|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Single photon double slit expe interpretation
"Landle" wrote in message oups.com... 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 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What would happen if there were more than 2 slits?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
'Ghost particles' or 'imaginary phase distortions'
can be inveted only by ****en metemathicians not by nature so if you dont know just say 'i dont know'!!!! Y.Porat -------------------------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Golden Boar" wrote in message oups.com... 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Y.Porat" wrote in message oups.com... 'Ghost particles' or 'imaginary phase distortions' can be inveted only by ****en 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 ****en 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Greysky" wrote in message . .. "Landle" wrote in message oups.com... 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 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: That was one large heap of garbage. Franz |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Landle" wrote in message oups.com... 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. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Landle and Greysky What the two slit experiment is showing us is
that photons travel in pairs. My "Spin is in theory" uses photon pairing even if I did not know about the slit experiment(it would have predicted it) Nature creates in particle pairs. Create an electron,and you get a positron(every time) In the case of photons you get a "virtual" photon. We throw the word wave around in the vacuum of space like we knew what we are talking about,and yet it begs this question What is waving? We are given its like a rock hitting a pond,and this creates a circular wave across the water's surface moving to the pond's shore where it turns to a ripple and ends as heat. Keep in mind there are no ponds of water in space so in reality this analogy sucks. My answer to the two slits is a virtual photon goes through the other slit. I'll add this Make 0ne million tiny holes in a metals surface,and beam half a million photons on this surface and all the holes would receive a photon. Keep in mind 6 trillion photons can sit on a pin head,and what I'm saying is half of them are "VIRTUAL" Bert |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Hi Landle and Greysky What the two slit experiment is showing us is that photons travel in pairs. My "Spin is in theory" uses photon pairing even if I did not know about the slit experiment(it would have predicted it) Nature creates in particle pairs. Create an electron,and you get a positron(every time) In the case of photons you get a "virtual" photon. We throw the word wave around in the vacuum of space like we knew what we are talking about,and yet it begs this question What is waving? We are given its like a rock hitting a pond,and this creates a circular wave across the water's surface moving to the pond's shore where it turns to a ripple and ends as heat. Keep in mind there are no ponds of water in space so in reality this analogy sucks. My answer to the two slits is a virtual photon goes through the other slit. I'll add this Make 0ne million tiny holes in a metals surface,and beam half a million photons on this surface and all the holes would receive a photon. Keep in mind 6 trillion photons can sit on a pin head,and what I'm saying is half of them are "VIRTUAL" Bert So, if the double slit experiment shows us that photons travel in pairs, then what does the triple slit experiment show us? Double-A |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Hi Landle and Greysky What the two slit experiment is showing us is that photons travel in pairs. My "Spin is in theory" uses photon pairing even if I did not know about the slit experiment(it would have predicted it) Nature creates in particle pairs. Create an electron,and you get a positron(every time) In the case of photons you get a "virtual" photon. We throw the word wave around in the vacuum of space like we knew what we are talking about,and yet it begs this question What is waving? We are given its like a rock hitting a pond,and this creates a circular wave across the water's surface moving to the pond's shore where it turns to a ripple and ends as heat. Keep in mind there are no ponds of water in space so in reality this analogy sucks. My answer to the two slits is a virtual photon goes through the other slit. I'll add this Make 0ne million tiny holes in a metals surface,and beam half a million photons on this surface and all the holes would receive a photon. Keep in mind 6 trillion photons can sit on a pin head,and what I'm saying is half of them are "VIRTUAL" Bert So, if the double slit experiment shows us that photons travel in pairs, then what does the triple slit experiment show us? Double-A |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory | Br Dan Izzo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 31st 04 02:35 AM |
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error. | Robert | Astronomy Misc | 133 | August 30th 04 01:31 AM |
Orion EQ-3M drves: single axis or double axis? | Jon Isaacs | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | February 6th 04 12:58 PM |
OR: A few random star hops | Axel | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | October 1st 03 04:25 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |