h a l f b a k e r yEureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Because the EM field carries/is the photon and is not separated then, this says to me, that the edge of the photon decays away into the EM field below our measurement capability. Below this line anything can be happening.
So with a standard setup photons are fired one after another at the slits.
This seems to me that the EM field may have artifacts, a below measurement wake from previous firings.
So how about 2000 same setup slit experiments, all around the world, where the test bed is turned on, one photon fired, single result recorded and sent for stitching together at a reputable Institution.
No EM field wake anomaly possibility.
for [sninctown]
https://xkcd.com/298/
[pertinax, Oct 10 2021]
First photo of light as both particle and wave.
https://earthsky.or...JdxEMVZ5yHJAN45QGes
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 10 2021]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but
what result do you expect and what does the
anticipated result prove? |
|
| |
as far as i can tell, shining a single photon light source at a
double slit would produce an interference pattern in the
detected photons. |
|
| |
presumably, doing this experiment as described (2000
separate double slit experiments running 1 photon each)
would produce the same result as doing this experiment the
normal way (1 double slit setup running 2000 photons). the
diffraction pattern can be calculated using wave
mechanics, as a probability of finding a photon in each
area. the particle physicists or people who have taken a
quantum electrodynamics course might have a better
explanation for you. i believe each photon is described by
a set of (complex-valued, quantized) probability
amplitudes for all possible locations of that photon, which
can interfere with each other to produce a (real-valued,
quantized) probability of detecting the photon at each
location on the detector (e.g. photographic plate). No wake
or other artifact is needed to explain this. However, there
is no harm in doing the experiment you propose. I would
predict that a wave equation would describe the resulting
diffraction pattern either way. |
|
| |
A current research topic in physics is where mass comes
from. The LHC is trying to measure Higgs bosons, to verify a
theory about the Higgs field and where mass comes from.
Another research topic is plasma wake field acceleration,
which i vaguely recall is something to do with creating high
voltages in a plasma to accelerate particles. |
|
| |
[] since i see no mention of cats in this idea. |
|
| |
I still fail to see what is expected to be proved or
not proved regardless of the result. The fact will
still remain that the action of observing and
measuring the result becomes part of generating
the result. The wave form still collapses. The
photons will know what you're up to in all versions
of the double slit. |
|
| |
[wjt] theory is that interference fringes might result from a
"wake" left behind previous photons, not from self-
interference of a single photon. Since pretty much all
observations of interference fringes use many photons,
seems possible to [wjt] that the interference that people
are actually observing is between a photon and subsequent
photons, not self-interference of probability amplitudes for
a single photon. |
|
| |
The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment seems to
contradict [wjt]'s theory: a single photon can interfere with
itself, or not interfere with itself, depending on whether or
not the two beam paths recombine, not depending on
where the photon was last time. But it's good to confirm
things experimentally if only to check one's math. |
|
| |
This is just a conspiracy by people who believe in
wave-particle physics to push their interference
agenda on us all… |
|
| |
Could run the experiment just once and run bets on the outcome. Enough bets should demonstrate an interference pattern, thus proving that gamblers and bookies are something. |
|
| |
[xenxag] I want to check that there is not something happen between subsequent photons via the EM field. In theory, this experiment an the normal slit experiment should be the same but if the pattern worked out slightly different then it would indicate more knowledge is needed on the substance mechanism of charge-magnetic stuff and the current very accurate mathematical EM field description. |
|
| |
With the quantum eraser, this line would check a pair of entangled photons are not linked with the previous pair via an unseen EM field mechanic. |
|
| |
Sometimes I worry that the Universe is only pretending to be
running per mathematical rules, and actually runs on
something else, like narrative cliches. |
|
| |
I was reading an interesting article about this very subject this morning. [link] |
|
| |
^Light in a material filled EM field.
Is that lazer pulse one photon interacting with itself as a standing wave or a series of trapped photons? Still a composite of electron snapshots. Just more questions. In the macro world, a single wave can look like a particle but a single particle can't look like a wave. |
|
| |
If you're interested in diffraction patterns, a good
textbook is "Optics" by Hecht |
|
| |
How we chortled as our Physics tutor would describe photons interfering
with themselves to produce interference patterns. |
|
| |
Here's a simpler modification of this experiment that you
can perform all by yourself: Send a single photon through a
double slit setup and record the results. Cover one slit and
send a beam of light (confirm no interference pattern).
Cover the other slit and send a beam of light (confirm no
interference). Send the next single photon with both slits
open and record the result. Repeat until you have enough
data to confirm whether or not there is an interference
pattern for the single photons. |
|
| |
If you want to be really careful, I guess you could replace
the two slit filter every time, though you'd need to be sure
that you aren't messing up the interference pattern
because of minute differences between the different
filters or their placement. |
|
| |
True, stitching together the various teams of experiments might be a bit uncertain. |
|
| |
I did think about one photon a day, turning off all powered test bed equipment in between. Hopefully any time dimension effects are short lived enough to be avoided. |
|
| |