Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
detection induced field collapse challenged by experiment or not?
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Barry Fleagle
Feb 6, 2012, 3:54:19 AM2/6/12
to
I have performed an experiment which may indicate that the photon
interference pattern may form prior to reaching the detection screen.
In this experiment laser light is split into separate paths by a non-
polarizing beam splitter and a single slit is placed in each path.
The paths are then brought back into nearly parallel paths by front
silvered mirrors. The last set of mirrors act as Fresnel mirrors to
generate a double slit interference pattern ( nodal line spacing is
determined by the separation between the paths leaving the mirrors and
not the separation between the slits ). If the mirrors are adjusted
to create initial vertical separation in which one path leaves the
mirrors low and one leaves high but they are sloped to converge at the
target screen, the double slit nodal lines disappear and there is only
single slit spacing. A similar result occurs with initial horizontal
separation. If the single slits are 0.75mm and the paths leave the
Fresnel mirrors 6.00mm apart and on a converging angle of 1.65229
degrees; then the crossed paths create a pattern with two separate
center maxima with 25 single slit anti-nodal between them. The 11
center most of these are divided by double slit nodal lines. However,
if the paths leave the Fresnel mirrors on a divergent path of 1.58977
degrees there is an absence of double slit nodal line spacing. Both
angles intersect a target screen at 12.370m with the same separation
of 350m between the center maxima. It seems that if the paths are
separated after leaving the Fresnel mirrors but still converge at the
detection point, then there is an absence of an interference pattern.
This may mean that the interference patter is not the result of the
convergence of probable paths at the detection point but an earlier
collapse of the quantum field or a real wave interference. The
experiment is technically simple and easily duplicated. What is
complicated is the interpretation. How do you guys and gals see this?
interference pattern may form prior to reaching the detection screen.
In this experiment laser light is split into separate paths by a non-
polarizing beam splitter and a single slit is placed in each path.
The paths are then brought back into nearly parallel paths by front
silvered mirrors. The last set of mirrors act as Fresnel mirrors to
generate a double slit interference pattern ( nodal line spacing is
determined by the separation between the paths leaving the mirrors and
not the separation between the slits ). If the mirrors are adjusted
to create initial vertical separation in which one path leaves the
mirrors low and one leaves high but they are sloped to converge at the
target screen, the double slit nodal lines disappear and there is only
single slit spacing. A similar result occurs with initial horizontal
separation. If the single slits are 0.75mm and the paths leave the
Fresnel mirrors 6.00mm apart and on a converging angle of 1.65229
degrees; then the crossed paths create a pattern with two separate
center maxima with 25 single slit anti-nodal between them. The 11
center most of these are divided by double slit nodal lines. However,
if the paths leave the Fresnel mirrors on a divergent path of 1.58977
degrees there is an absence of double slit nodal line spacing. Both
angles intersect a target screen at 12.370m with the same separation
of 350m between the center maxima. It seems that if the paths are
separated after leaving the Fresnel mirrors but still converge at the
detection point, then there is an absence of an interference pattern.
This may mean that the interference patter is not the result of the
convergence of probable paths at the detection point but an earlier
collapse of the quantum field or a real wave interference. The
experiment is technically simple and easily duplicated. What is
complicated is the interpretation. How do you guys and gals see this?
Anon E. Mouse
Feb 7, 2012, 1:35:12 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6, 4:54=A0am, Barry Fleagle <barryflea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have performed an experiment which may indicate that the photon
> interference pattern may form prior to reaching the detection screen.
> In this experiment laser light is split into separate paths by a non-
> polarizing beam splitter and a single slit is placed in each path.
> The paths are then brought back into nearly parallel paths by front
> silvered mirrors. =A0The last set of mirrors act as Fresnel mirrors to
> I have performed an experiment which may indicate that the photon
> interference pattern may form prior to reaching the detection screen.
> In this experiment laser light is split into separate paths by a non-
> polarizing beam splitter and a single slit is placed in each path.
> The paths are then brought back into nearly parallel paths by front
> generate a double slit interference pattern ( nodal line spacing is
> determined by the separation between the paths leaving the mirrors and
> not the separation between the slits ). =A0If the mirrors are adjusted
> determined by the separation between the paths leaving the mirrors and
> to create initial vertical separation in which one path leaves the
> mirrors low and one leaves high but they are sloped to converge at the
> target screen, the double slit nodal lines disappear and there is only
> single slit spacing. =A0A similar result occurs with initial horizontal
> mirrors low and one leaves high but they are sloped to converge at the
> target screen, the double slit nodal lines disappear and there is only
> separation. =A0If the single slits are 0.75mm and the paths leave the
> Fresnel mirrors 6.00mm apart and on a converging angle of 1.65229
> degrees; then the crossed paths create a pattern with two separate
> center maxima with 25 single slit anti-nodal between them. =A0The 11
> degrees; then the crossed paths create a pattern with two separate
> center most of these are divided by double slit nodal lines. =A0However,
> if the paths leave the Fresnel mirrors on a divergent path of 1.58977
> degrees there is an absence of double slit nodal line spacing. =A0Both
> angles intersect a target screen at 12.370m with the same separation
> of 350m between the center maxima. =A0It seems that if the paths are
> separated after leaving the Fresnel mirrors but still converge at the
> detection point, then there is an absence of an interference pattern.
