questions - double slit 
Author Message
 questions - double slit

Trying to get a handle on this (not a physicist).

( http://www.***.com/ #n2)

1) I am unclear on the nature of the particle source.  I infer that when a
particle (e.g. electron, atom, photon, whatever) is emitted, there is no way
of knowing in advance which slit it will go through.  In other words, its
not like a rifle that you're aiming.  Is it completely random which slit the
particle will go through?  When particles are emitted do they just scatter
all over the place, with only some of them going through one slit or the
other?

2) I understand that if you put particle detectors at the slits (and read
their output), that particles behave like particles and form a pattern as
such on the back screen, and that without particle detectors, a wave
interference pattern forms on the back screen instead.

However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to see
whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
output from the particle detectors at the slits.



Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:56:49 GMT
 questions - double slit

Quote:

> Trying to get a handle on this (not a physicist).

> (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html#n2)

> 1) I am unclear on the nature of the particle source.  I infer that when a
> particle (e.g. electron, atom, photon, whatever) is emitted, there is no way
> of knowing in advance which slit it will go through.  In other words, its
> not like a rifle that you're aiming.  Is it completely random which slit the
> particle will go through?  When particles are emitted do they just scatter
> all over the place, with only some of them going through one slit or the
> other?

It depends on how they are emitted and what is then done to them.
Electrons are emitted randomly from a hot thermionic cathode
such as is fond in a cathode ray tube but they are then very accurately
controlled in order to scan the screen and produce a picture.  There
is always some uncertainty however.

You are quite right, in the experiment described the particles
are emitted so that they could pass randomly through either
slit. (See comments below)

Quote:
> 2) I understand that if you put particle detectors at the slits (and read
> their output), that particles behave like particles and form a pattern as
> such on the back screen, and that without particle detectors, a wave
> interference pattern forms on the back screen instead.

> However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to see
> whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
> output from the particle detectors at the slits.

You get the same result as if you have examined the detectors
first.

One of the problems with descriptions of quantum mechanics is
that there is a strong tendency to over-dramatise the subject.
The web site you refer to seems to do this, having statements
along the lines of ' the particle can tell whether you are looking
at it' ( my words).

This is due to a problem, which is also common on the relativity
newsgroup, which I will call the double-modelling fallacy.

The 'reality' in the double slit experiment is that we have an
emitter of what we may call particles, some slits, which
determine where or where not the particle might go and
detectors which interact with the particle to tell us where
it has been.

In the case of a classical particle (say a tennis ball), we
model the situation using Newtonian physics.  This gives
us a definite trajectory for the ball. In other words you start
with the initial conditions of the experiment, say two slits here,
a detector there, another detector there etc. and then the
model tells you something like 'if the ball passes through this
slit it will follow a certain path, be deflected to the left by
detector 1, follow another path, and finally be detected by
detector 3' .  Using this model we can say where the ball
was at all times during the experiment.

In the case of a quantum particle, Newtonian physics gives
the wrong answers so we model the situation using quantum
mechanics (QM).  This tells us that for a given set-up the
probability that the particle will be detected by detector 1
is x and the probability that it will be detected by detector 2
is y.  It does not tell us anything else.

The conceptual problems arise when we then apply a
Newtonian model (which we know full well to be
inappropriate) to the results obtained from the QM model.
Which slit did the particle go through?  Where was it halfway
through the experiment?  QM does not give us answers to
these questions.

So to go back to your original question, it the changing of the
experiment by the addition of another detector that changes
the results.

Martin Hogbin



Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:46:37 GMT
 questions - double slit
Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich

A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun
simply because it would require the gain or loss of a
tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any
other orbit or path.
But,why do we seem to be attracted to the earth by
a force of gravity?
That question is what this article will answer.
.

SUMMARY OF PAST HISTORY:
The precise measurements of planetary motion by
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and observations by
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) were plotted by
Johann Kepler (1571-1630 ) resulting in Kepler's
Three laws:
1. The planets move about the sun in elliptical orbits
with the sun as one focus of the ellipse.
2. The straight line joining the sun and a given planet
sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the period of revolution of the planet
about the sun is proportional to the cube of the mean
distance from the sun. t^2 = K L^3
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1721 ) concluded that it was a
force F = mL/t^2 = k m_1 x m_2 /L^2 that caused the
orbital motion.

