This is the first in a series of new experiments which I plan to post weekly challenging the principles of non-locality and complementarity. This first experiment is very straight forward. First light from a 630-680nm laser is passed through a 0.60mm single slit. This is done to generate small beams or bans with sharp well defined edges. Next at 4.145m farther two 0.50mm slits, separated by 1.90mm, are placed so that the left slit is positioned in the center of the dark area between bans in the single slit pattern and the right slit is positioned inside the adjacent ban of light. When the right slit of the double slit is blocked light does not pass and show up on the display screen. When the left slit is the one blocked the expected broad bans and spacing of a single slit interference pattern appear. However, with both slits open the narrow, tightly spaced double slit pattern shows on the display screen 12m ahead. My interpretation is that because only one path through the double slit is available to photons then the double slit pattern cannot be the result of the convergence of different possible paths as in quantum theory. Instead I believe the photon generates a larger field that must pass through both slits to redirect the photon core into a position in the double slit pattern. Am I missing something?
You have a total of 3 slits, all of which produce diffraction effects. If you block one, won't you still get a 2-slit interference pattern?
Dammit, these always confuse me. That's kind of a nice one. I believe your assumption that "only one path through the double slit is available to photons" is incorrect, but I'm having a slightly hard time figuring out exactly what happens just now. I'll try and think about it some more. edit: Ok I'm back, and I've changed my mind about the two paths being available, if there is zero probability that a photon hits the slit then there is zero probability that it will go any further, killing the amplitude for that path. Are you sure that blocking off this slit does anything? I don't think I believe that it does, I may have to go and try it... Anyway this is the way I see it: Call the single slit position A (divided into two halfs, A1 and A2), the double slit position B (again, each slit labelled B1 and B2) and the final screen C. The amplitude for a photon to get to C, starting from either A1 or A2, is: (<A1|B1> + <A2|B1>)<B1|C> + (<A1|B2> + <A2|B2>)<B2|C> The terms in brackets describe how the single slit interference occurs and the overall sum is the double slit interference. If <A1|B1> + <A2|B1>=0, i.e. the single slit paths kill each other at B1, then the whole first term dies, leaving only the path through B2. So it looks like blocking off B1 shouldn't do anything if this is the case...
more info The three slits are not neccessary. The experiment will work without the single slit. Because of the diffusion of the laser beam the results were the same but very muddled as some photons did pass through the dark slit. The single slit was introduced only to create tightly focused beams of which only one was used. The distance of more than 4m from the source is necessary and needs to be even greater if a larger space betwee the double slits is used. Yes, there is definitely a difference when the dark slit is blocked off. The bans in the single slit pattern when it is blocked are defined by millimeters and the those of the double slit when it is open by hundreths of a millimeter. Making the fine patterns of the double slit easily visible is why the target screen was placed at the long 12m distance.
Ok this really makes no sense if you say it works without the single slit. There are no diffraction bands at all without the single slit so how do you align the two slits so one of them is in a dark band? Also, if you use smaller slits the diffraction bands will spread out, so you won't have to place everything so far apart.
Yes I could have used a broader single slit and then a tighter double slit but I wanted to have a good photon free margin around the dark slit. The way to perform the tertiary version of the experiment without the single slit is to place the dark slit just past the edge of the beam and the other slit just inside. Of course this is not a pure solution because the beam will not have a sharp enough edge for complete purity. To have enough of the main stream of photons passing through the lighted slit some will also have to pass through the dark slit and muddle the pattern. If only a minority of the photons have two paths as probabilites then only those photons can form a faint double slit pattern but the vast majority should not. However, they do. I realize that this version is not very convincing ( it would be with single photons but I don't have access to that type of equipment. That is why I introduced the single slit into the experiment to produce sharp confined beams of which only one is utilized. There are many ways to get a sharply focused laser beam but of those available to me this seemed to have the least theoretical complications. After all Thomas Young used a primary slit in front of the doyble slit to align the light ( unnecessary with laser light ).
