Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Next: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 20:20 On May 29, 12:03 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 5/30/2010 0:32, mpc755 wrote: > . > > > > >> So energy is discreet in that there is a minimum amount of energy that > >> will topple a pin. But we are not shooting bb's at the pins, we are > >> simply making waves. Its just that it takes sufficient strength to > >> topple a pin. Do you see how that minimum amount of needed energy to > >> dislodge a photon, leads you to believe that an electron is a particle? > > > The problem with your analogy is the pins at the exits to the slits of > > your double slit experiment will both topple over. This does not occur > > I don't follow you here. The pins will topple in a fringe pattern > because the waves will add up or cancel out just like the two slit > experiment. > > The force needed to topple a pin, will be adequate when the waves add > up, but will not be adequate when the waves cancel out. > > But don't miss the main point here that there is only topple or not > topple, and hence your notion of a particle comes from the fact there > are no half topples, the pins themselves are discreet. > > So when you look at the result, you see dots or points of light, because > the screen itself the monitor, is made of dots. > > > > > in a double slit experiment. Place detectors at the exits to the slits > > in a double slit experiment and the particle is always detected > > exiting a single slit. > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > v wave.' > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > The particle and the wave act as one. > > > The particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. > > The wave enters and exits both slits. The wave creates interference > > upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle > > travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated > > wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. > > > For a photon and electron the 'particle' may consist of a very small > > region of the aether wave itself. > > > For something as large as a C-60 molecule the moving C-60 molecule has > > an associated aether displacement wave. The moving C-60 molecule > > occupies a very small region of the associated aether displacement > > wave. > > yeah I do understand the theory. But what I am saying is, that it is the > misconception that particles are wafting through the slits because a dot > shows up on a detector screen. > > There are only dots on that screen So of course your result looks like > dots or particles. > And it takes a minimum level of energy to light up a dot on your screen, > so you are yourself quantizing the electron wave with your detector > since it could be being bombarded with waves but not of sufficient > strength until at a point it reaches that strength and lights up a dot. When you execute your experiment there are bowling pins on each of the Styrofoam blocks floating on the water at the exits to the slits. When you generate one wave in your experiment the wave enters and exits both slits. Both of the pins on the Styrofoam blocks at the exits to the slits fall over. When a double slit experiment is performed with a photon, or a C-60 molecule, and there are detectors at the exits to the slits the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. If you placed a screen at the exits to both slits there would only be a single dot on one of the screens. Your analogy is not supported by the experimental evidence. Your analogy is stating there should be two dots, one on each screen at each exit. That is not what occurs in a double slit experiment. When a double slit experiment is performed the particle is always detected exiting a single slit because the particle always enters and exits a single slit.It is the associated wave which enters and exits both slits. The wave exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. The particle, whether it be a photon or a C-60 molecule, travels a single path.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 12:38 On 5/29/2010 16:00, rick_s wrote: > So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit experiment? > > The fact that the screen is made of dots, never occurred to anyone that > is why the screen looked dot like when they were observing the fringing? Just to give you a little background on how I arrived at this conclusion that they were quantizing the electron wave with their detector... I researched back through old Encyclopedia Brittanica published at the time quantum physics was being developed, right back through the years examining the articles as they were written at the time, and you see where the concept of a particle in this context comes from. Particles themselves dating way back to atomism, but wrt quantum physics, and Einstein, a particle was an 'instantaneous point particle'. The idea that if you pick a spot on a wave and freeze time, what will the energy levels etc be at that point? And well in order to try to encapsulate acceleration in a non moving spot, it had to be agreed that the acceleration was instantaneous from that perspective. An example would be merely a point at xyzt It is a point in time. It represents the properties of the wave but in that one spot and at that one time. A math construct. But since they used the word particle, it wasn't even 20 years before people were considering particles little pieces of dust. So the misconception stems from the bad use of language. Which is something that you see quite a bit of from that period of time when their thoughts were mostly on confusing the issue to perhaps limit the number of people who could explode the earth with their recent fission discoveries. "The question is, not if it is crazy, but is iot crazy enough" (to confuse others and thereby restrict that which we need to keep secret to a minimum, in order to continue research and development in the non lethal uses of this discovery) But the main driving force behind particle physics at that time was to be able to do finer work in greater detail by examining a point on a wave, rather than the large smeared out affect of a wave. And to accomplish that, they used the idea of a quanta, since black body radiation said there was a minimum size restriction. However, that is not the same as an electron as a particle. And electron is so much larger than Plank length. But it wasn't really until the two slit experiment at which point people began to envision particles as something that could move at all. And that came from the misconception, which was that the detector was quantizing the result. However, since they wanted to believe in solid matter (little pieces of rock) they saw what they wanted to see in that experiment. Einstein Bose condensate tends to show that the particle properties are nonexistent unless you can explain where the missing mass goes in the Bosanova.
From: eric gisse on 29 May 2010 20:45 rick_s wrote: > So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit > experiment? > > The fact that the screen is made of dots, never occurred to anyone that > is why the screen looked dot like when they were observing the fringing? The untutored always seem to think they know the answer.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 12:57 On 5/30/2010 1:20, mpc755 wrote: > When you execute your experiment there are bowling pins on each of the > Styrofoam blocks floating on the water at the exits to the slits. When > you generate one wave in your experiment the wave enters and exits > both slits. Both of the pins on the Styrofoam blocks at the exits to > the slits fall over. > The pool is the detector. The wave comes through the two slits. It is facing a line of pins. The wave hits this row of pins but since it has exited the two slits an interference is happening on the surface of the water and so when these waves hit that first row, the pins topple in a fringe pattern. > When a double slit experiment is performed with a photon, or a C-60 > molecule, and there are detectors at the exits to the slits the > particle is always detected exiting a single slit. If you placed a > screen at the exits to both slits there would only be a single dot on > one of the screens. This is an error in the experiment. Beside your pool of water you have your wave generator and it has a dial that is very very sensitive so increase the wave pressure until when the wave goes through the two slits it doesn't immediately topple any pins, but you gradually increase the energy until one pin topples. It is experimental error that prevents the same effect from happening at a smaller scale of energy. Exaggerated in the pool because the pool and the pins and the Styrofoam and the water are all not precise and exact but neither is your detector or your slits or your equipment on that much finer scale. But you can adjust that wave pressure until only one pin topples because there will be a first pin topple, they will never topple exactly at the same time.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 13:03
On 5/30/2010 1:45, eric gisse wrote: > rick_s wrote: > >> So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit >> experiment? >> >> The fact that the screen is made of dots, never occurred to anyone that >> is why the screen looked dot like when they were observing the fringing? > > The untutored always seem to think they know the answer. And the unwashed masses always consider an ad hominem attack a logical argument. |