourself that diffraction isn't possible with a classical
view of particle interactions. It's the dark spots you need to
understand, not the bright spots.

Truthfully, even the humble *single* slit experiment has not been given
justice.

Well, not within the portion of physics you've understood.
Socks

In article ,
wrote:
"Greysky" wrote in message
.com...
[snipper]
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, 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.
[snap]

Ahem. Classically, the electron is a point particle that acts like
a ball bearing. It does not go through both slits. It does not
interfere with itself. It has a definite, specific, determinate
path, a definite position, time, and energy at each and every point
along that path. Only in quantum mechanical descriptions do you
get the things you are talking about. There is no classical
interpretation of quantum mechanics, since classically, there is
no way to get the results of quantum mechanics.

He does have an imaginary electron there. If it was a 23-slit experiment,
I presume there'd be 22 imaginary electrons. And since the electron can't
know in advance how wide a slit is, there could be any number of imaginary
electrons even in a double or single slit experiment (there's diffraction
through a single slit, after all). That's starting to look like a
Feynman path integral, and the imaginary electrons are a
quasi-wavefunction. He's closer to quantum than classical mechanics, I
think. Call the field of imaginary electrons a pilot wave, and it's
already-explored territory. But either way there'll be non-locality
issues.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

Greysky:

Classically, this yields a simple interpretation.

Classically, it has no interpretation.

If an electron for
example, goes through slit A, an identical but imaginary electron will go
through slit B, 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. The character of the resultant interference
patterns are determined by the 60 - 40 probability built into the experiment
and not by the electrons traveling down the pathways. Which electron is the
real one and which is the imaginary one?

Your model involves imaginary objects by design?

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.

That isn't so. What is undefined are simultaneous values for
certain pairs of classical variables. That only means the reality
is different, not non-existent.

The universe can't tell the difference between real and imaginary
particles, or forces. This is why imaginary forces can produce real work,
without 'breaking' any of the conservation laws we know about.

But, that doesn't happen.


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.


Explain the aharanov-bohm effect and derive the expession for the
interference pattern from your model.


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

Which is another thing you've never described.

Greysky To me the two slit experiment proves that nature creates
particles in "particles in


pairs. (electrons) photons in quantum pairs.

Greysky To me the two slit experiment proves that nature creates
particles in in pairs .I"m creating a theory that photons are created in
quantum pairs that are half real and the other half virtual. Keep in
mind two particles traveling through space parrel(side by side) can
answer the two slit experiment(electrons) Two photons represent millions
of both real and virtual photons can give the same results. Keep in mind
even viruses even so much bigger can go through both slits at the same
time and that has to prove my theory. Nature can't make one. Nor man.
Bert