Question about results of double slit experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter john330
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Physics according to a random fool on the Internets.
(Warning: lots of words will follow)

Reality is very simple; it is itself.
We are now observing light changes on our monitor.

What is light? Observe the brightness, the colors. This is light.

Properties of light:

Speed of light:
Firstly, what are we? Eternal beings in time.
Eternal = we exist now; now does not change.
We tend to project our eternity onto the material universe.
We think it is still, but it is always changing.
Things relate to each other constantly, perpetually.
Speed of light = rate of change of the material universe = standing still in the flux of time,
like a surfer on a wave.
You turn on a light, the wall lights up. The light “relates” to space, “traveling” through it.
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light because it is doing the equivalent of standing still in time.
That is why there is no absolute zero velocity in time/space.
All velocity is relative to the speed of light because it occurs “Instantaneously” (I am using the word cautiously) with time.
The light goes on, the wall changes from dark to light as the element in the atomic clock decays, things change - time

photons:
The universe is relational in nature.
There is a lot to be said about this, but I am not a physicist and I don’t have the words.
But, things happen a certain way within our level of the micro → macrosphere.
As we extend our control to very, very small things and have them interact, we find that they no longer behave as things do at this “level” of material interaction.
We develop the idea of a photon to bring together these properties, to explain and predict the behavior of light.
Remember what light is - the brightness and the colours on the screen.

If you take a double slit and hurl very, very, very tiny things that we have isolated,
that we know relate to somewhat similar things in a particular way (we call them electrons),
those particles act a certain way → congregate in bands (like waves).
If we blast them with “photons” on the way, this changes them and they behave differently, the way a particle would.
There is no more mystery in this than that present with every breath we take.

Of course there are photons, just as there is a blue vault above us.
 
“those particles act a certain way → congregate in bands (like waves)” should have read “those events act a certain way → congregate in bands (like waves).” It doesn’t matter but OCD is bothering me
 
Linusthe2nd said:
To say your are " evading " and not being " reasonable " is not bad temper. It is clear that until the moving electrons escape the opacity of the shielded wires there will be no light. But as soon as the electrons escape the shielded conditions and as soon as the electrons heat the filiment to the point of ignition, you will have light. At the instant the electrons at the filiment reach the proper excitation threshold, you have instantaneous light at the source. But from that instant to the instant you see the light, a millisecond of time has elapsed. That is understood. But at the sourse itself - before it reaches your eyes, the light is instaneous. That is the point I was making.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
“Opacity of shielded wires”. Noooooooo! (the wires have low resistance so don’t heat up very much). “Point of ignition”. Noooooooo! (the bulb contains inert gas so nothing can ignite). “Instantaneous light at the source”. Noooooooo! (don’t know what that means, light is emitted when electrons drop to lower orbitals). See home.howstuffworks.com/light-bulb.htm

You’re no longer taking about nucleii so it’s an improvement over yesterday, although you put me in mind to find some exam howlers:

To remove dust from the eye, pull the eye down over the nose.
Algebraical symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about.
A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.
Charles Darwin was a naturalist who wrote the organ of the species.
Benjamin Franklin produced electricity by rubbing cats backwards.
Crude oil is a vicious substance.
Vacuums are nothings. We only mention them to let them know we know they are there.
The Earth makes a resolution every 24 hours.

😃
 
Now about this “instantaneous” business, which is on topic as it has to do with the behaviour of matter in space-time:

The universe is relational in nature, in keeping with its Maker,
Who is relational in His perfection.

He relates to His creation, which exists in relation to itself.
Things that are instantaneous happen at the same time.
They are related in that instantaneous event where they meet.

For God in eternity, all that is, what was and will be, He creates and knows.
All exists in its moment; that moment, all moments are centred on He who is their source.

Existing in time but rooted in eternity, we can see beyond immediate events.
We project out, that there is a universe that we believe is instantaneously happening according to our time. This is a good way of thinking if you want to catch a train.
As you read this, you may imagine my being elsewhere doing something else in your particular instance.
In reality, I am meeting you now.

Gazing at the same moon, I am united with my lover, a thousand miles away.

A supernova a billion light years away, has made its death known for a billion years, and I witness that instant now.