When I posted a second experiment I was instructed to show that this first experiment worked and a reference was made to my statement that " I realized this version of the experiment wasn't very convincing". That reference was to the tertiary version that was performed without the single slit. I probably should not have even posted that information. The refined version of the experiment which was described in the initial posting should be very convencing. It does not matter if the single slit contributes to the final pattern or not - which I believe it does not. The fact is that the displayed pattern was altered by closing off a slit which was not a path for photons. { If anyone is attemplting to duplicate this experiment, is important to keep at least four meters between the single slit and the double slit - It will become apparent why in some later postings. }
Could you post a diagram or photograph of the setup along with some kind of evidence of the results, or perhaps links to such? i.e. data recorded on a photodetector or just photos of the patterns showing what changed in the setup to induce those patterns? I know the description seems simple but since something weird seems to be happening I'd like to see what your apparatus really looks like.
I tried to give a link to my site where I have diagrams and pictures but it was disallowed because of my new status with this forum. I was also unsuccessful at an atachment attempt. You are right to request this information as extreme claims require extreme proof. These experiments have not been performed in an accredited lab or been refereed. I am hoping that someone with appropriate facilities will be inspired to duplicate some of my experiments. This first experiment does not require complicated equipment. The slits are actually constructed from thin metal with factory stamped edges rather than making cuts ( it has also been done with other materials ). The observations where made visually as well as with a digital camera with exposures from 1/1000 of a second to 30 seconds ( I do not have equipment to detect individual photons ). I not only photographed the screen for 30 seconds when only the dark slit was opened but also placed the camera directly behind the dark slit and did not detect anything with a 30 second exposure. I repeated the experiment several times with different sized slits and different lasers. I would appreciate any advice as to how to forward pictures and diagrams.
Is it not possible that light is still going through the "dark" slit, but interferes in such a way as to be spread over a wide area, so that the region you're photographing appears dark? In that case, the light travelling through the "dark" slit could still interfere with light travelling through the other one. I'd have to see your experiment in person or have a reliable source verify it before I could pass judgement, but it doesn't sound like you're doing anything experimentalists couldn't have tried more than 100 years ago. Yeah you're using a laser, but that's not the only way to get monochromatic light. Basically I would think with your setup and the scales and precisions involved, anything you observe ought to be completely explainable in terms of classical electromagnetism, using well-understood techniques such as Fourier analysis to calculate the intensity of light hitting the screen. If your experiment agrees with the predictions of classical EM, there's no way it could possibly contradict QM.
In a room with laser light bouncing around, it would not be credible to claim that the dark slit was not a probable path for any photons at all. Even a dust particle could accomplish this. Of those errant photons for which the dark slit is a possible path fewer would have both slits as possible paths. By my understanding of quantum theory ( which could very well be incorrect ) photons do not pass through any slits. Instead there is only changing probability values for a photon to occur within the spreading quantum field. An actual photon does not occur until it is tested for at a point of highest probability for occurence. In this experiment that test is at the display screen ( also just behind the dark slit when the camera was placed there to test the widest possiple field from the dark slit). The point of highest probability is of course in the bans where probability from multiple separate paths overlap for that photon. Errant photons which have both paths as probabilities would form a faint pattern but this would be undetectable and should be covered by the expected single slit pattern associated with only the single slit paths. Instead the thousands of photons only associated with the single slit paths form the pattern associated with the double slit paths. In conventional wave theory the intensity of the few errant photons would be so low as to have an almost nigligable effect. A by product of the Shahriar Afshar experiment at the Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies and its later duplication with single photons at Rowan was the demonstration that slit's are very efficent at removing photons from the dark ban lines. --- You are also correct that my experiment could have been perforemed at any ti me in the last hundred years and unknown to me many others may have beeen. Experiments are designed on, and, to test assumed premises and how one thinks about the possible nature of light can determine the experiments that are performed. ----- As for having a trusted source verify my experiments I am located in South Florida in case you have any connections to the university professors in that area.
