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

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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


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.

Greysky

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

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
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


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.

Now who's being dimplistic?


This has never been
observed to happen, and QM acknowledges this by saying nothing about the
path a single particle takes.

I spot a troll.


Greysky

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

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
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


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.

Now who's being dimplistic?


This has never been
observed to happen, and QM acknowledges this by saying nothing about the
path a single particle takes.

I spot a troll.

You have reasonably good eyes. But spotting this particular troll does not
require truly excellent vision.

Franz

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
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


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.



The wave that Franz is discussing is not a real wave. It does have the
mechanical properties of a real wave for the purpose of calculations. You
can't just wave your hand and say that he does not understand that the wave
is *complex* and that he does not know what you are talking about. No matter
how *complex* whatever you are picturing in your mind is you can't call it a
*wave* if it does not have the properties of a wave.

A property that the electron wave has that does not fit your picture is that
it is everywhere. While it may be concentrated in some region it spreads
instantaneously within the entire future light cone. It is everywhere. It is
possible for the electron to be on the other side of a mile of lead
shielding. There would be no one real and one imaginary electron. Just as
there could be an infinite number of possible locations you would need an
infinite number of imaginary electrons. And your reply in another thread
that tunneling is because of real tunnels disagrees with experiment.

In my mind I picture the electron as only being real where it interacts with
a photon and being physically extended with a potential for interaction
within the space of the light cone. This is more in accord with a
transactional wave such as in Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory than a Bohm
pilot wave. But it is just a model in *my* head that *I* am comfortable
with. It does not mean anything unless I can use it to express something
that is different from whatever everyone else pictures in a way that can be
proven experimentally. If it does help me to understand things, and I think
it does, I try to prove it by expressing my understanding of standard
theory. Just because it looks good to me don't mean nothing.

"Ed Keane III" wrote in message
. ..

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
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


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.



The wave that Franz is discussing is not a real wave. It does have the
mechanical properties of a real wave for the purpose of calculations. You
can't just wave your hand and say that he does not understand that the
wave
is *complex* and that he does not know what you are talking about. No
matter
how *complex* whatever you are picturing in your mind is you can't call it
a
*wave* if it does not have the properties of a wave.
Don't worry about Franz. He's a big boy, and can take care of himself. That
he was comparing my imaginary electron wave to a water wave was just his
attempt at setting up a strawman argument from which to conclude my idea is
faulty. I just pointed this out to him, is all.


A property that the electron wave has that does not fit your picture is
that
it is everywhere. While it may be concentrated in some region it spreads
instantaneously within the entire future light cone. It is everywhere. It
is
possible for the electron to be on the other side of a mile of lead
shielding. There would be no one real and one imaginary electron. Just as
there could be an infinite number of possible locations you would need an
infinite number of imaginary electrons. And your reply in another thread
that tunneling is because of real tunnels disagrees with experiment.
I wanted to keep things simple by limiting the post to just one or two
slits, but there is no reason to. If you can imagine n = infinity, which is
the same as describing unbounded particle motion in any dimension, then you
do have the situation much as you describe. There must be an imaginary
electron to describe any possible path the electron can take. Now, is this a
messy thing? No, because being imaginary they can not be detected. As far as
particle tunneling, both real and imaginary electrons have the same
behavior - if one can tunnel, so can the other. So are tunnels real? Ask the
electron.


In my mind I picture the electron as only being real where it interacts
with
a photon and being physically extended with a potential for interaction
within the space of the light cone. This is more in accord with a
transactional wave such as in Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory than a Bohm
pilot wave. But it is just a model in *my* head that *I* am comfortable
with. It does not mean anything unless I can use it to express something
that is different from whatever everyone else pictures in a way that can
be
proven experimentally. If it does help me to understand things, and I
think
it does, I try to prove it by expressing my understanding of standard
theory. Just because it looks good to me don't mean nothing.


Yes, any personal model that can help you to understand real world behavoir
is a good thing, but for something to be useful to others it must also
describe behavoirs the normal models cannot. Everett's many worlds model
falls into this classification, although I think it is more correct than the
copenhagen interpretation, unless you can contact those alternate universes,
it will not be more than a clever hypothesis. The difference that makes my
model unique is not that it can be used to describe particle behavior in an
N-slit experiment, but in describing how information propagates without the
benefit of a 'carrier' in quantum entangled systems. Usefully, information
carrried by either a real particle or an imaginary particle is the same.
Which is why I can call an imaginary electron an electron - because it
behaves just like a real one. This is a much more useful thing than simply
rehashing old experiments, but ya' gotta start somewhere...

Greysky

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

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Keane III" wrote in message
. ..

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
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


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.



The wave that Franz is discussing is not a real wave. It does have the
mechanical properties of a real wave for the purpose of calculations.
You
can't just wave your hand and say that he does not understand that the
wave
is *complex* and that he does not know what you are talking about. No
matter
how *complex* whatever you are picturing in your mind is you can't call
it
a
*wave* if it does not have the properties of a wave.

Don't worry about Franz. He's a big boy, and can take care of himself.
That
he was comparing my imaginary electron wave to a water wave was just his
attempt at setting up a strawman argument from which to conclude my idea
is
faulty. I just pointed this out to him, is all.

Strawman, my arse. The intensity distribution over the diffraction pattern
obtained by passing a water wave through two slits is identical with that
obtained in a two-slit electron interference experiment, except for scale.

[snip]

I found the rest of the thread so painful to read that I snipped it.

Franz

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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


Your shears are getting dull. The electron matter wave is a complex
entity.

Of course. But it is a linear wave nevertheless, and will therefore obey
the same rules of addition as any othe linear wave.

It is very simplistic, even for you, to dismiss a complex wave by
comparing
it to a classical mechanical wave.

I have just given you the precise comparison above here.

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.

Not at all. You only locate the electron when you detect the wave. It will
be a single, whole electron and the original wave will have become a new
wave.

This has never been
observed to happen,

Qiute. If *you* make a crap prediction, you should not be sirprised if it
is never observed to happen.
Quit pushing *your* shortcomings on to others.

and QM acknowledges this by saying nothing about the
path a single particle takes.

Franz

Go with Feynman's "sum of histories" Bert