Allen C. Goodrich defined the cause as a conservation of
total energy.
The concentration of the Kinetic Energy of mass
increases as the Potential Energy of the universe
decreases with the expansion of the universe at
constant total energy.
Planets orbit the sun in a state of equiliurium,where
no change to total energy occurs.
At Equilibrium the sum of kinetic and potential energies
is a constant. A positive change of kinetic energy equals
a negative change of potential energy.
+ delta m (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - delta G (M-m)m / L .
or Delta e (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K e^2 / 4 pi E_o L.
if a charge is present.

The mass of the human body, on the earrth's surface,
is not in an equilibrium orbit. If a force ,such as the
surface of the earth , was not present, the body would
not stay  where it is. IT TRIES TO MOVE TO AN
 EQUILIBRIUM  ORBIT. No change of total energy.
This force is what is felt to rqual
gravitational force. A gravitational force is not needed
in a state of orbital  equilibrium.

Galileo demonstrated the effect of gravitational force.
Newton assumed that a gravitational force between all
masses  pulled them together. Was this a correct
assumption? Einstein and many other scientists felt
that there must be more to gravitation than an attraction
at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.A change of kinetic energy
 is not always the result of a force.
In an equilibrium system at constant total
energy, kinetic energy can increase as potential energy
decreases, with the total energy remaining constant..

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then?

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy  is the result of an
acceleration.
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
((total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant)).
m is any mass say that of the earth.
Planets, moons, and electrons are normally in equilibrium
orbits where the total energy is constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L+  X e(2 pi L)^2/t^2 +
Z e^2/4 pi E_o L = a constant.
(In the absence of a charge)

Quote:
>From this equation the equation

Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are nearly equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.

GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich

An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.

TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)

1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon

1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon

This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
to the new and full moons.

SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.

THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)

Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH

A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),

Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L

equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).

^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.

INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.
...

read more »



Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:04:05 GMT
 questions - double slit

Quote:

> Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

> PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
> GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
> Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich

   Background;
      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html

    The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently:
      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html

    Planetary Motion
      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kepler.html
      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LagrangesPlanetaryEquations.html

    Crank Information
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVIT...
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVIT...
      http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke



Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:07:30 GMT
 questions - double slit

Quote:
> However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to
> see
> whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
> output from the particle detectors at the slits.

Makes no difference.  The experiments come out the same, either way!

Objects have properties.  The object you call your body, for example, has,
among many other properties, the property you call mass.  These properties
are assigned by us (human beings) in an attempt to make sense of our
observations.  For example, you observe a fellow human being and you wish to
distinguish him from other human beings, so assigning him a mass is one way
to help acheive that distinction.

Now, what about these objects that pass through a double-slit apparatus?  Is
a definite trajectory one of the properties you can assign to these
particular objects?  If yes, then it seems that these objects must pass
through one or the other slit.  If not, then they don't.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:02:07 GMT
 questions - double slit


Quote:

> >However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to
see
> >whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
> >output from the particle detectors at the slits.

> If the experimental setup determines which slit a particle goes through,
then it
> will not contribute to an interference pattern.  So the answer to your
question
> is no interference.

> It doesn't matter whether you ever look at the data or not.  Human
consciousness
> has no effect on the outcome of the experiment.

Well, the point of keeping the electron detectors at the slits *on* but not
checking the data, is to show that the detectors by themselves are not
effecting the outcome.  Supposedly, particle grouping on the screen results
only if a human reads the detector output.  However, that doesn't make sense
to me either.  It would seem consciousness is a describable mechanism just
like a particle detector is.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>  Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>     ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>                 http://www.usenet.com



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:38:09 GMT
 questions - double slit


Quote:




Quote:
> > Trying to get a handle on this (not a physicist).

> > (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html#n2)

> > 2) I understand that if you put particle detectors at the slits (and
read
> > their output), that particles behave like particles and form a pattern
as
> > such on the back screen, and that without particle detectors, a wave
> > interference pattern forms on the back screen instead.

> > However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to
see
> > whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
> > output from the particle detectors at the slits.

> You get the same result as if you have examined the detectors
> first.

Maybe the description of the setup is abstracted to an extent where I'm
missing some crucial details, but here's my understanding:

You can leave the detectors at the slits on, but as long as you don't check
their output before checking the back screen, then the back screen will
always show a wave interference pattern.  But if you read the detector
output before looking at the back screen, then there will be a particle
distribution on the back screen.  So, apparently you can read the particle
detectors *before* looking at the screen.

If you look at the back screen first however, will it always show a wave
interference pattern?  What if you *then* go check the detector output at
the slits?  Will it show a record of which particles passed through which
slits?  If it does, then you have a wave pattern even though the particles
were observed at the slits.

Quote:
>...

>So to go back to your original question, it the changing of the
>experiment by the addition of another detector that changes
>he results.

According to that website, just the presence of additional detectors (at the
slits) had no effect whatsoever on the outcome - some individual had to go
and read the detector output for the results to change.


Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:57:44 GMT
 questions - double slit


Quote:
> Trying to get a handle on this (not a physicist).

> (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html#n2)

> 1) I am unclear on the nature of the particle source.  I infer that when a
> particle (e.g. electron, atom, photon, whatever) is emitted, there is no
> way
> of knowing in advance which slit it will go through.  In other words, its
> not like a rifle that you're aiming.  Is it completely random which slit
> the
> particle will go through?  When particles are emitted do they just scatter
> all over the place, with only some of them going through one slit or the
> other?

> 2) I understand that if you put particle detectors at the slits (and read
> their output), that particles behave like particles and form a pattern as
> such on the back screen, and that without particle detectors, a wave
> interference pattern forms on the back screen instead.

> However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to
> see
> whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
> output from the particle detectors at the slits.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

or this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/dslit.html#c1

Note, when you put a detector at a slit you've blocked
that slit whether the detector is on or not.

--
rb



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:15:44 GMT
 questions - double slit



Quote:
> ...

> Note, when you put a detector at a slit you've blocked
> that slit whether the detector is on or not.

"We would like to think that the particle detectors at the slits are
affecting the passage of the electron -- perhaps deflecting it, or modifying
it's path, or in some other way influencing the experiment. We could accept
such an explanation. But that does not seem to be the case. A series of
experiments have been conducted to test just such a hypothesis, and the
results are uniformly negative."
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html
Quote:
> --
> rb



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:41:39 GMT
 questions - double slit

Quote:

> According to that website, just the presence of additional detectors (at the
> slits) had no effect whatsoever on the outcome - some individual had to go
> and read the detector output for the results to change.

The website is wrong. It's sufficient for the detector to be present and
operating.

There are *much* better introductions to quantum mechanics out there, from
people who actually know what they're talking about. Try the appropriate
chapter of the Feynman Lectures, for example.

-- Ben



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:07:45 GMT
 questions - double slit


Quote:



>> ...

>> Note, when you put a detector at a slit you've blocked
>> that slit whether the detector is on or not.

> "We would like to think that the particle detectors at the slits are
> affecting the passage of the electron -- perhaps deflecting it, or
> modifying
> it's path, or in some other way influencing the experiment. We could
> accept
> such an explanation. But that does not seem to be the case. A series of
> experiments have been conducted to test just such a hypothesis, and the
> results are uniformly negative."
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html

Rhodes has inappropriately cross applied aspects of entangled
photon experiments to the double slit experiment.
The double slit experiment he describes has never been
done and can never be done.  An electron can not pass
through a detector and remain unmodified.

--
rb



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:56:33 GMT
 questions - double slit

Quote:





> > > Trying to get a handle on this (not a physicist).

> > > (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html#n2)

> > > 2) I understand that if you put particle detectors at the slits (and
> read
> > > their output), that particles behave like particles and form a pattern
> as
> > > such on the back screen, and that without particle detectors, a wave
> > > interference pattern forms on the back screen instead.

> > > However, what happens if  you examine the back screen *first*  (i.e. to
> see
> > > whether the pattern indicates particles or waves) and *then* check the
> > > output from the particle detectors at the slits.