In a universe of relationships,
all occurs in the moment,
each centred on the Now, eternal and unchanging,
on He who brings each instant into existence.
 
inocente said:
You got that right, your evasion knows no bounds. But perhaps you don’t even realize you’re doing it. See your words that I bolded above? You didn’t even distinguish between a second and instantaneous :rolleyes:. Something seems really fast to you so you think it happens in no time at all. You’ve done this kind of thing repeatedly on different threads, this refusal to distinguish between the world and your subjective feelings about the world.

Thomas made an honest mistake, he didn’t play decadent word games to try to cover it up.

I even linked videos proving it’s a long way from instantaneous. I don’t have the time or inclination to play games with your bad temper, please don’t reply unless you can be objective and civil.
Click to expand...
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Linus2nd
 
Paddy_Walker said:
Yes, I’m being serious, and sadly my sig didn’t have anything to do with it. I found confirmation of Paddy’s theory here.
Click to expand...
…and also here.

extract:
But quantum mechanics allows for a third way to coordinate information. When two particles [photons] are quantum mechanically ‘entangled’ with each other, measuring the properties of one will instantly tell you something about the other. In other words, quantum theory allows two particles to organize themselves at apparently faster-than-light speeds.
Click to expand...
Einstein called such behaviour “spooky action at a distance”, because he found it deeply unsettling. He and other physicists clung to the idea that there might be some other way for the particles to communicate with each other at or near the speed of light.
Click to expand...
But the new experiment shows that direct communication between the photons (at least as we know it) is simply impossible. The team simultaneously measured several properties of both photons, such as phase, when they arrived at their villages and found that they did indeed have a spooky awareness of each other’s behaviour. On the basis of their measurements, the team concluded that if the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light — something nearly all physicists thought would be impossible. In other words, these photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information.
Click to expand...
Framed
Click to expand...
The team also ruled out other possible reasons for the apparently coordinated behaviour. For example, one could imagine that the photons might have shared information before they left Geneva — but Gisin’s measurements showed that they could not.
Click to expand...
A second test ensured that the scientists in the two villages weren’t missing some form of communication thanks to Earth’s motion through space. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, observers moving at high speeds can have different ‘reference frames’, so that they can potentially get different measurements of the same event. The Geneva results could possibly be explained if the two photons were communicating through a frame of reference that wasn’t readily apparent to the scientists."
Click to expand...
But theoretical calculations have shown that performing tests over a full spin of the globe would test all possible reference frames. The team did just that, and they got the same result in all cases.
Click to expand...
The bottom line, says Gisin is that “there is just no time for these two photons to communicate”.
Click to expand...
The experiment shows that in quantum mechanics at least, some things transcend space-time, says Terence Rudolph, a theorist at Imperial College London. It also shows that humans have attached undue importance to the three dimensions of space and one of time we live in, he argues. “We think space and time are important because that’s the kind of monkeys we are.”
Click to expand...
If you are baffled by the result, fear not — you’re not alone. “For me, honestly, it doesn’t make any sense,” says Gisin. “I don’t think we can today claim that we have a good story to tell how this all happens.” He hopes that the work will stimulate theorists to come up with new ways of explaining the spooky effect.
Click to expand...
…and from the previous link about this:
Notice that this result does not eliminate the possibility that the influence of entanglement actually is instantaneous – it merely sets a limit saying how close the influence must be to infinitely fast. Another possibility that is gaining credence is that entanglement dynamics may operate external to time, or at least may ignore time as it ignores distance.
Click to expand...
 
john330 said:
My apologies if this has recently been on this board. I have read many articles and watched many videos about this experiment, and I seem to be getting two different reports on the result of the double slit experiment. I am not sure which is true, please help.

So one brand of article on the experent indicates that an observation prior to the electon/photon hitting the screenl causes the particle to register on the screen as a classical particle. If it is not observed prior to hitting the screen, it produces wave- like interference patterns on the screen, even if a single particle were fired. This would indicate that there is something about the observation of the particle PRIOR to its hitting the screen which causes it to act like a classical particle. If it is not observed prior to hitting the screen, then it registers on the screen as a wave.

