Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
Bill Miller
over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the
hanle and pulls hard...
**************************************************
The Puzzle
The following is from Wikipedia: "In the double-slit experiment, light is
shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. A photographic
plate or some other detection screen is set up to record what comes through
those slits. One or the other slit may be open, or both may be open.
Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a
diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands parallel
to it on each side. When both slits are open, the pattern displayed becomes
very much more detailed and at least four times as wide."
Wikipedia continues with:
"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a
time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of
interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are emitted one
at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear
implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously
through both slits and interferes with itself - even though there is only
one photon present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even
some molecules too.)"
The clear implication of the above is that light, electrons, atoms and some
molecules are composed of waves, not particles. This has led many
researchers moving in many different directions, with results ranging from
the ridiculous to the divine. But no solid answers seem to have appeared.
The Answer
The answer to this puzzle is, I believe, both straightforward and
non-quantum. In this note, I will deal solely with electrons. I believe that
the insights we may gain will be applicable to all aspects of this little
puzzle.
Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is photographic
plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation, let's look at where
that radiation might come from.
The fundamental source for most, if not all radiation is the acceleration of
charges. And acceleration can take many forms. But only one acceleration
mechanism seems applicable to this particular problem. That mechanism is
called "Transition Radiation."
Quoting from Zolatarev and McDonald in "Classical Radiation Processes in the
Weizsacker-Williams Approximation," we read the following brief description:
"As a charged particle crosses, for example, a vacuum/metal boundary, its
interaction with charges in the material results in their acceleration and
hence radiation, commonly called transition radiation."
It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will be
wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path of
the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The radiation
is in the Xray range.
The above explanation of Transition Radiation is what is going on at each of
the slits of a double slit experiment. The electron(s) interact with the
material at the boundary of the slit, causing radiation to appear. It is
this radiation that is captured on the photographic plate.
How do we explain the pattern(s)?
Antenna designers have known for a very long time that it is possible to
construct a dipole antenna in two different ways. The first - and by far the
most common -- is as a pair of wires in free space. The second way is to
take a large sheet of metal and cut a slot in it. Such a device is called a
slot antenna.
Each slit in the Double Slit experiment is a SLOT ANTENNA. Each antenna is
driven from a wideband EM source (transition radiation) that is activated by
the flow of electrons through the slot.
Each slot is many wavelengths long. Thus, in common with "regular" long
antennas, the resultant radiation pattern -- as captured on the photographic
plate -- contains multiple peaks and nulls.
How do we explain that the patterns remain essentially the same even if only
one of the two slots is subjected to excitation?
Again, antenna designers know (and particle physicists may have forgotten)
that a horizontal slit antenna is the equivalent to a vertically polarized
dipole in free space. Thus, a pair of parallel horizontal slots is the
equivalent of two stacked vertical dipoles. If both slots are excited, then
the result will be the equivalent of two dipoles fed (essentially) in phase.
And THAT means that there will be many more nulls and peaks spread out over
a larger area.
If only one slit is excited, then the other slit will act as a parasitic
antenna element and the combination will have a pattern similar to that of
the two slits driven in phase. And THAT is why the patterns will stronly
resemble each other.
Summary
This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle. Or
it may be some form of wave function.
But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is a
reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation has
nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
Vince Morgan
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vjGYj.2159$we7....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Bill strides manfully up the scaffold steps. He grabs the rope, slides it
> over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the
> hanle and pulls hard...
> **************************************************
> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
a
> reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
has
> nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
>
>
Makes perfect sense to me, which may, or may not be a good thing.
Thank you Bill!
FrediFizzx
news:vjGYj.2159$we7....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
IMHO, it is a good assumption that there are real waves involved with
quantum objects. Not to be confused with the "probability" waves of QM
math. However, I wouldn't rule out a particulate nature to quantum
objects either since it is needed for there to be real waves.
I don't think so. I believe the way an electron experiment is done is
that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that is
recorded. And not radiation.
[snip radiation hypothesis]
> Summary
>
>
> This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality
> of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a
> particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.
There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle
and wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both? Why does it
have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic effects are the
clue.
> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there
> is a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that
> explanation has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum
> mechanics.
Sorry, no it doesn't.
Best,
Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations
p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is a
> reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation has
> nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
So do the maths and give the functional form for the double-slit
interfernce-like pattern using your model. Compare it with the
standard form. Are they the same or different? Is there a
difference significant enough so that your theory could (at least
in principle) be validated?
I'm not going to hold my breath, mind.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Benj
wrote:
> Summary
>
> This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
> the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle. Or
> it may be some form of wave function.
>
> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is a
> reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation has
> nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
Nice try Bill! Too bad your theory has a couple of holes in it.
Here's why. First off, it is NOT any radiation that is interacting at
the detector to form the pattern. The reason is that one can use
various detectors instead of film. The rate and transfer time of
energy in say the photoelectric effect is such that WAVES or radiation
CANNOT be the mechanism! The short transfer time demands a particle
effect of some kind. In other words what is happening would be the
DEFLECTION of the electrons after they leave the slit. So to modify
your theory to conform to observations you have the electrons hurtling
toward the slits. They enter one of them and excite that "slot
antenna" as well as the second antenna as a "parasitic element". Then
the electron leaves it's slit and proceeds toward the detector. The
electron strikes the detector creating a flash at one point in space.
BUT, "somehow" the radiation it induced in the slits can cause the
trajectory of the electron to be altered after it leaves the slit in
such a way that on average they tend to be deflected into angles that
result in a pattern corresponding to the traditional double slit
diffraction pattern.
While the "slot antenna" idea is a good one, as is the idea of the
second slit being a parasitic element to the driven slit, there are I
believe two problems with that. One is that the characteristics of the
slot antenna depends on the material from which it is made. Metal or
plastic (conductor or insulator) makes a difference. In diffraction it
only need be opaque. Plus causality demands a time delay between the
driven element and the parasitic one. This means that the pattern
with an electron going through the right slit will be different from
the pattern with the electron going through the left slit.
Finally we have the problem of the experiment working not only with
electrons (which are traditionally used to drive antennas) but also
the experiment also works with molecules, neutrons and photons which
are electrically neutral. So this means one has to explain how
neutral currents can drive an aperture antenna.
But the bottom line, however, is that you've got the thinking started
in what I believe to be the correct direction. Namely, to say "Well,
just how COULD these experimental results arise from the physics we
know?" rather than the usual approach of just throwing up one's hands
and saying "It simply can never be known!".
Benj
Bill Miller
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69i0mtF...@mid.individual.net...
> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:vjGYj.2159$we7....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Bill strides manfully up the scaffold steps. He grabs the rope, slides it
>> over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the
OK but it seems that the double slit experiment is valid for light, photons
(whatever THEY are!) electrons, atoms and some molecules.
Your contention holds for light, photons and (maybe) electrons. Are you now
maintaining that atoms are quantum objects? What about molecules? At what
point does an object cease (or start) to be "quantum?"
OK On what basis is this "belief" founded? Is there some sort of a filter in
front of the plate that filters out, say, Xrays? Or is the plate only
sensitive to electron impacts?
But wait... if an electron impacts, won't it just make a foggy little spot?
Oh, I forgot. An electron is also a wave. So it will morph -- on impact --
into a wave that just happens to have the exact pattern of peaks and valleys
as would have formed if another electron had simultaneously gone through the
other slit.
Yeah. That's a LOT more sensible than my idea.
>
> [snip radiation hypothesis]
>
>> Summary
>>
>>
>> This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
>> the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle.
>> Or it may be some form of wave function.
>
> There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle and
> wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?
I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not seem to
SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think of) in EM today.
That puzzle is: How can a single photon/electron/atom/molecule "know" about
the presence or absence of the second slit?
Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer the
above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and a particle,
an electron ALSO has sentience.)
>Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic
>effects are the clue.
>
>> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
>> a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
>> has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
>
> Sorry, no it doesn't.
Because...?
Thanks for the reply, Fred.
Bill Miller
Szczepan Białek
"Bill Miller" >
>
> It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will
> be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path
> of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The
> radiation is in the Xray range.
In the first experiment by Davison and Germer they used 75eV electrons.
There no Xray. So I agree with FrediFizzx: "I believe the way an electron
experiment is done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection
"plate" that is recorded. And not radiation."
>
> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
> a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
> has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
There MUST be " a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle." But I
see more chances in reflection from the atoms in the slit. Electrons reflect
not only from external atoms but also from deep ones. Such can travel only
in the directions between the external atoms. So a pattern must appear.
S*
Bill Miller
<p.ki...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cesdg5-...@ph-kinsle2.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk...
> Bill Miller <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
>> a
>> reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
>> has
>> nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
>
> So do the maths and give the functional form for the double-slit
> interfernce-like pattern using your model. Compare it with the
> standard form. Are they the same or different? Is there a
> difference significant enough so that your theory could (at least
> in principle) be validated?
Actually, it's already been done. Consult any comprehensive book on antenna
design. Look at radiation patterns for stacked vertical dipoles. Also look
at radiation patterns for long wire antennas. You'll see radiation patterns
remarkably similar to those seen in the double slit experiment. It is that
similarity that caused me to wonder if the double slit pattern wasn't a
result of radiation from a long (multiples of wavelength) antenna.
Or get a copy of EZNEC (it's free on the web) and make your own simulations.
>
> I'm not going to hold my breath, mind.
>
Good. Holding your breath might deny us access to future insightful comments
like this one.
> --
All the best,
Bill Miller
Bill Miller
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48337050$0$13947$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Much to be preferred is a model in which -- statistically -- an item is
sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave, and can also *see* the second slit,
calculate the pattern that would occur if a second idential item was also at
the second slit, and instantly morph itself into a near-exact replica of
that pattern.
Bill
FrediFizzx
Sure, atoms are quantum objects as well as simple molecules. There is
really not a clear cut "point" at which an object is either quantum or
classical. It mostly depends on how they are being observed. But all
classical objects are composed of quantum objects, of course. ;-)
I think you need to do more research on how the electron experiments are
done.
> Yeah. That's a LOT more sensible than my idea.
>>
>> [snip radiation hypothesis]
>>
>>> Summary
>>>
>>>
>>> This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle
>>> duality of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron
>>> may be a particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.
>>
>> There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle
>> and wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?
>
> I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not
> seem to SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think
> of) in EM today. That puzzle is: How can a single
> photon/electron/atom/molecule "know" about the presence or absence of
> the second slit?
>
> Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer
> the above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and a
> particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)
If an electron has real wave properties it definitely explains the
phenomenon. No "sentience" is needed.
>>Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic
>>effects are the clue.
>>
>>> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that
>>> there is a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And
>>> that explanation has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum
>>> mechanics.
>>
>> Sorry, no it doesn't.
>
> Because...?
Because the detectors are detecting electrons and not radiation.
> Thanks for the reply, Fred.
Your most welcome.
Bill Miller
OK Lets throw bricks through the slits.
Probably true, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is NO EXPLANATION
( that I have seen) for the double slit anomaly. (Until now, of course.)
>
>> Yeah. That's a LOT more sensible than my idea.
>>>
>>> [snip radiation hypothesis]
>>>
>>>> Summary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality
>>>> of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a
>>>> particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.
>>>
>>> There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle
>>> and wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?
>>
>> I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not seem
>> to SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think of) in EM
>> today. That puzzle is: How can a single photon/electron/atom/molecule
>> "know" about the presence or absence of the second slit?
>>
>> Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer the
>> above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and a
>> particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)
>
> If an electron has real wave properties it definitely explains the
> phenomenon. No "sentience" is needed.
>
Yes, sentience is required. Remember, we are talking about one electron
going through one slit. When One slit is present we measure wave pattern "A"
When two slits are present, we measure wave pattern B. A and B are not the
same. With your hypothesis, there is no way that the electron (or photon, or
atom or molecule or BRICK) can know anything about the presence of the
second slit.
UNLESS, of course, the two slots are couled in some way. And that's my
hypthesis.
I chose a slot antenna as my model because it seems to fit. But I'm happy to
look at other coupling methods (except telepathy.)
>>>Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic
>>>effects are the clue.
>>>
>>>> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there
>>>> is a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that
>>>> explanation has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum
>>>> mechanics.
>>>
>>> Sorry, no it doesn't.
>>
>> Because...?
>
> Because the detectors are detecting electrons and not radiation.
I don't think so. The setup is the same, and the results are the same with
electrons and light.
All The Best...
Bill
Bill Miller
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1296e0d6-b1d7-4ec2...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 4:15 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Summary
>>
>> This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
>> the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle.
>> Or
>> it may be some form of wave function.
>>
>> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
>> a
>> reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
>> has
>> nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
>
> Nice try Bill! Too bad your theory has a couple of holes in it.
I would be STUNNED if it inly had a couple of holes! But let's see about a
few of your points...
>
> Here's why. First off, it is NOT any radiation that is interacting at
> the detector to form the pattern. The reason is that one can use
> various detectors instead of film. The rate and transfer time of
> energy in say the photoelectric effect is such that WAVES or radiation
> CANNOT be the mechanism!
TILT! Please remember that we are dealing with the same lab setup whether
we are studying light (where the anomoly was discovered) or electrons,
atoms, molecules and perhaps according to Fred) Bricks. So the detection
mechanism MUST be detecting radiation. (Unless you want to slide down the
slippery slope of saying that light passing through a slit changes into
particles. I'll be waiting at the bottow with the ambulance!)
The short transfer time demands a particle
> effect of some kind. In other words what is happening would be the
> DEFLECTION of the electrons after they leave the slit.
Agin, please recall that this works with radiation or with particles. You
don't get to pick one vs the other.
So to modify
> your theory to conform to observations you have the electrons hurtling
> toward the slits. They enter one of them and excite that "slot
> antenna" as well as the second antenna as a "parasitic element". Then
> the electron leaves it's slit and proceeds toward the detector. The
> electron strikes the detector creating a flash at one point in space.
Yes, the electron will likely impact the detector. But as it passed through
the slit, some of its energy was lost as it induced Transition Radiation.
That Primary radiation does two things.
First, it radiates energy onto the plate.
Second, it interacts with the second slit/slot causing the second slot to
re-radiate energy.
Both of these radiation sources impact/interact at the plate.
> BUT, "somehow" the radiation it induced in the slits can cause the
> trajectory of the electron to be altered after it leaves the slit in
> such a way that on average they tend to be deflected into angles that
> result in a pattern corresponding to the traditional double slit
> diffraction pattern.
No that's not what is happening. The electron's trajectory is not severely
influenced. The primary pattern is radiation caused. The secondary pattern
is the electron(s) splatting into the plate.
>
> While the "slot antenna" idea is a good one, as is the idea of the
> second slit being a parasitic element to the driven slit, there are I
> believe two problems with that. One is that the characteristics of the
> slot antenna depends on the material from which it is made. Metal or
> plastic (conductor or insulator) makes a difference.
I agree. I am ASSUMING that in all these experiments, the slit was in metal.
(After all, at least the vacuum and atom/molecule tests must be done in
vacuum. And outgassing from plastics would destroy the integrity.)
Does anyone KNOW whether the slot material was metal???
In diffraction it
> only need be opaque. Plus causality demands a time delay between the
> driven element and the parasitic one. This means that the pattern
> with an electron going through the right slit will be different from
> the pattern with the electron going through the left slit.