> > You get the same result as if you have examined the detectors
> > first.

> Maybe the description of the setup is abstracted to an extent where I'm
> missing some crucial details, but here's my understanding:

> You can leave the detectors at the slits on, but as long as you don't check
> their output before checking the back screen, then the back screen will
> always show a wave interference pattern.  But if you read the detector
> output before looking at the back screen, then there will be a particle
> distribution on the back screen.  So, apparently you can read the particle
> detectors *before* looking at the screen.

> If you look at the back screen first however, will it always show a wave
> interference pattern?  What if you *then* go check the detector output at
> the slits?  Will it show a record of which particles passed through which
> slits?  If it does, then you have a wave pattern even though the particles
> were observed at the slits.

It seems to me that the writer of the web site has misunderstood
several modern physics experiments.  There are no experiments
in which it matters whether or not a person looks at the results.

Martin Hogbin



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:57:35 GMT
 questions - double slit
There are many errors on this web page. The author has little
understanding of quantum physics and has misinterpreted nearly every
aspect of the experiments he is talking about. Here is one example:

[Eventually, the technicians developed extraordinarily sensitive
instruments -- instruments capable of detecting a single pulse of light
energy, or even half of a pulse.]

Half a pulse of what? 1/2 of a photon? Einstein got the nobel for light
quanta which are indivisible. This is the wrong website to learn
anything about physics!!



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:42:08 GMT
 questions - double slit


Quote:
> There are many errors on this web page. The author has little
> understanding of quantum physics and has misinterpreted nearly every
> aspect of the experiments he is talking about. Here is one example:

> [Eventually, the technicians developed extraordinarily sensitive
> instruments -- instruments capable of detecting a single pulse of light
> energy, or even half of a pulse.]

> Half a pulse of what? 1/2 of a photon? Einstein got the nobel for light
> quanta which are indivisible. This is the wrong website to learn
> anything about physics!!

The following is a post that Rhodes (author of website) made in another
forum, shedding light on his assertions that particle detection does not
hinder wave interference:

(http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-26198_Afshar_experimental_refu...
_of_Bohr??.html)

Does anybody have information about a claim by Kathryn Cramer (apparently
daughter of John Cramer) that on April 27, 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar
presented at Texas A&M the results of an optical experiment,

"in which he demonstrates that wave interference is present even when one is
determining through which pinhole a photon passes. This result is in direct
contradiction to Neils Bohr's Principle of Complementarity <snip>.

"Afshar's trick is to find the location of the minimum points of wave
interference, place one or more wires at these minimum points, and observe
how much light is intercepted when one is determining the pinhole through
which the photons passed. <Snip> the Afshar Experiment falsifies the
Copenhagen Interpretation, which requires the absence of interference in a
particle-type measurement. It also falsifies the Many-Worlds Interpretation
which tells us to expect no interference between 'worlds' that are
physically distinguishable, e.g., that correspond to the photon's measured
passage through one pinhole or the other."

http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000530.html

Although I see that Afshar did speak at Texas A&M on that date, I find
nothing about it outside of Ms. Cramer's blog thread, which seems unusual if
the results are as characterized.

Thanks in advance.

Ross Rhodes



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:07:34 GMT
 questions - double slit
"Does anybody have information about a claim by Kathryn Cramer
(apparently
daughter of John Cramer) that on April 27, 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar
presented at Texas A&M the results of an optical experiment,"

Here is the official blog with links to the paper from this experiment.
I am a regular poster on the site.

http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2005/03/13/questions_welcome_1#comments



Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:24:17 GMT
 
 [ 32 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Question on Young's Double Slit and distance between Slits

2. Double-slit experiment with half-open slits

3. Questions about Double Slit Experiment

4. A Double Slit question

5. Double slit experiment questions

6. Silly question viz. double-slit experiment

7. question about the double-slit experiment

8. Double-slit & Single-slit experiment

9. Questions About Ye Age Old Double-Slit Experiment

10. Double Slit Diffraction question

11. Modified double slit question.

12. a question about double slit experiment


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software