The other report I am getting is that the photon/electron always registers on the screen as a classical particle, but when fired many times the groupings of particles on the screen appear to take on the shape of a wave interference pattern. This would indicate that perhaps the particle acts as a wave and a particle, with the groupings being represented as a equation which demonstrates the probability that an electron acting as a wave will be found at any given point along that wave front. In this experiment, it is not necessary for the particle/wave to be observed before it hits the screen in order for it to behave like a particle. The act of observation at the screen records it every time as a particle. Wave interference patterns only appear when many particles are fired through the slits at the screen.

This is a question about the nature of the experiment and result, nothing more. Thanks in advance for the help!
Click to expand...
Thanks in advance for the help!

Dear john330, I don’t have any help to give you; but I need help myself, for I have always wanted to grasp what exactly this quantum mechanics is all about.

Double slit experiment: isn’t an experiment an artificial reproduction, in the laboratory in a building or in open air under the sky outside any building, of a phenomenon witnessed to by man, in nature or in everyday circumstances that humans live in and operate in?

The purpose is to realize that the explanation given by scientists-theoreticians of the witnessed to phenomenon is the explanation that is ] certainly an effective instruction guide for man to also reproduce the phenomenon witnessed to by man in nature.

Addressing everyone here and most specially physicists and of course absolutely physicists-mathematicians, I need help!

What is the phenomenon in nature that humans-experimenters are reproducing i.e. the phenomenon witnessed to by humans ] with the double-slit experiment: so that the experiment makes the phenomenon to occur in the laboratory or in open air under the sky?

Thanks in advance for the help!

KingCoil
 
I edited my post because I reread yours and understood it. They are trying to study the physics of light, physics of electrons, and the nature of matter in general. Einstein’s theory of relativity implies that when matter travels at the speed of light, it becomes pure energy. Photons are material radiated out of fusion explosions in stars, and travel at the speed of light. The purpose of the experiment is to determine whether the photon behaved as a particle or a wave in its trip from its source to the screen. This experiment ushered in our understanding of wave-particle duality, or that matter traveling at the speed of light behaves both as matter and energy(wave).
 
john330 said:
I edited my post because I reread yours and understood it. They are trying to study the physics of light, physics of electrons, and the nature of matter in general. Einstein’s theory of relativity implies that when matter travels at the speed of light, it becomes pure energy. Photons are material radiated out of fusion explosions in stars, and travel at the speed of light. The purpose of the experiment is to determine whether the photon behaved as a particle or a wave in its trip from its source to the screen. This experiment ushered in our understanding of wave-particle duality, or that matter traveling at the speed of light behaves both as matter and energy(wave).

Last edited by john330; Yesterday at 8:05 pm.
Click to expand...
Please, and forgive me, read again my post, here I will reproduce it for your convenience, pay attention to the line I now put in bold:
KingCoil said:
Thanks in advance for the help!

Dear john330, I don’t have any help to give you; but I need help myself, for I have always wanted to grasp what exactly this quantum mechanics is all about.

Double slit experiment: isn’t an experiment an artificial reproduction, in the laboratory in a building or in open air under the sky outside any building, of a phenomenon witnessed to by man, in nature or in everyday circumstances that humans live in and operate in?

The purpose is to realize that the explanation given by scientists-theoreticians of the witnessed to phenomenon is the explanation that is ] certainly an effective instruction guide for man to also reproduce the phenomenon witnessed to by man in nature.

Addressing everyone here and most specially physicists and of course absolutely physicists-mathematicians, I need help!

What is the phenomenon in nature that humans-experimenters are reproducing i.e. the phenomenon witnessed to by humans ] with the double-slit experiment: so that the experiment makes the phenomenon to occur in the laboratory or in open air under the sky?

Thanks in advance for the help!
Click to expand...
I don’t seem to see any answer that you might have given to me on my request, again reproduced below:
What is the phenomenon in nature that humans-experimenters are reproducing i.e. the phenomenon witnessed to by humans ] with the double-slit experiment: so that the experiment makes the phenomenon to occur in the laboratory or in open air under the sky?
Click to expand...
Can you please address my request, or tell me that you do not understand my request?

I hate to say this, but it is very very very often the regular phenomenon here that folks just talk and talk and talk without ever addressing the question presented to them.

KingCoil
 
King coil,

I believe you are asking what in nature the experiment is intended to represent, or rather, study. Am I correct? If so, I believe I answered your question. Physicists are attempting to discover what light is and how it works. They are also trying to discover what electrons actually are, and how they work. Light is believed to actually be a particle emitted by nuclear reactions in stars; the particles are referred to as photons. Photons and electrons are very hard to observe, and are therefore shrouded in mystery as regards their mass, make up, behavior, etc. Electrons are believed to be a particle which “orbits” the nucleus of an atom, but have not been directly observed. They are thought to exist in some place around the nucleus, in what is called an electron probability cloud. The cloud represents the probability that an electron is located somewhere within its scope.

What physicists want to know is what these quantum particles are composed of and how they behave. So the experiment fires electrons or photons (depending upon the experiment) at a screen which detects them. The screen detects individual particles, but in a pattern that resembles wave interference. This means that it is possible that quantum particles behave both as a particle and an energy wave, they surmise. It sheds light upon the nature of quantum particles and how they behave. Quantum physics in general is attempting to discover a theory of everything by studying the way that matter behaves on a small scale.

Did I answer your question?

Regards,

John 3:30
 
john330 said:
. . . Physicists are attempting to discover what light is and how it works. They are also trying to discover what electrons actually are, and how they work. Light is believed to actually be a particle emitted by nuclear reactions in stars; the particles are referred to as photons. Photons and electrons are very hard to observe, and are therefore shrouded in mystery as regards their mass, make up, behavior, etc. Electrons are believed to be a particle which “orbits” the nucleus of an atom, but have not been directly observed. They are thought to exist in some place around the nucleus, in what is called an electron probability cloud. The cloud represents the probability that an electron is located somewhere within its scope.

What physicists want to know is what these quantum particles are composed of and how they behave. So the experiment fires electrons or photons (depending upon the experiment) at a screen which detects them. The screen detects individual particles, but in a pattern that resembles wave interference. This means that it is possible that quantum particles behave both as a particle and an energy wave, they surmise. It sheds light upon the nature of quantum particles and how they behave. Quantum physics in general is attempting to discover a theory of everything by studying the way that matter behaves on a small scale. . .
Click to expand...
:twocents:

What light is - observe the monitor - light.

What physicists are doing is manipulating the material world and developing models that can describe its behavior and can predict outcomes.
“Photons”, “electrons”, “mass”, “probability clouds” are concepts related to these models. They describe events that occur in the microcosm.

One problem with the field is that while the person believes they are getting closer to knowing how things work, they are actually immersing themselves in illusion.

Gaze into the eyes of your beloved;
there you find the truth,
no particles,
reality.
 
Aloysium said:
:twocents:

What light is - observe the monitor - light.

What physicists are doing is manipulating the material world and developing models that can describe its behavior and can predict outcomes.
“Photons”, “electrons”, “mass”, “probability clouds” are concepts related to these models. They describe events that occur in the microcosm.

One problem with the field is that while the person believes they are getting closer to knowing how things work, they are actually immersing themselves in illusion.

Gaze into the eyes of your beloved;
there you find the truth,
no particles,
reality.
Click to expand...
Not sure i understand your post. Are you saying particles aren’t real? And are you defining a word (light) by using its name (light)? This is a tautology and doesn’t tell us what light actually is. If you are of the opinion that finding out what light is doesnt matter, then I understand. But some people are interested in the physics of light (like me).
 
john330 said:
Not sure i understand your post. Are you saying particles aren’t real? And are you defining a word (light) by using its name (light)? This is a tautology and doesn’t tell us what light actually is. If you are of the opinion that finding out what light is doesnt matter, then I understand. But some people are interested in the physics of light (like me).
Click to expand...
I was not saying anything that special: basically getting at the idea that existence is relational.

We see light from the screen. This experience constitutes a primarily sensory relationship we are having with the screen. Here, I am already objectifying/classifying/separating it. Light is light.

People interested in what is “out there”, the physics would relate to the light in particular ways, manipulating variables and thereby generating ideas of how it behaves.
If the focus turns to the knower, directing our attention to the perception and understanding of the experience of light, we can describe it in neurological terms: receptors, nerve tracts etc.

One can imagine then, a knower and a known; both of whom are essentially unknowable joined within any particular relationship.
This would be the basic reality of our situation.

“Photons” are concepts that join us, as knowers, to light, as the known. These models emerge from complex manipulations of what constitutes the material world, which does behave in that fashion. With further study other models appear; “photons” may not “exist” two hundred years from now, any more than a blue vault “exists” above us.

The problem with science today arises probably from the belief in a subject-object dichotomy.
The perfection of a relationship is love. That is how/where one finds truth. It sounds like you love your subject matter.
 
Yes, I will agree with what you said. Whether something called an electron or a photon exists is not known, we only think that these things exist because they work in models. And our models are effective in science. I also agree with what you have said about the importance of the subject in the scientific method. I wrote a paper about this in college. The scientific method can prove nothing, it just demonstrates that certain natural phenomena may or may not work in specific ways. Also, the nature of the relationship between subject and object is very important. Understanding how our senses work helps us to understand that our observations and reasoning based on them could be false or scewed. I think that what you have said is a necessary epistemic introduction for anyone interested in studying the natural world.

And yes, I do love my subject matter. I do not believe that because 100% absolute certainty is impossible that I should not study science. I am interested in working models!
 
Before anything else I must apologize for my impatience which I am sure is also annoying to you folks here.

There is a lot of learning with you folks about the double-slit experiment and quantum mechanics, which I must admit that I am bereft of; so you folks talk and get to understand among yourselves what you are talking about – at least that is what common folks like myself seem to assume, owing to how you all use terms which are beyond me; but blame me owing to my limitation of science knowledge, it is not your fault.

Here, I will try to tell you what I know for an example of a science experiment.

Let us take the phenomenon of water in a small tea cup on the table left by the whole family who went away for say two months of visit abroad, when they returned they noticed that the water in the cup had disappeared.

That is the phenomenon in nature called evaporation of water, meaning that water turns into gas and mixes with the air thus disappearing, i.e. no longer visible to the human eye.

And this is the procedure as follows below that I know to be an experiment by which we will reproduce the phenomenon:
  1. Prepare 2 short say 1/2 inch diameter transparent glass tubes, one filled with water up to the brim but not sealed up, while the other similarly filled up to the brim with water but completely sealed up airtight.
  2. Observe that in the course of time, the water in the tube not sealed up will disappear, while the water in the tube completely sealed up airtight does not disappear.
So, coming now to the double-slit experiment, what is the natural phenomenon in nature which the double-slit experiment is supposed to reproduce?

KingCoil
 
The passage of light from its source to its final destination, and the orbit of an electron around the nucleus of an atom. The experiment wants to know what the properties of light and the electron are.
 
KingCoil said:
. . . So, coming now to the double-slit experiment, what is the natural phenomenon in nature which the double-slit experiment is supposed to reproduce?

KingCoil
Click to expand...
Wave-like nature of light: Rainbows

Particle: It goes in straight lines and not around corners.
 
KingCoil said:
…So, coming now to the double-slit experiment, what is the natural phenomenon in nature which the double-slit experiment is supposed to reproduce? KingCoil
Click to expand...
King,
I don’t like to get into discussions that consume lots of time during the holiday season because much goes on in my large family and the type of discussions that I get involved in during the holiday season are not beneficial to my interest index. However since you asked a legitimate question that may not have satisfied what you where looking for I decided to try with the following:
  1. light acts as a wave for optical phenomena such as:
    • diffraction (the bending of light at the intersection of two different transparent materials: optical lenses, the apparent bending of objects at the surface of water.
    • polarization (polaroid sun glasses, liquid crystal displays, lots of biological applications)
      -. birefringence (polarized diffraction) liquid crystal devices
  2. light acts like a particle: photo electric effect; bioluminescence (fireflies); stimulated emission (lasers), Charge coupled devices (video cameras)
  3. light acts like either a wave or a photon: reflection (mirrors); refraction (lenses)
  4. electrons act like waves: quantum tunneling (tunnel diodes); radioactive decay
  5. electrons act like particles: conduction (electric current), capacitance (solid state memories), induction (transformers); lightning; semiconductors; many other uses.
The double split experiment is only one of many experiments involving duality.

The real question is: WHY duality?? Scientists avoid the why question. Physical science at its heart is descriptive not explicative. Science merely describes at the explicate level what Got creates at the implicate level. Hope this helps.

Merry Christmas
Yppop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top