Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1

Y.Porat wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1
alt.astronomy
sci.physics.relativity
alt.sci.physics



Y.Porat wrote:

[....]


-------------------------------
Dear Mr Kinane

you are asking about entring one photon!!

while me and apparently you as well
do not know
what is** one** photon !!!
what is a single photon definition??

before starting walking we have to learn how to crawl
ist that ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------



Y. Porat:

If questions are a measure of intelligence then you are a genius.

The religionist creationists and the Doppler-Hubble creationists,
and maybe other sorts of expansionist creationists, base all their
conclusions either upon the Bible or upon the Apparent Red Shift
of EM spectral light frequencies.

They adamantly refuse to consider the interaction of photons
and electrons regarding interactions and velocity differentials.

They are totally intellectually closed on that topic. By that they
refuse to gain information regarding, not the origin of the
universe, but its cause insofar as the identity and properties
of the existents that continue to exist, however changed due
to their properties or potentials.

What is more, they refuse to accept that the entity that is the
photon has any identity whatsoever, albeit, except for a few
magnificently discovered properties of photons, e.g., refraction
and gravitational influences, and more.

They actually don't have any idea at all about what the photon is,
and yet they make stupendous pronouncements regarding
suppositions of the assumed causes of the universe.

They don't even know what the properties of gravity existents
are, much less what the substance of matter or energy is.

They are intellectually and factually bankrupt.

More so, they have not opened their eyes to see that the
universe exists continually, that is everything that exists, - e.g.,
would you believe, without start, interruption, or end, continually.
The universe simply continues to exist and its plural existents to
function according to their natural properties.

You said it right.

Scientists, especially astronomer creationist cosmologist
physicists, have no clue whatsoever what a photon is.

They posture madly about the supposed original
discontinuities of the universe, qua their assumed
creationism, this or that nothingness, let alone about what
universal termination is, and still they don't even know what
a photon is.

Or any of the existing existents of existence.

The gentleman has asked the question.

What is the photon?

Ralph Hertle

----------------
Thank you Ralph

now to be more precise the key question is:

WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOTON**??!!

it sems that people speak about a 'single photon' whithout knowing
about aht they are talking
without that definition all the talking about a single photon is
nonsense physics

so ??? waht is the above definition????
does a photon that is emmited from Radium is the same as that form
say nickel evn if the frequescy of them are the same
to be even more specific :

is the **duration of emittance** is the same in radion 'single photon'
as in say Kalium 'single photon ' ????!!!!

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------




Y.Porat:

Excellent.

I wish I had the knowledge with which to answer your questions.

I'm not an expert in the field of photonics, however, you raise a
question that I have never heard prior. Are photons of similar
energy levels that are emitted from different sources the same,
or not? And, of course, if so or not, why?

Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle wrote:
greysky wrote:
"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
groups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
legroups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
glegroups.com...


http://www.effectuationism.com

-------------------
ok thanks
now
how do you know it was a single photon
and not 4 6 or 10 photons ??

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------


I wasn't really addressing that point, as I mentioned.

Perhaps you can tell me what happens if the slits lead to separate
compartments; does the photon-wave only enter one?

--
Peter Kinane

-------------------------------
Dear Mr Kinane

you are asking about entring one photon!!

while me and apparently you as well
do not know
what is** one** photon !!!
what is a single photon definition??

before starting walking we have to learn how to crawl
ist that ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------


Agreed. But in so far as the standard experiment goes, if the slits lead
to separate compartments, does 'the wave' , to a greater extent than if
there is only one compartment, only enter one?

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


If you can somehow separate off the two paths at the slit exits, then there
is no way possible for the matter-wave to interact and you have reduced the
experiment to, again, a single slit. You will register the electron in one
or the other chamber.
Greysky




greysky:

Has the double slit experiment ever been demonstrated
using a single photon?

It has always seemed to me that when multiple photons
are spewed out at the two slits there is a shell game at
work.

Ralph Hertle


To my best recollection of how Feynman described it, when you shoot
only a single photon through a slit in the double slit set up (or an
electron, or an atom), the photon or particle hits a seemingly random
spot on the target screen as you would expect. But if you continue the
experiment of shooting photons or particles one at a time and recording
where each one strikes the screen, after a while your start realizing
that the photons are not hitting randomly, but the ghostly interference
pattern of a double slit experiment with photons passing through both
slits simultaneously starts to appear, even though there is seemingly
nothing to interfere with each individual photon! If you cover one
slit and repeat the experiment, the interference pattern disappears!

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

[....]

It has always seemed to me that when multiple photons
are spewed out at the two slits there is a shell game at
work.

Ralph Hertle



To my best recollection of how Feynman described it, when you shoot
only a single photon through a slit in the double slit set up (or an
electron, or an atom), the photon or particle hits a seemingly random
spot on the target screen as you would expect. But if you continue the
experiment of shooting photons or particles one at a time and recording
where each one strikes the screen, after a while your start realizing
that the photons are not hitting randomly, but the ghostly interference
pattern of a double slit experiment with photons passing through both
slits simultaneously starts to appear, even though there is seemingly
nothing to interfere with each individual photon! If you cover one
slit and repeat the experiment, the interference pattern disappears!

Double-A



Double-A:

If the mask were a true 100 percent photon absorbing stealth material
would that prevent spewed photons from being re-radiated from the
reverse side of the mask?

Are you saying that a single photon projected through only one of two
open slits will cause an interference pattern?

How far apart were the slits in the experiment?

If the I-pattern appeared would not that mean that the photon
was as large or larger than the distance between the two slits?

I am referring to the photon that is a physical entity as it is of itself,
and not merely the property of some other entity, e.g., the screen.

Ralph Hertle

Nightbat You are a true friend. Reality is I have no argument with
people that pick on me for my bad grammar. My kids and grandkids all
college graduates get a good laugh at the way I type. Ruth would say 'Do
people bother to read your posts? Still I know some of my ideas are
good. Even I don't know how I created so many "What if posts" I have a
theory on everything. I do know how every thing works,and pass this
information on. Why nightbat am I not loved by all? Bert

Double-A 99% of all my theories are on average 50 years old.Like
Einstein the creative part of the brain slows down after age 26 Sad but
so very true. Who does a tin man talk science with? It was only when my
son Ken gave me this webtv for my birthday that I could give my thoughts
out to the world. Had things been different in the 30s for me " I could
have been somebody. (Brando) Bert

Double-A If you closed one slit and got two interference patterns it
would be even more amazing. However it could still happen over time
using the uncertainty principle. QM effects are weirder than our minds
can ever imagine. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A Y can't Porat this here? Would like to add number 4 to the
list to help solve this slit mystery. It comes out of my "Spin in in
theory" The structure of a photon is made of a million spinning photons
(A cloud) half of these photons are virtual. Like birds of a feather
these photons stick together,and the two slit experiment is proving
this. Virtual photons go through the right slit,and regular photons go
through the left slit. Their interference patterns are identical.
Nature is showing to us that virtual photons exists,and are measurable..
OK Here comes number 5 Its Treb throwing another single electron into
the opposite slit just to make me(us) crazy. This morning he put two
figure 8 knots in the middle of my 25 foot Kirby vacuum cord Go figure
Bert

Sounds very similar to what I have posted for a few years.
http://www.magma.ca/~jtuzo/Weirdness.htm The main difference is that
my "paraphotons" do not have as much energy as a regular photon however
they can interfere with a regular photon and reduce the net energy to
below detection threshold. This leaves dark spots in an interference
pattern.

of

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

To my best recollection of how Feynman described it, when you shoot
only a single photon through a slit in the double slit set up (or an
electron, or an atom), the photon or particle hits a seemingly random
spot on the target screen as you would expect. But if you continue the
experiment of shooting photons or particles one at a time and recording
where each one strikes the screen, after a while your start realizing
that the photons are not hitting randomly, but the ghostly interference
pattern of a double slit experiment with photons passing through both
slits simultaneously starts to appear,

This might be an interesting effect to nurture and see if it would develop
further.

even though there is seemingly
nothing to interfere with each individual photon! If you cover one
slit and repeat the experiment, the interference pattern disappears!


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

Ralph Hertle wrote:
Double-A wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

[....]

It has always seemed to me that when multiple photons
are spewed out at the two slits there is a shell game at
work.

Ralph Hertle



To my best recollection of how Feynman described it, when you shoot
only a single photon through a slit in the double slit set up (or an
electron, or an atom), the photon or particle hits a seemingly random
spot on the target screen as you would expect. But if you continue the
experiment of shooting photons or particles one at a time and recording
where each one strikes the screen, after a while your start realizing
that the photons are not hitting randomly, but the ghostly interference
pattern of a double slit experiment with photons passing through both
slits simultaneously starts to appear, even though there is seemingly
nothing to interfere with each individual photon! If you cover one
slit and repeat the experiment, the interference pattern disappears!

Double-A



Double-A:

If the mask were a true 100 percent photon absorbing stealth material
would that prevent spewed photons from being re-radiated from the
reverse side of the mask?


That's not what's observed.


Are you saying that a single photon projected through only one of two
open slits will cause an interference pattern?


That is what's observed. That's why its considered a mystery.


How far apart were the slits in the experiment?


I don't know.


If the I-pattern appeared would not that mean that the photon
was as large or larger than the distance between the two slits?


Perhaps its wave nature is, but not its particle nature.'


I am referring to the photon that is a physical entity as it is of itself,
and not merely the property of some other entity, e.g., the screen.

Ralph Hertle


Double-A

On 16 Aug 2006 09:47:13 -0700, "Double-A" wrote:


Ralph Hertle wrote:
Double-A wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

[....]

It has always seemed to me that when multiple photons
are spewed out at the two slits there is a shell game at
work.

Ralph Hertle



To my best recollection of how Feynman described it, when you shoot
only a single photon through a slit in the double slit set up (or an
electron, or an atom), the photon or particle hits a seemingly random
spot on the target screen as you would expect. But if you continue the
experiment of shooting photons or particles one at a time and recording
where each one strikes the screen, after a while your start realizing
that the photons are not hitting randomly, but the ghostly interference
pattern of a double slit experiment with photons passing through both
slits simultaneously starts to appear, even though there is seemingly
nothing to interfere with each individual photon! If you cover one
slit and repeat the experiment, the interference pattern disappears!

Double-A



Double-A:

If the mask were a true 100 percent photon absorbing stealth material
would that prevent spewed photons from being re-radiated from the
reverse side of the mask?


That's not what's observed.


Are you saying that a single photon projected through only one of two
open slits will cause an interference pattern?


That is what's observed. That's why its considered a mystery.


How far apart were the slits in the experiment?


I don't know.


If the I-pattern appeared would not that mean that the photon
was as large or larger than the distance between the two slits?


Perhaps its wave nature is, but not its particle nature.'


I am referring to the photon that is a physical entity as it is of itself,
and not merely the property of some other entity, e.g., the screen.

Ralph Hertle


Double-A

Thanks Double-A, Your understanding is my understanding. I was
beginning to think I didn't understand.

dick