> This may mean that the interference patter is not the result of the
> convergence of probable paths at the detection point but an earlier
> collapse of the quantum field or a real wave interference. =A0The
> detection point, then there is an absence of an interference pattern.
> This may mean that the interference patter is not the result of the
> convergence of probable paths at the detection point but an earlier
> experiment is technically simple and easily duplicated. =A0What is
> complicated is the interpretation. =A0How do you guys and gals see this?
A Diagram or link to photos of the experimental layout would support
better comprehension.
An interesting experiment on first read. As you say the interpretation
will take some time for consideration.
AAG
Anon E. Mouse
Feb 7, 2012, 1:35:16 PM2/7/12
to
> complicated is the interpretation. =A0How do you guys and gals see this?
There is an implicit assumption that a collimated laser beam is truly
collimated. However, it is also known that all collimated beams
diverge. There are two possible divergent paths, the crossing path and
the simple divergent path. Typically the narrowest beam width and
lowest rate of divergence will be achieved in a beam dominated by the
crossing ray trace, giving the beam effectively a very long focal
length.
I was forced to make some assumptions about the exact specifics of the
experimental set you describe, but it seems possible that the double
slit interference pattern is dependent upon the interaction of the
photons in the beam with the inner edges of the two slits.
If the two slits are conjoined upon a single plate which is a common
type of double slit lensing element then it is possible to hypothesize
an interaction occurring between the two inner most edges of the slits
through the contiguous material between the slits.
Using the working hypothesis I propose the results observed are
explained by a simple constraint; If the subsequent path of the inner
most rays exhibiting the quantization of their refraction allow the
crossing of paths that would normally occur using simple double slits
a fixed distance apart then the classical double slit interference
pattern will be observed.
However, if the subsequent divergence of the beams is such that the
angle of divergence is greater than the mean lensing angle of the
quantized refraction from the inner edges of the double slits then the
double slit pattern will be difficult to impossible to observe.
Your description of the vertical and horizontal configurations that do
not produce a double slit pattern are the least detailed, but
continuing the inner edge hypothesis, if the ray trace of this
configuration shows that the inner edge rays do not converge (and
cross) then this result is consistent with the working hypothesis.
The most conclusive test of this working hypothesis I can readily
suggest would be to selectively mask the rays refracted by either of
the two slits in the configuration featuring a converging angle of
1.65229 wherein the double slit pattern is observed. If masking the
rays refracted by the inner edge of either slit destroys the observed
double slit interference pattern then the I would deem that these
edges are confirmed as the source of the quantized refraction.
Repeating this same test with a laser beam focused for simple
divergence should serve to confirm the inner edge hypothesis no matter
the type of divergence angle incident. Of course this test may equally
indicate that the observed result is a consequence of a more complex
quantized refraction event.
Sincerely,
AAG
There is an implicit assumption that a collimated laser beam is truly
collimated. However, it is also known that all collimated beams
diverge. There are two possible divergent paths, the crossing path and
the simple divergent path. Typically the narrowest beam width and
lowest rate of divergence will be achieved in a beam dominated by the
crossing ray trace, giving the beam effectively a very long focal
length.
I was forced to make some assumptions about the exact specifics of the
experimental set you describe, but it seems possible that the double
slit interference pattern is dependent upon the interaction of the
photons in the beam with the inner edges of the two slits.
If the two slits are conjoined upon a single plate which is a common
type of double slit lensing element then it is possible to hypothesize
an interaction occurring between the two inner most edges of the slits
through the contiguous material between the slits.
Using the working hypothesis I propose the results observed are
explained by a simple constraint; If the subsequent path of the inner
most rays exhibiting the quantization of their refraction allow the
crossing of paths that would normally occur using simple double slits
a fixed distance apart then the classical double slit interference
pattern will be observed.
However, if the subsequent divergence of the beams is such that the
angle of divergence is greater than the mean lensing angle of the
quantized refraction from the inner edges of the double slits then the
double slit pattern will be difficult to impossible to observe.
Your description of the vertical and horizontal configurations that do
not produce a double slit pattern are the least detailed, but
continuing the inner edge hypothesis, if the ray trace of this
configuration shows that the inner edge rays do not converge (and
cross) then this result is consistent with the working hypothesis.
The most conclusive test of this working hypothesis I can readily
suggest would be to selectively mask the rays refracted by either of
the two slits in the configuration featuring a converging angle of
1.65229 wherein the double slit pattern is observed. If masking the
rays refracted by the inner edge of either slit destroys the observed
double slit interference pattern then the I would deem that these
edges are confirmed as the source of the quantized refraction.
Repeating this same test with a laser beam focused for simple
divergence should serve to confirm the inner edge hypothesis no matter
the type of divergence angle incident. Of course this test may equally
indicate that the observed result is a consequence of a more complex
quantized refraction event.
Sincerely,
AAG
0 new messages