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 21:52 On May 29, 1:49 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > 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. > If the slits are perfectly equal the particle will still always be detected exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment whether the particle is a photon or a C-60 molecule. > >> 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. > Not stopping the wave. Destroying the cohesion of the wave. > > 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 14:11 On 5/30/2010 2:23, mpc755 wrote: >Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. >The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >aether's state of displacement. >In Einstein's train gedanken this means the aether is more at rest >with respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. Well lets suppose the eather was quantum foam and lets suppose these little foam bubbles were part of an elastic superconducting superfluid. Such that uniform motion would not meet with any resistance but accelerated motion would meet with resistance due to the mass. Anything with mass would of course gain mass due to acceleration. But light has no mass. So not only that but the wave is identical in its length. Go faster towards the light, what do you see? The same light. You are looking at a portion closer to the source but it is identical between you and the source. Why would you expect it to be any different? Now move away from the source. Are you moving at c? Then you are just still looking at identical waves only a different portion on that wave line. .................. -> | <- you are here. .................. -> | <- now you are here. You are looking -> this direction. At each dot distance what do you see? A dot in front of you. In this case a dot represents a single complete wave. One wave or one wave packet. Go one step further what do you see now? Another identical dot. Make them come at you faster what do you see? One dot. Make them come at you slower, now what do you see? One dot.
From: spudnik on 29 May 2010 22:29 I like that retrospective Brittanica approach. if you really did it; are they available online? that really is the whole nut of the quandary, the reification of the word, photon, into a particle, which is clearly a massless & momentumless absurdity, and really a wave in teh medium of space (spacetime is just phase-space, 3+1, Hamilton's 3 vectors and one scalar (in quaternions), no different than a 3D movie -- get ready for *that*, or wear your 3D glasses at all times .-) thusNso: yeah, in a rip-roaring "travelling in one dimension, time" SF toga- tearer! what is the abandoned approach of W-F? > That in fantasies about time travel about closed timelike curves? > That in Wheeler-Feynman abandoned approach? > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ thusNso: I finally read-up on "the basics," and it is all covered by two relationships amongst them: a) reciprocal functions, and b) cofunctions. in other words, do that, firstly! on the wayside, the sine of the dihedral angle of the icosahedron is not 0.666! the homework is to find the minimal set of functions for tetrahedronometry. but, I'd advise learning spherical trig., first of all because planar is a subset thereo, secondly "or be totally reliant upon a bunch of internecine (military) satellites." thusNso: Fermatttt realized that his "miraculous" proof did not apply to the rather peculiar case of n=4. the only unsolved conjecture of his is "the characterization of the Fermattttt primes, beyond that of Gauss." (iff you want to get into that, there is a great book from Societe Mathematique Canadienne, _Seventeen Essays on Fermat Numbers_ ... maybe I can locate that great review, but my mom found it on Amazon. > Have fun, and good luck! thusNso: Tom Gold's theory hasn't been tested, only it has; the oilcos just haven't realeased the C14/C12 ratio of their "fingerprints of adjacent holes." no oil is "Fossilized Fuel TM;" that is nothing, but a tradename, with no technical significance (unless, you consdier, "sediments pile-up in the ocean, and their own weight creates hydrocarbons," to be a theory .-) of course, Earth is growing, but this depends not only on falling- in space-junk, but the biota of the outermost layers & the noosphere.... I don't see what the problem is with plate tectonics, over-all, although "currents in the mantle" is a known absurdity, from the seismic data (on the other hand, there are so many weird pahses of rocks at temperature & pressure, like ice .