Yes. But the experiments I have read about seem to be quite physically
symmetrical. Also, what I have seen from the somewhat fuzzy blob-patterns
that have been published seems to suggest that the patterns are not
IDENTICAL -- just very similar.
> Finally we have the problem of the experiment working not only with
> electrons (which are traditionally used to drive antennas) but also
> the experiment also works with molecules, neutrons and photons which
> are electrically neutral. So this means one has to explain how
> neutral currents can drive an aperture antenna.
Yes. This is a good point. WRT light waves/photons, there is a huge amount
of lore associated with what happens when light waves graze an edge --
whether the edge is metal or dielectric -- and go off at an odd angle. We
even see this happening at UHF/VHF frequencies when radio waves graze the
top of a mountain. Re-radiation is the key there-- even though the mountain
is not a conducter.
WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help but
wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of charge???
> But the bottom line, however, is that you've got the thinking started
> in what I believe to be the correct direction. Namely, to say "Well,
> just how COULD these experimental results arise from the physics we
> know?" rather than the usual approach of just throwing up one's hands
> and saying "It simply can never be known!".
YEAH! I used slot antennas and arrays as a model because these items
generate patterns that are a LOT like the patterns associated with double
slits. I'll be perfectly happy with an alternate coupling method between the
slots. But it seems very logical that the slits are coupling to each other.
I like that idea a LOT better than sentient particles and intelligent
seeing-eye waves!
Bill
>
> Benj
Bill Miller
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:g11jbj$vcs$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>
> "Bill Miller" >
>>
>> It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will
>> be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path
>> of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The
>> radiation is in the Xray range.
>
> In the first experiment by Davison and Germer they used 75eV electrons.
> There no Xray.
Thanks for the nudge. I re-read Kirk's paper and realized that the Xray
reference was an UPPER LIMIT for this phenomenon. I've sent him an Email to
see if he can explain the expected spectrum. Also, "typical" Xray generation
involves electrons smashing into stationary items. Transition Radiation is a
different mechanism, and that MAY allow Xray generation at lower eV levels.
(Or it May not!)
> So I agree with FrediFizzx: "I believe the way an electron experiment is
> done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that
> is recorded. And not radiation."
Belief is a wonderful thing. It can substitute for facts in almost any
environment! But don't forget that the SAME RESULTS are found with light
radiation.
>> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
>> a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
>> has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
>
> There MUST be " a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle." But
> I see more chances in reflection from the atoms in the slit. Electrons
> reflect not only from external atoms but also from deep ones. Such can
> travel only in the directions between the external atoms. So a pattern
> must appear.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning, but would be interested in
hearing more about your idea.
Bill
> S*
>
>
FrediFizzx
>
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:69jgjjF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:cMYYj.3488$j41...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer
>>> the above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and
>>> a particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)
>>
>> If an electron has real wave properties it definitely explains the
>> phenomenon. No "sentience" is needed.
>>
> Yes, sentience is required. Remember, we are talking about one
> electron going through one slit. When One slit is present we measure
> wave pattern "A" When two slits are present, we measure wave pattern
> B. A and B are not the same. With your hypothesis, there is no way
> that the electron (or photon, or atom or molecule or BRICK) can know
> anything about the presence of the second slit.
Don't be silly. The real wave pattern goes thru both slits when both
are open. The kicker is that if you try to put a detector at one or
both of the slits to see which slit the electron went thru, the
interference pattern of two slits disappears and you get a single slit
pattern.
FrediFizzx
>
> "Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:g11jbj$vcs$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>>
>> "Bill Miller" >
>>>
>>> It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it
>>> will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the
>>> slit, the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy
>>> contained therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.
>>
>> In the first experiment by Davison and Germer they used 75eV
>> electrons. There no Xray.
>
> Thanks for the nudge. I re-read Kirk's paper and realized that the
> Xray reference was an UPPER LIMIT for this phenomenon. I've sent him
> an Email to see if he can explain the expected spectrum. Also,
> "typical" Xray generation involves electrons smashing into stationary
> items. Transition Radiation is a different mechanism, and that MAY
> allow Xray generation at lower eV levels. (Or it May not!)
>
>> So I agree with FrediFizzx: "I believe the way an electron experiment
>> is done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection
>> "plate" that is recorded. And not radiation."
>
> Belief is a wonderful thing. It can substitute for facts in almost any
> environment! But don't forget that the SAME RESULTS are found with
> light radiation.
Not exactly. With light you see the two slit interference immediately.
With electrons you don't see the two slit interference until enough
electrons have passed and been detected. I have reviewed the electon
experiments in the past and know that it is in fact electrons being
detected. I'm just too lazy to do your research for you. ;-)
Benj
wrote:
> TILT! Please remember that we are dealing with the same lab setup whether
> we are studying light (where the anomoly was discovered) or electrons,
> atoms, molecules and perhaps according to Fred) Bricks. So the detection
> mechanism MUST be detecting radiation. (Unless you want to slide down the
> slippery slope of saying that light passing through a slit changes into
> particles. I'll be waiting at the bottow with the ambulance!)
Actually Fred is correct about about the fact you are detecting
particles and not radiation, which is exactly what I've said as well.
As for "bricks" that's mostly physics bullshit. It's in the same class
as stupid statements about bowling balls having a finite chance of
"reflecting" back from a table edge. These people never actually
calculated the quantum mechanics for a bowling ball and table and if
they did (and did it correctly) they find the wave functions were
smooth curves with no reflections in sight.
So if you are hurling photons or electrons or neutrons or neutrinos at
a slit setup, I suggest that particles are going toward the slit and
then through them and finally on to the detectors where they make
little flashes (see the nice images in Wikipedia on this subject)
Sorry, there is NO diffuse "radiation" interacting with the detectors
here.
But you do have a point. Lets do another experiment! Let's beam
microwaves at the dual slot antenna. Here waves go to the antenna,
they interact with it (waves hit both at once and represent currents
in the apertures) and then proceed onto the detector (radio) which is
picking up waves. These "waves" it has been argued are ALSO
"photons"! Can that be true? Something here needs looked into!
> Agin, please recall that this works with radiation or with particles. You
> don't get to pick one vs the other.
I don't quite know what you mean. Electrons are particles radio waves
are waves. You certainly can pick which one to use. As for electrons
you are detecting flashes as they land. No radiation is being
detected. And it gets still better. One can measure the ENERGY of the
landing electron. No significant amount is lost in the slit as you
suggest.
> Yes, the electron will likely impact the detector. But as it passed through
> the slit, some of its energy was lost as it induced Transition Radiation.
> That Primary radiation does two things.
> First, it radiates energy onto the plate.
> Second, it interacts with the second slit/slot causing the second slot to
> re-radiate energy.
> Both of these radiation sources impact/interact at the plate.
No they don't! UNLESS you are doing the radio wave version of this.
> No that's not what is happening. The electron's trajectory is not severely
> influenced. The primary pattern is radiation caused. The secondary pattern
> is the electron(s) splatting into the plate.
You mean not happening according to your theory! Unfortunately for
your theory, the pattern produced is by ELECTRONS not waves! Again I
refer you to the fine wikipedia electron build-up images.
> I agree. I am ASSUMING that in all these experiments, the slit was in metal.
> (After all, at least the vacuum and atom/molecule tests must be done in
> vacuum. And outgassing from plastics would destroy the integrity.)
Nice try! Sorry there ARE opaque insulators that do not outgas. Black
glass for example.
> Yes. But the experiments I have read about seem to be quite physically
> symmetrical. Also, what I have seen from the somewhat fuzzy blob-patterns
> that have been published seems to suggest that the patterns are not
> IDENTICAL -- just very similar.
Nope. It is even WORSE than you think! The patterns of aperture
antennas are EXACTLY those of slit diffraction. Antenna theory goes
like this. The pattern of an aperture antenna is formed by a 'source"
which is the current distribution in the aperture. That current can be
a 'real" current or and "equivalent" current which is formed by waves
incident upon the aperture. One can show that the antenna pattern in
the far field (for rectangular apertures in Cartesian coordinates) is
the Fourier transform of the current distribution. This is identical
with the diffraction case. And is advanced up a level from the
simplified dual slit mathematics assuming line sources and the like.
However, it can be shown that the SAME transforms also work for light
incident upon apertures. But as we know these transforms are built up
one photon at a time! Tough nut to crack, eh?
> Yes. This is a good point. WRT light waves/photons, there is a huge amount
> of lore associated with what happens when light waves graze an edge --
> whether the edge is metal or dielectric -- and go off at an odd angle. We
> even see this happening at UHF/VHF frequencies when radio waves graze the
> top of a mountain. Re-radiation is the key there-- even though the mountain
> is not a conducter.
Re-radiation is indeed the key to your theory which we all like.
Namely it offers some kind of mechanism to "explain" how an electron
or photon which obviously has tiny physical dimensions can "sense" a
second slit so far away! I think I might suggest on further
refinement. Namely that you give up on the idea that pattern is formed
by "radiation" [it is not] and consider that there just might be some
OTHER kind of radiation forming in the "slot antennas" and that this
very short wave radiation doesn't interact with anything except the
trajectory of the particle after leaving the slit.
> WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help but
> wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of charge???
Atoms and the like can be ionized for acceleration and then
neutralized before ejected into the neutral beam. Also neutrons are
often ejected from radioactive substances with some considerable
velocities.
> YEAH! I used slot antennas and arrays as a model because these items
> generate patterns that are a LOT like the patterns associated with double
> slits. I'll be perfectly happy with an alternate coupling method between the
> slots. But it seems very logical that the slits are coupling to each other.
> I like that idea a LOT better than sentient particles and intelligent
> seeing-eye waves!
So do I!
Benj
wrote:
> Actually, it's already been done. Consult any comprehensive book on antenna
> design. Look at radiation patterns for stacked vertical dipoles. Also look
> at radiation patterns for long wire antennas. You'll see radiation patterns
> remarkably similar to those seen in the double slit experiment. It is that
> similarity that caused me to wonder if the double slit pattern wasn't a
> result of radiation from a long (multiples of wavelength) antenna.
Unfortunately the dipole patterns and the double slit pattern (as
usually presented) are in fact idential. But the catch is that BOTH
use the same "thin element" approximation, so they both end up with
the same equation, which as it turns out is the correct answer
incorrectly obtained. The "true" answer examines the patterns for
apertures noting the transform relationship between the source
currents in the aperture and the far field patterns. Oddly enough the
transform is between current and far field ANGLE not the X
distribution. But at a great enough distance the angle equals the
spread. The truly hard part is to explain how the far field of
particles can be built up one particle at a time and STILL produce a
result identical with the EM transform. Note well that the transform
is a continuum model while the particle is not! So how in hell does a
particle excite a continuum transform? Your aperture antenna theory
does indeed provide some serious food for thought.
Szczepan Białek
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
news:A4kZj.12959$we7....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:g11jbj$vcs$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>>
>>
>> But I see more chances in reflection from the atoms in the slit.
>> Electrons reflect not only from external atoms but also from deep ones.
>> Such can travel only in the directions between the external atoms. So a
>> pattern must appear.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning, but would be interested in
> hearing more about your idea.
I can quote Fred again: "With light you see the two slit interference
immediately.
With electrons you don't see the two slit interference until enough
electrons have passed and been detected."
It seams that electrons and another particles do not interfere but they only
prefer some directions after multiply reflections inside solid body. ("Such
can
travel only in the directions between the external atoms")
S*
Autymn D. C.
Benj
> I can quote Fred again: "With light you see the two slit interference
> immediately.
> With electrons you don't see the two slit interference until enough
> electrons have passed and been detected."
> It seams that electrons and another particles do not interfere but they only
> prefer some directions after multiply reflections inside solid body. ("Such
> can
> travel only in the directions between the external atoms")
> S*
Actually, S*, this is a bit misleading. In BOTH the case of electrons
AND light if the intensity is low enough all you see are individual
"flashes". Individual electrons in one case and individual photons in
the other. But if you allow a sufficient number of the particles to
pass they form a pattern that is identical with the pattern that is
theoretically formed by the the interference of waves passing through
two slits. Of course the fact that the patterns are those of wave
interference does not necessarily imply that the particles actually
have wave properties. It only means that they form patterns identical
to those of interfering waves! But the "catch" given a suggested
"answer" by Bill is that it's difficult to explain how a particle of
such limited dimensions (like an electron) can "sense" the presence of
the second slit so as to "choose" which diffraction pattern to emulate
(single slit or double slit). Bill suggests that it is standard
antenna parasitic element couplings that might "explain" this so-
called "sensing"! Yes, excellent idea!
Benj
Autymn D. C.
<billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not seem to
> SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think of) in EM today.
> That puzzle is: How can a single photon/electron/atom/molecule "know" about
> the presence or absence of the second slit?
It's not a desolvate puzzle! I already told ye a mote is almost
infinitely-big (by Coulomb's law) and hits everything as easily as
your finger can hit two or three keys. And a mote is not a wave; it
has waves.
Autymn D. C.
> the electron leaves it's slit and proceeds toward the detector. The
> Finally we have the problem of the experiment working not only with
> electrons (which are traditionally used to drive antennas) but also
> the experiment also works with molecules, neutrons and photons which
> are electrically neutral. So this means one has to explain how
> neutral currents can drive an aperture antenna.
They're magnetic.
Bill Miller
OK Let's see if I understand.
1.When we put light through the slits we get a certain pattern essentially
instantaneously. And that pattern is due to light waves striking the plate.
YES?
2. When we change from light to electrons, a zap them through the same
slits, we get the same pattern. But that pattern builds up over time. And it
has been shown that the pattern is due to impacting electrons; not waves.
YES?
If 1 and 2 are true then we appear to have two entirely different mechanisms
leading to *exactly* the same inexplicable results.
I, and Hercule Poirot, dislike coincidences.
I accept 1 as being correct. My issue, then is with #2. I'm not suggesting
that your recollection of earlier research is incorrect. But I do wonder
what mechanisms were adopted in that earlier research to be CERTAIN that the
fogging was due entirely to impacting electrons? (After all, impacting
electrons was what they were expecting, isn't it?)
I've dug a little deeper, thanks to McDonald, and learned a couple more
things about Transition Radiation. First, it seems to have a usable spectrum
that ranges from UHF (not TOO useful for fogging a photo plate) through
visible light up to high Xrays. So the spectrum seems to fit with what might
fog a photo plate.
Second, it's not terribly efficient. According to Kirk, it takes about 1000
electrons to generate one photon (whatever that is!). So, any Transition
Radiation-induced fogging of a photo plate would build up over time. And
that kinda fits with your "slow build up" statement.
So far, I'm not seeing anything that "kills" the slit-as-an-aperture antenna
idea.
I'm just too lazy to do your research for you. ;-)
I'm not ALL that lazy. it's just that my library card got taken away from me
about 45 years ago, and I do not have FREE access to the online scholarly
research that is available to current students, current staff and
emeritus-type folks. I wish I did!
Thanks for your thoughts, Fred.
Bill
Bill Miller
> On May 22, 3:35 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> TILT! Please remember that we are dealing with the same lab setup
>> whether
>> we are studying light (where the anomoly was discovered) or electrons,
>> atoms, molecules and perhaps according to Fred) Bricks. So the detection
>> mechanism MUST be detecting radiation. (Unless you want to slide down the
>> slippery slope of saying that light passing through a slit changes into
>> particles. I'll be waiting at the bottow with the ambulance!)
>
> Actually Fred is correct about about the fact you are detecting
> particles and not radiation, which is exactly what I've said as well.
Fred made a similar comment, so rather than repeating it, I ask you to take
a look at my reply. I'm not saying he and you are wrong, but I REALLY
distrust coincidences!
> As for "bricks" that's mostly physics bullshit.
Yeah. In that comment, I was being silly.
It's in the same class
> as stupid statements about bowling balls having a finite chance of
> "reflecting" back from a table edge. These people never actually
> calculated the quantum mechanics for a bowling ball and table and if
> they did (and did it correctly) they find the wave functions were
> smooth curves with no reflections in sight.
>
> So if you are hurling photons or electrons or neutrons or neutrinos at
> a slit setup, I suggest that particles are going toward the slit and
> then through them and finally on to the detectors where they make
> little flashes (see the nice images in Wikipedia on this subject)
> Sorry, there is NO diffuse "radiation" interacting with the detectors
> here.
OK then why are diffuse patterns from the LIGHT double slit experiment
identical with those for electrons?
>
> But you do have a point. Lets do another experiment! Let's beam
> microwaves at the dual slot antenna. Here waves go to the antenna,
> they interact with it (waves hit both at once and represent currents
> in the apertures) and then proceed onto the detector (radio) which is
> picking up waves. These "waves" it has been argued are ALSO
> "photons"! Can that be true? Something here needs looked into!
>
>> Agin, please recall that this works with radiation or with particles. You
>> don't get to pick one vs the other.
>
> I don't quite know what you mean. Electrons are particles radio waves
> are waves. You certainly can pick which one to use.
I'm kinda repeating myself, but we are seeing identical results with waves
and particles. So we need to identify why two items with different
properties are acting exactly the same way. One solution is that they ARE
exactly the same. But that doesn't explain the double slit anomaly. Another
solution is that their interaction with one slit couples to the other slit.
And THAT idea does explain the anomaly.
There may be other solutions, but it seems to me that some form of coupling
between slits holds the key to the enigma.
>As for electrons
> you are detecting flashes as they land. No radiation is being
> detected. And it gets still better. One can measure the ENERGY of the
> landing electron. No significant amount is lost in the slit as you
> suggest.
This is not necessarily a "deal killer." As I noted elsewhere, in Transition
Radiation, involves about 1 photon for about every 1,000 electrons. Thus the
energy loss will be on average about 0.1%. That's kinda below the threshold
of error for most experiments!
>
>> Yes, the electron will likely impact the detector. But as it passed
>> through
>> the slit, some of its energy was lost as it induced Transition Radiation.
>> That Primary radiation does two things.
>
>> First, it radiates energy onto the plate.
>
>> Second, it interacts with the second slit/slot causing the second slot to
>> re-radiate energy.
>
>> Both of these radiation sources impact/interact at the plate.
>
> No they don't! UNLESS you are doing the radio wave version of this.
>
>> No that's not what is happening. The electron's trajectory is not
>> severely
>> influenced. The primary pattern is radiation caused. The secondary
>> pattern
>> is the electron(s) splatting into the plate.
>
> You mean not happening according to your theory! Unfortunately for
> your theory, the pattern produced is by ELECTRONS not waves!
But the two patterns are essentially identical. That's one of the baffling
things about this whole issue!
Again I
> refer you to the fine wikipedia electron build-up images.
>
>> I agree. I am ASSUMING that in all these experiments, the slit was in
>> metal.
>> (After all, at least the vacuum and atom/molecule tests must be done in
>> vacuum. And outgassing from plastics would destroy the integrity.)
>
> Nice try! Sorry there ARE opaque insulators that do not outgas. Black
> glass for example.
I'm not suggesting that there are no opaque insulators. I'm suggesting that
they were not used. Why? Because it's a heckuva ;ot easier to work with
metal than with anything else!
But I really don't KNOW what material was used to support the slits. Does
anyone on list KNOW?
>
>> Yes. But the experiments I have read about seem to be quite physically
>> symmetrical. Also, what I have seen from the somewhat fuzzy blob-patterns
>> that have been published seems to suggest that the patterns are not
>> IDENTICAL -- just very similar.
>
> Nope. It is even WORSE than you think! The patterns of aperture
> antennas are EXACTLY those of slit diffraction. Antenna theory goes
> like this. The pattern of an aperture antenna is formed by a 'source"
> which is the current distribution in the aperture. That current can be
> a 'real" current or and "equivalent" current which is formed by waves
> incident upon the aperture. One can show that the antenna pattern in
> the far field (for rectangular apertures in Cartesian coordinates) is
> the Fourier transform of the current distribution. This is identical
> with the diffraction case. And is advanced up a level from the
> simplified dual slit mathematics assuming line sources and the like.
> However, it can be shown that the SAME transforms also work for light
> incident upon apertures. But as we know these transforms are built up
> one photon at a time! Tough nut to crack, eh?
Well... the transforms may be EXACTLY the same, but the measured patterns
are never coing to be exactly the same. Also, my antenna experience tells me
that the patterns of REAL driven arrays vs "identical" parasitic arrays will
be similar but not identical.
>> Yes. This is a good point. WRT light waves/photons, there is a huge
>> amount
>> of lore associated with what happens when light waves graze an edge --
>> whether the edge is metal or dielectric -- and go off at an odd angle. We
>> even see this happening at UHF/VHF frequencies when radio waves graze the
>> top of a mountain. Re-radiation is the key there-- even though the
>> mountain
>> is not a conducter.
>
> Re-radiation is indeed the key to your theory which we all like.
> Namely it offers some kind of mechanism to "explain" how an electron
> or photon which obviously has tiny physical dimensions can "sense" a
> second slit so far away! I think I might suggest on further
> refinement. Namely that you give up on the idea that pattern is formed
> by "radiation" [it is not] and consider that there just might be some
> OTHER kind of radiation forming in the "slot antennas" and that this
> very short wave radiation doesn't interact with anything except the
> trajectory of the particle after leaving the slit.
That's an interesting alternative approach. I can see it maybe working with
particles like electrons. But my imagination isn't good enough to explain
how such a mechanism is going to provide identical results with electrons
(light weight), atoms (massive), molecules (even more massive) and photons.
>
>> WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help
>> but
>> wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of
>> charge???
>
> Atoms and the like can be ionized for acceleration and then
> neutralized before ejected into the neutral beam. Also neutrons are
> often ejected from radioactive substances with some considerable
> velocities.
Yes, they CAN be. But, in the experiments that were made, WERE they
neutralized? Why would they do that?
>> YEAH! I used slot antennas and arrays as a model because these items
>> generate patterns that are a LOT like the patterns associated with double
>> slits. I'll be perfectly happy with an alternate coupling method between
>> the
>> slots. But it seems very logical that the slits are coupling to each
>> other.
>> I like that idea a LOT better than sentient particles and intelligent
>> seeing-eye waves!
>
> So do I!
Thanks for taling an interest in this, Benj. This is fun!
Bill
>
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj"
>
>Actually, S*, this is a bit misleading. In BOTH the case of electrons
AND light if the intensity is low enough
Are you sure that intensity is low?
For me electrons needs time to make steady conditions. The first electrons
are trapped inside a solid body.
S*
Benj
wrote:
> OK then why are diffuse patterns from the LIGHT double slit experiment
> identical with those for electrons?
Not sure what you mean by "diffuse patterns". Generally speaking if
you reduce the intensity of either electrons or light you get to the
point where only single flashes are detected. There aren't any lower
energy "diffuse" radiation (as far as I know). Now the reason that
light and electrons form the SAME patterns has to be an interesting
question! The only conclusion we can reach is that somehow the pattern
is related to the GEOMETRY of the slits rather than the properties of
the slit material or the properties of the particles.
> I'm kinda repeating myself, but we are seeing identical results with waves
> and particles. So we need to identify why two items with different
> properties are acting exactly the same way. One solution is that they ARE
> exactly the same. But that doesn't explain the double slit anomaly. Another
> solution is that their interaction with one slit couples to the other slit.
> And THAT idea does explain the anomaly.
Yes it does! Which is what makes your idea very interesting!
> There may be other solutions, but it seems to me that some form of coupling
> between slits holds the key to the enigma.
It sure seems promising to me and it's going in a way that physics
hasn't seemed to have gone yet. IT sure beats just throwing up your
hands and saying "it can never be known"!
> This is not necessarily a "deal killer." As I noted elsewhere, in Transition
> Radiation, involves about 1 photon for about every 1,000 electrons. Thus the
> energy loss will be on average about 0.1%. That's kinda below the threshold
> of error for most experiments!
Yeah. I was wondering about that one myself! If the energy loss is
small it would probably never be noticed unless one devised an
experiment specifically to look for that energy loss. I presume nobody
so far was really looking for it.
> But the two patterns are essentially identical. That's one of the baffling
> things about this whole issue!
Yes it is. In fact even MORE baffling is that charged particles and
neutral particles all produce the same pattern independent of the
material the slit is made of. Clearly this relates to another
interesting "fact" of EM which is that properties such as inductance,
capacitance and even to a degree resistance are determined ONLY by
geometry (and a couple of material factors). So it isn't so odd to
find diffraction to be determined only by geometry just as inductance
is.
It's kind of "New Age" to note the similarity to the crankosity of
"healing" by sitting under a pyramid. In fact, one can say that EVERY
conductor form in space actually has inductance, capacitance and
resistance, and indeed is a "circuit" all by itself! This is very much
along the lines of the "New Age" dogma where geometry of objects is
said to give them "powers"!
> But I really don't KNOW what material was used to support the slits. Does
> anyone on list KNOW?
Depends on WHOSE experiment you are talking about! Lots of people
have done these things.
> Well... the transforms may be EXACTLY the same, but the measured patterns
> are never coing to be exactly the same. Also, my antenna experience tells me
> that the patterns of REAL driven arrays vs "identical" parasitic arrays will
> be similar but not identical.
Mine too. Which is why I made the point of which slit the electron
goes through makes a difference. Because going through the other slit
switches which element is driven and which one is parasitic!
> Yes, they CAN be. [ions made neutral] But, in the experiments that were made, WERE they
> neutralized? Why would they do that?
Well I don't have any references right here at my fingertips, but I
presume the reason they were neutralized was to show that neutral
particles also exhibit these "quantum" effects. It's not just about
ONE experiment but MANY experiments as everyone sort of wanders in the
wilderness trying to get a handle on what is going on!
> Thanks for taking an interest in this, Benj. This is fun!
Yes it is! I often yap a lot about people expounding a bunch of dogma
(like saying things can "never" be known) rather than asking "is there
any way that these weird results we are seeing MIGHT be explained by
things we know already?" Just ASKING the right question can often
lead to significant progress even if no full-blown correct theory is
seen to quickly emerge. Yeah, that's why I love this kind of
thinking!
Benj
Benj
Light intensity can be as low as you make it! A quality "night
vision" intensifier can see single photons. No, they don't detect
every one, but enough of them to pretty much show the idea of
"particle light". Electrons work even better as they interact
directly with the detector without conversion. Electrons whipping
through a hole (slit) don't get trapped by anything!
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj"
<
> Electrons whipping through a hole (slit) don't get trapped by anything!
But most of them whip the area around the slits. Not all are back reflected.
S*
Bill Miller
> On May 23, 2:02 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> OK then why are diffuse patterns from the LIGHT double slit experiment
>> identical with those for electrons?
>
> Not sure what you mean by "diffuse patterns".
I THINK I was parroting another post. OR I was trying to express the idea
that patterns on a plate are not binary. Instead, the images are composed of
what are obviously higher concentrations (of something), other areas of
reduced concentration and some aresa of very low concentration. Just like
antenna pattern lobes.
Generally speaking if
> you reduce the intensity of either electrons or light you get to the
> point where only single flashes are detected. There aren't any lower
> energy "diffuse" radiation (as far as I know). Now the reason that
> light and electrons form the SAME patterns has to be an interesting
> question! The only conclusion we can reach is that somehow the pattern
> is related to the GEOMETRY of the slits rather than the properties of
> the slit material or the properties of the particles.
>
I suspect that the slit material's properties will play a role in the
patterns, but I agree on the GEOMETRY part.
"independent of the
> material the slit is made of." Are you sure about this?
Clearly this relates to another
> interesting "fact" of EM which is that properties such as inductance,
> capacitance and even to a degree resistance are determined ONLY by
> geometry (and a couple of material factors). So it isn't so odd to
> find diffraction to be determined only by geometry just as inductance
> is.
>
Slightly OT, visit Ivor Catt's website. He developed models for both C and L
based on transmission line theory (geometry) ONLY. (Did you know that a
caacitor does not ALWAYS charge exponentially?) There's also a lot of
technical junk there, so a good BS filter is needed.
> It's kind of "New Age" to note the similarity to the crankosity of
> "healing" by sitting under a pyramid. In fact, one can say that EVERY
> conductor form in space actually has inductance, capacitance and
> resistance, and indeed is a "circuit" all by itself! This is very much
> along the lines of the "New Age" dogma where geometry of objects is
> said to give them "powers"!
>
>> But I really don't KNOW what material was used to support the slits. Does
>> anyone on list KNOW?
>
> Depends on WHOSE experiment you are talking about! Lots of people
> have done these things.
>
>> Well... the transforms may be EXACTLY the same, but the measured patterns
>> are never coing to be exactly the same. Also, my antenna experience tells
>> me
>> that the patterns of REAL driven arrays vs "identical" parasitic arrays
>> will
>> be similar but not identical.
>
> Mine too. Which is why I made the point of which slit the electron
> goes through makes a difference. Because going through the other slit
> switches which element is driven and which one is parasitic!
>
Agrred.
Bill Miller
Key questions:
1. Slit dimensions and spacing.
2. Material(s) used in making the slits
3. Thickness(es) of the slit materials?
4. Distance from slit to plate?
As I mentioned to Fred, my library card got taken away about 45 years ago,
so I have no economically practical way to look at online published data!
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Miller
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:458af98e-87fe-479d...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The elèctròn is a mote, and has waves in fotòns.
This may be true, but not relevant to solving the double slit puzzle.
Unless one of the properties of the mote is sentience.
Benj
wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:458af98e-87fe-479d...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The elèctròn is a mote, and has waves in fotòns.
>
> This may be true, but not relevant to solving the double slit puzzle.
>
> Unless one of the properties of the mote is sentience.
Oh my God, Bill! You are actually carrying on a conversation with
Autymn D.C. in HER OWN LANGUAGE! You don't even make her speak muttish
as I do! Even worse it almost sounds as if real information is being
conveyed! This is truly scary stuff!
Autymn D. C.
wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:458af98e-87fe-479d...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The elèctròn is a mote, and has waves in fotòns.
>
> This may be true, but not relevant to solving the double slit puzzle.
>
> Unless one of the properties of the mote is sentience.
See my other post for how the mote is sentient--as in a'feelong.
Bill Miller
Here's a short segnent that highlights the question of how particles and
waves can provede similar/same results, even if the particles have no charge
with wich they accelerate electrons:
>> WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help
>> but
>> wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of
>> charge???
>
> Atoms and the like can be ionized for acceleration and then
> neutralized before ejected into the neutral beam. Also neutrons are
> often ejected from radioactive substances with some considerable
> velocities.
**********************************
What follows is Bill once again climbing the scaffold, seizing a fresh
noose, standing on the trapdoor,..grabbing the handle again and...
************************************
A major question arising from my "slits are slots" concept is how a
non-charged particle moving through a slit can excite electrons. After all,
there is no known mechanism for this!
Or is there?
Jefimenko tells us, in his ground-breaking book (Gravitation and
Cogravitation, Chapter 13) that if a low-mass, high Velocity (WRT c) item
moves past a high mass, stationary object, that a high-intensity,
short-duration Cogravitational field will act to "yank" material in the
high-mass object toward the low mass object.
This is highly controversial because there is -- as yet -- no experimental
evidence to back it up. (Until now?)
In all materials, whether they are conductors, semiconductors or insulators,
there are always large quantities of unbound electrons.These electrons are
MUCH less massive that any passing particle.
So what would happen IF Jefimenko's Cogravitational theory is accurate, and
if neutrally charged, but high velocity particles are shot through a slit?
As the particle passes through the slit, its Cogravitational field will act
an the unbound electrons to pull them towards the passing particle. And
these suddenly accelerated electrons will radiate. And this radiation will
excite the slit=slot antenna. And this will generate the same pattern as has
already been seen with light waves and charged particles passing through the
same slit.
*************************
Bill's hand closes on the trapdoor handle and he yanks it again!
maxwell
wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
Please, Bill, stop climbing up this scaffold; we'd all miss you if
your miraculous survival were ever to fail. For what it's worth here
is my 'two-penneth'.
This experiment is always a many-body problem. The electrons in the
material in the screen interact with the source/target system. If the
source is a single electron it will progress through the screen at
slightly varying times & distances as the slot is finite enough for us
to see (but massive on the scale of the electron). The existence of
the second slot alters the nature of the experiment, removing
trillions of possible electrons from the single-slot setup. All the
electrons in the screen are involved in reaching the final result.
This is approximated mathematically by the use of Fourier transforms
but this does NOT mean there are any physical waves anywhere in this
whole experiment. If 'light' is the excitation, then the source
consists of trillions of electrons that are excited together and they
too collectively interact with the screen and those in the final
detector. Like all many-body problems were timing is critical (and
the averaging approximation doesn't work) this is a tough problem
mathematically but not conceptually.
Benj
>
> > *************************
> > Bill's hand closes on the trapdoor handle and he yanks it again!
>
> Please, Bill, stop climbing up this scaffold; we'd all miss you if
> your miraculous survival were ever to fail. For what it's worth here
> is my 'two-penneth'.
> This experiment is always a many-body problem. The electrons in the
> material in the screen interact with the source/target system. If the
> source is a single electron it will progress through the screen at
> slightly varying times & distances as the slot is finite enough for us
> to see (but massive on the scale of the electron). The existence of
> the second slot alters the nature of the experiment, removing
> trillions of possible electrons from the single-slot setup. All the
> electrons in the screen are involved in reaching the final result.
> This is approximated mathematically by the use of Fourier transforms
> but this does NOT mean there are any physical waves anywhere in this
> whole experiment. If 'light' is the excitation, then the source
> consists of trillions of electrons that are excited together and they
> too collectively interact with the screen and those in the final
> detector. Like all many-body problems were timing is critical (and
> the averaging approximation doesn't work) this is a tough problem
> mathematically but not conceptually.
Not a tough conceptual problem? Puhleese!
Your paragraph makes no sense to me at all!
Lessee. We are shooting only ONE electron but the experiment is a
"many body problem". The slit is small enough to create diffraction,
yet it is "massive" compared to the size and reach of the electron
which has no "reasonable" means of sensing the boundaries of the
single slit let alone the second slit miles away! Even though we are
shooting ONE electron you decide to count the "trillions" of electrons
that were NOT sent! I'm rich because I'm counting the trillions of
dollars I never made! And given that there are NO "waves" here of ANY
type (nor can there be EVER because the medium (aether) does not
exist, you STILL decide to Fourier mathematics to find the wave
effects. But having done that you still admit that while the answer
for wave effects are valid, there are no waves "anywhere in this whole
experiment". And although the experiment works just fine for any
timing, you say timing is critical (as with many-body problems) which
I presume means that the whole experiment is chaos and totally
unpredictable, and yet somehow always gives the same well-defined
result!
Please, "Maxwell", explain to us again how your "explanation" makes
sense!
As for Bill invoking cograviation! Oh my! Now he actually HAS pulled
the trap lever! But I DO like the idea of replacing Bills EM antenna
array with cogravitational antennas! The only slight problem with that
is that photons are massless. Oops!
Yeah, physics is so advanced that they really can explain light and
how the double slit experiment works...NOT!
maxwell
1. The screen consists of trillions of electrons: the SINGLE slit is
our human way of simplifying this enormously complex (& dynamic)
'object'.
2. All electrons interact, according to Coulomb, with every other
electron in the universe, albeit with an inverse square reduction with
spatial separation.
3. The electron is moving through a space with finite geometry in
finite time, so FFT's can be defined even if WE cannot evaluate them.
4. The timing is critical because at the microscale of the traversing
electron variations in distance & time will always occur as we cannot
control the initial conditions of each real electron; so different
screen electrons will play a differential role in their interaction
with the traversing electron giving a statistical spread of the
results that after very many repetitions will accumulate to the same
results as wave optics.
5. Reality is periodic in this experiment, not chaotic. It is our
inability to 'observe' the actual micro-reality that prevents us
performing deterministic calculations (predictions); we are left with
only statistical methods i.e. quantum mechanics.
As I said, not conceptually difficult (if you change your focus), just
mathematically impossible. Always remember, in terms of atoms we are
clumsy giants.
PS I don't think gravity enters into this experiment, either.
Benj
> OK, Benj, just for you, since you do seem to want to know.
OK, just a couple of comments although explained this way it's not as
bad as it seemed before.
> 1. The screen consists of trillions of electrons: the SINGLE slit is
> our human way of simplifying this enormously complex (& dynamic)
> 'object'.
Yes. clearly our idea of the "slit" is actually a turbulent electron
(atom) sea of seething activity. Trillions of electrons are involved
in making up that matter.
> 2. All electrons interact, according to Coulomb, with every other
> electron in the universe, albeit with an inverse square reduction with
> spatial separation.
So we have then two things. One is the turbulent sea of the matter
clearly has the ability to create "randomness" in electron
trajectories which can only be assessed by statistics because of our
(current) inability to exactly determine what is going on in that atom
sea at any given moment as the electron goes through. Fine.
But point number two is that inverse square relationship. This is the
crux of Bill's theory. That fall off of influence means that although
our electron (mathematically) interacts with every other charged
particle in the universe, in a practical sense the interaction is not
large enough to change the trajectory sufficient to explain any build
up of "diffraction' patterns even in the single slit, let alone in the
much more distant double slit.
Hence Coulomb interactions can explain randomness but not the wave-
properties of "particles".
> 3. The electron is moving through a space with finite geometry in
> finite time, so FFT's can be defined even if WE cannot evaluate them.
Yes, but if we cannot evaluate them, what have we gained?
> 4. The timing is critical because at the microscale of the traversing
> electron variations in distance & time will always occur as we cannot
> control the initial conditions of each real electron; so different
> screen electrons will play a differential role in their interaction
> with the traversing electron giving a statistical spread of the
> results that after very many repetitions will accumulate to the same
> results as wave optics.
