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: rick_s on 29 May 2010 11:00 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?
From: Sam Wormley on 29 May 2010 19:11 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".
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 11:24 On 5/30/2010 0:11, Sam Wormley 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". > I will need to use a thought experiment to show you... You have a round 2 foot deep plastic wading pool with a grid of Styrofoam blocks floating in the pond with fishing line through them to keep these 1 foot square blocks in a grid pattern. On top of them we will put bowling pins. So you have balancing pins on floating blocks and you begin to make waves in this pool at one edge. The pins will topple in a fringe pattern between the waves cancel out in places of interference. Now in no place can a half pin topple, it either topples or it doesn't. That is like the release of a photon. It either is trigger by sufficient energy to release or not. You can make lots of waves in that pool and no pin will topple. When it does that equates to the release of a photon. It takes enough energy to topple a pin, but they can be wobbling quite a bit and in the case of teh photon, you won't see it until a photon is released. 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?
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 19:32 On May 29, 11:24 am, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 5/30/2010 0:11, Sam Wormley 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". > > I will need to use a thought experiment to show you... > > You have a round 2 foot deep plastic wading pool with a grid of > Styrofoam blocks floating in the pond with fishing line through them to > keep these 1 foot square blocks in a grid pattern. On top of them we > will put bowling pins. > > So you have balancing pins on floating blocks and you begin to make > waves in this pool at one edge. The pins will topple in a fringe pattern > between the waves cancel out in places of interference. > > Now in no place can a half pin topple, it either topples or it doesn't. > > That is like the release of a photon. It either is trigger by sufficient > energy to release or not. > > You can make lots of waves in that pool and no pin will topple. > > When it does that equates to the release of a photon. > > It takes enough energy to topple a pin, but they can be wobbling quite a > bit and in the case of teh photon, you won't see it until a photon is > released. > > 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 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.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 12:03
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. |