-) volcanos produce huge amounts of CO2, and CFCs and so on. > Actually I think, that oil is not fossilized biomass, but comes from > deep inside in the inner earth. thusNso: hogwash; spacetime is just a phase-space, three orthogonal (and imaginary) coordinates in space, one (real) scalar time; til Gibbs dysassembled Hamilton's "inner and outer products" into his version of Hamilton's "vectors & scalars." > (And that is the reason we need complex fourvectors, because > these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.) thusNso: you don't read Shakespeare til the eleventh grading, or it could seriously mess you "up." til then, one can readily study *mathematica*, which is four subjects, in a "hands-on" manner that does not really require the full-throated use of language -- that one is learning, by doing stuff. I like UD's _Math.Cranks_, because, in his chapter on fermatistes, he only made one mistake, that I can find, now, and he had acknowledged it, when I told him. also, he seems to have left numbertheory, out, and that's one of the four, the true meaning of "higher arithmetic." > http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf > author would be in not including Geometry explicitly as part of > mathematics: "So that there is no confusion, let me say that by > 'mathematics' I mean algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, > and so on: all those subjects beyond arithmetic." thusNso: textbooks are often *generically* bad glosses on the discoveries in the original monographs, or simply pedantic workbooks. the real empty set, to me, is those who attempt proofs, without any grounding in elementary geometrical & numbertheory proofs -- see wlym.com. and, recall, it was Liebniz who gave the generic format of "iff," which is necessity & sufficiency, used meaningfully in various ways in natural language. the New Math following upon General Bourbaki was a silly thing, since you *need* natural language (and diagrams etc.) to make ready analogies & metaphors for your work. such that, the glaring example of Bourbakism was perhaps Russell's illinguistic "paradoxes" -- whence "silly" deploys from over-reliance on Aristotle's syllogisms! --Stop BP's capNtrade rip-off; call Waxman & tell him, we need a small *tax* on carbon emmissions, instead of "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of CO2 as much as they can -- free trade, free beer, free dumb!" http://wlym.com
From: Y.Porat on 30 May 2010 00:26 On May 30, 1:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/29/10 10:00 AM, rick_s wrote: > > > So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit experiment? > > Faulty Logic? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment > > "In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to as > Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and > particle natures of light and other quantum particles. A coherent light > source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits > cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen > behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing > through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of > bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light > is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete > particles, called photons". ------------------- yest Mr parrot Wormley you ddint tell the whole 'story'!! the other story about itis listen carefully that even a **single photon' 'can interfere with himself "!!!! and a single photon is defined by your fucken QM as E=hf while i showed and proved that E=hf IS NOT THE REAL FORMULA FOR THE REAL PHYSICAL SINGLE PHOTON!!!! got it fucken potato head parrot ???!! the real single photon energy is hf times * 'Planck time'* which gives about (quote from my own week memory) about exp -77 Joule !! so from now on Mr Parrot W just remember it and tell it to your new young readers and tell them that there are some new innovations after 100 years of fucken crippled QM !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: BURT on 30 May 2010 00:38
On May 29, 9:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 1:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/29/10 10:00 AM, rick_s wrote: > > > > So has anyone figured out the faulty logic yet wrt the two slit experiment? > > > Faulty Logic? > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment > > > "In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to as > > Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and > > particle natures of light and other quantum particles. A coherent light > > source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits > > cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen > > behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing > > through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of > > bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light > > is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete > > particles, called photons". > > ------------------- > yest Mr parrot Wormley > you ddint tell the whole 'story'!! > the other story about itis > listen carefully > > that even a **single photon' > 'can interfere with himself "!!!! > and a single photon is defined by > your fucken QM as > E=hf > while i showed and proved that > E=hf > IS NOT THE REAL FORMULA > FOR THE REAL PHYSICAL SINGLE PHOTON!!!! > got it fucken potato head parrot ???!! > the real single photon energy is > hf times * 'Planck time'* > which gives about (quote from my own week memory) > about exp -77 Joule !! > so from now on Mr Parrot W > just remember it and tell it to your > new young readers > and tell them that there are some new innovations after 100 years of > fucken > crippled QM !! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Why do physicts set Plancks constant they call H-Bar to zero? They set it to One for the energy from the frequency of light. If you use Planck constant in energy for light you find it is much too small. So there is another relationship for light energy and Einstein's will be replaced instead of setting H-bar to one. Mitch Raemsch |