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 21:23 On May 29, 12:57 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > 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. > It is not an error in the experiment. Any double slit experiment ever performed where there are detectors at the exits to the slits always detects the particle exiting a single slit. It doesn't have to be the same exit each time the experiment is performed but the 'particle' is never detected exiting both slits. > 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. > If you are able to always topple a single pin then the portion of the wave which is able to topple the pin is the 'particle' associated with the wave. The 'particle' travels a single path. If there are no pins at the exits to the slits then the wave 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. If the pressure is set so only one pin is toppled at the exits to the slits then no other pin will then be toppled over. This is the detection of the pin. > 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 13:40 On 5/29/2010 17:57, rick_s wrote: > 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. I should point out that why this is still a good thing is the equipment quantized the electron, allowing other similar equipment to make use of a quantized electron.
From: eric gisse on 29 May 2010 21:41 rick_s wrote: > 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. Don't say stupid things about an experiment you have obviously never performed or read about, and I won't call you untutored. Besides, my thoughts on physics carry a shade more weight than 'the unwashed masses' given I actually have a credible education in the subject.
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 21:42 On May 29, 1:40 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 5/29/2010 17:57, rick_s wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I should point out that why this is still a good thing is the equipment > quantized the electron, allowing other similar equipment to make use of > a quantized electron. The ability to 'quantize' a photon travels a single path.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 13:49
On 5/30/2010 2:23, mpc755 wrote: > On May 29, 12:57 pm, rick_s<h...(a)my.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > It is not an error in the experiment. Any double slit experiment ever > performed where there are detectors at the exits to the slits always > detects the particle exiting a single slit. It doesn't have to be the > same exit each time the experiment is performed but the 'particle' is > never detected exiting both slits. > My point is that the two slits are not perfectly equal, and so the wave will be biased towards one slit or the other and when the minimum amount of energy required to topple a pin is introduced, only one pin will topple, leading you to believe that a particle came through one slit only. You are setting up a condition where it is impossible to topple two pins at exactly the same time. The question then becomes not if you can get a particle to exit two slits can you ghet a wave to topple two pins at exactly the same time? If you cannot, then you have not calibrated your equipment sufficiently to do 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. >> > > If you are able to always topple a single pin then the portion of the > wave which is able to topple the pin is the 'particle' associated with > the wave. The 'particle' travels a single path. If there are no pins > at the exits to the slits then the wave 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. > You mean stopping the wave? When you say detecting the particle you are stopping the wave so yes, it won't fringe past that detector. > If the pressure is set so only one pin is toppled at the exits to the > slits then no other pin will then be toppled over. This is the > detection of the pin. > >> 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. |