We agree on the idea of indeterminate micro variations that cannot be
measured (Einstein's hidden variables) creating the apparently random
paths of each individual electron fired, but the catchy-poo is that
these trajectories when averaged long enough emulate wave properties
which cannot be explained by the same interactions causing the random
trajectories. A statistical spread is not the same as a diffraction
pattern. This is where Bill's theory is interesting in that he uses an
EM parasitic antenna coupling to explain the wave phenomena that the
statistical spread cannot.
> 5. Reality is periodic in this experiment, not chaotic. It is our
> inability to 'observe' the actual micro-reality that prevents us
> performing deterministic calculations (predictions); we are left with
> only statistical methods i.e. quantum mechanics.
Actually the actions of the electron "orbitals" of the material of the
slit probably are BOTH periodic (atomic crystal structures) and
chaotic (actual motion of myriad electrons in the material). And the
inability to perform deterministic measurement on this sub-structure
does indeed mean we are only left with quantum mechanics. But it
really doesn't answer the fundamental questions of wave-particle
duality.
> As I said, not conceptually difficult (if you change your focus), just
> mathematically impossible. Always remember, in terms of atoms we are
> clumsy giants.
OK, I see what you are saying here outlining the "big picture" and
it's not wrong, but it still is not any "explanation" of the
phenomena. The real crux here is to define a mechanism of some kind
that can "explain" how individual electrons fired at a double slit can
follow trajectories that on average are a double slit diffraction
pattern (mathematically speaking...of course, giving that pattern does
NOT mean that diffraction is actually taking place only that it
happens to give the same result as a wave diffraction experiment).
You've nicely explained why each electron follows a random path unlike
the one that just came before it and the one after it even if initial
velocities etc. are the same, but you've not provided a mechanism
(mathematical or otherwise) that can explain how these particle
trajectories end up on average defining a wave diffraction pattern for
a double slit when there is no way that any given electron can sense
the presence of the second slit because of the inverse square drop
off. As I see it, other than a theory like Bill's the only other
possible explanation would be some kind of multi-body, fractal chaos
theory where extremely tiny changes in initial conditions are able to
"amplified" in a sense up to a degree where major changes in final
landing spots can be grossly changed by extremely tiny changes in
initial conditions. But such a theory seems difficult if not
impossible to define at best.
Bill Miller
Benj and Maxwell...
Not much I can add here. Maxwell may have provided a nice description of
what is going on, but not an understanding of *why.* And that seems to be
where all currently accepted "explanations" end up.
It goes a little bit different, however, when we realize that maxwell's
explanation does not seem to deal with the issues of double slit patterns
associated with bigger particles, nor with photons.
> PS I don't think gravity enters into this experiment, either.
Jefimenko's theory makes no restrictions as to the absolete size of the
items being analyzed. The only requirements in the reference I cited are
that the mass of the stationary object be >> the mass of the moving oject
AND that the moving object must be going very fast (relatavistically
speaking).
If those conditions are met (as they are in the double slit with particles
case) then the result will be as I suggested in my "second hanging."
So, who would like to step forward and identify the flaw in Jefimenko's
reasoning? AFTER that is done, then we can also examine my reasoning, but
that is irrelevant until /unless Jefimenko has been dealt with.
All the best...
Bill
Vince Morgan
> Bill strides manfully up the scaffold steps. He grabs the rope, slides it
> over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the
> hanle and pulls hard...
> **************************************************
>
> But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
a
> reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
has
> nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.
>
>
Many/most CRTs have a perforated metal screen that corresponds with screen
pixels. Electrons pass through the holes to their target, though some hit
the metal instead. I imagine there would be some research into various
observed effects relative to their engineering that could shed some light on
this question.
Just a thought,
Vince
Bill Miller
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4850d1e0$0$1021$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Part of MY problem in solving this puzzle beyond the blue sky/scaffolding
level is my lack of access to details of how the experiments were don.
Specifically, how big are the slits, how are they physically placed, what is
the thickness and composition of the material holding the slits, velocities
of the particles, dimensions of the apparatus etc.
For example, in your idea, I know (or can readily find) information on the
approximate speed of the electron beam. We also know that it is relatively
slow -- otherwise the impacting electrons would X-Ray everyone in the TV
room. How does THAT speed compare with particle speeds in the double-slit
experiment?
Thanks for the idea!
Bill
Benj
wrote:
> Many/most CRTs have a perforated metal screen that corresponds with screen
> pixels. Electrons pass through the holes to their target, though some hit
> the metal instead. I imagine there would be some research into various
> observed effects relative to their engineering that could shed some light on
> this question.
> Just a thought,
> Vince
EXCELLENT point Vince! Of course electrons form "wavelengths" so small
that the metal screen (they are called "shadow masks") is more or less
imaged and little diffraction is observed. (electron microscopes are
VERY high resolution!) BUT you are correct that at least some
diffraction effects should be observed. Even more interesting, is the
fact that although the electrons are for the most part going through
one hole, the ENTIRE mask should act as a large diffraction grating
and should generate a diffraction pattern related to the Fourier
transform (for Cartesian Symmetry) of the ENTIRE mask rather than the
pattern of a single hole. Even more interesting is how this jibes
with Bill's theory. It makes no sense for an electron to be "sensing"
holes a foot away, BUT in Bill's theory one has a huge traveling wave
antenna consisting of a holey plate. It makes TOTAL sense for each
hole to find "parasitic" holes surrounding it which in turn excite
further away holes etc. until the whole array is involved. Nice
point!
Vince Morgan
>
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4850d1e0$0$1021$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> level is my lack of access to details of how the experiments were don.
> Specifically, how big are the slits, how are they physically placed, what
is
> the thickness and composition of the material holding the slits,
velocities
> of the particles, dimensions of the apparatus etc.
>
> For example, in your idea, I know (or can readily find) information on the
> approximate speed of the electron beam. We also know that it is relatively
> slow -- otherwise the impacting electrons would X-Ray everyone in the TV
> room. How does THAT speed compare with particle speeds in the double-slit
> experiment?
>
> Thanks for the idea!
>
> Bill
>
>
You could locate one, or an array of single pixels anywhere you wished very
easily by creating a black image with a single dot, or many dots Bill.
Take a quality image of the monitor in a dark room. Manipulate the camera
image (i.e. contrast, histogram) until the (refraction?) is, perhaps,
clearly discernable.
There is a translucent coating on most monitors to help reduce glare, and I
believe this would need to be removed (solvents will do that normally).
All that is required for the above is a computer with suitable monitor and
an application that can produce and allow you to manipulate computer images
(bitmaps in MS Windows) and a quality high resolution camera.
Just a thought,
Vince
Bill Miller
Well, after further review, I still like Vince's idea but I'm not so sure
that a shadow mask CRT is going to help us much. Here's why:
CRTs are designed to maximize the electron-to-photon conversion. In
contrast, the Transition Radiation technique is inherently very low
efficiency (about 0.1%.)
So, for every Transition Photon that is generated, we're going to have a
whole bunch of phosphor-emitted photons. It would be kinda like separating
the fly specks from the pepper.
Unless, of course the shadow mask is radiating in an ebtirely different
frequency range! And I'm not sure I know how to calculate that!
But THIS idea goes into my "don't forget it" file!
Bill
Bill Miller
<SNIP>
The PLOT thickens!
Please see:
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/two-slit/PolarDoubleSlit.pdf
This is an analysis of one odd characteristic of the double slit (optical)
experiment. It turns out that if two beams of mutually orthogonal polarized
light are applied to the dual slits, interference fringes *never* occur!
The analysis uses quantum concepts of Momentum Space to show why this
happens.
Another esplanation is that when a horizontally polarized signal is applied
to a vertically polarized antenna, the antenna will not absorb and
re-radiate any energy.
Bill
Bill Miller
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/dbslit1.htm#Mesg1
ill