It was brought to my attention that there already is a satisfactory theory explaining what was once considered an unknown phenomenon.
What is it?
Young, one of the first to do the double slit experiment with light died about 200 years ago. I believe Huygens knew the waves interferring explanation earlier. There is no problem in undestanding the double slit interference (or the 10s of thousands of slits that a grading in a spectrograph makes) The wiki link mathman gave is nearly correct but makes this serious error:It was brought to my attention that there already is a satisfactory theory explaining what was once considered an unknown phenomenon.
...
There is no problem discussing his views, as well as others, but the need to temper considerations with actual knowledge is important.Pssst! Fred Allen Wolf views...
Just mentioning that name too frequently or mentioning any concept of consciousness causing collapse in regards to this experiment is frowned upon here, although there are many smart people who hold those types of opinions.
Despite the fact Wikipedia presents The Coppenhagen Interpretation and it has been dissected in all corners of the planet to mean different things, the Sciforums consensus would make it decidedly unpopular to construe the Interpretation to having any of the ....
Pssst! Fred Allen Wolf views...
Just mentioning that name too frequently or mentioning any concept of consciousness causing collapse in regards to this experiment is frowned upon here, although there are many smart people who hold those types of opinions.
Has anyone tried "The double double slit experiment". One set of double slits is followed by another set of double slits. The second set could be shifted to locations of expected bands of strength or weakness of the diffraction pattern.
This situation requires a medium so waves can be generated.
but the ship and wake analogy requires a water medium.
Absolutely correct and few know that. Most think of photons as very small packets of energy that are hard for humans to understand as show properties of both waves and particles.... the light wave is not a delta, it is a flat line perpendicular to the direction of travel. Grumpy![]()
I was hoping we could discuss how a "double double slit experiment" might work. The results of the double split are very mysterious, when the look at the split closely then the photons become particle like. Is it really looking at them that makes the difference?Has anyone tried "The double double slit experiment". One set of double slits is followed by another set of double slits. The second set could be shifted to locations of expected bands of strength or weakness of the diffraction pattern.
Has the photon lost energy after going through the slits? If sound waves or water waves were allowed through a slit only a portion of the energy in the wave would pass on in the part that went through the slit.
Is some of the diffraction pattern parts of the photons that don't make it through?
There is no energy loss when light is re-distributed in space differently only by (self) interference - this is not true if it reflects off mirror etc. Also there is no memory in the photon. When it arrives at Earth from distant star it does not know it has been traveling many years.* Thus the 2nd double slit, if placed so both slits are equally illuminated by one of the constructively interfering beams from the first double slit will make same spatial spread interference pattern that the first did. If you were thinking it should go "straight as a single beam" after the 2nd slit, that is wrong.I was hoping we could discuss how a "double double slit experiment" might work. ...
There is no energy loss when light is re-distributed in space differently only by (self) interference - this is not true if it reflects off mirror etc. Also there is no memory in the photon. When it arrives at Earth from distant star it does not know it has been traveling many years.* Thus the 2nd double slit, if placed so both slits are equally illuminated by one of the constructively interfering beams from the first double slit will make same spatial spread interference pattern that the first did. If you were thinking it should go "straight as a single beam" after the 2nd slit, that is wrong.
*It may have lost some energy during the trip due to expansion of the universe but does not know it was once blue and now is red.
No. "looking at it" happens only when the photo dies -is absorved - ceases to exist, became particle like, giving all it energy to one atom. Again the photons coming to the 2nd slit pair have no memory of the first slit pair.I was thinking it couldn't form the interference pattern after the first set of splits as that would be like looking at it. For it might have to go through the second split therefore it would NOT spread out, losing energy in areas of destructive interference.
Have you heard of the double double slit experiment? No doubt it has been done but I could not find it on a Google search. Searches work best if you know the proper name of the set up.No. "looking at it" happens only when the photo dies -is absorved - ceases to exist, became particle like, giving all it energy to one atom. Again the photons coming to the 2nd slit pair have no memory of the first slit pair.
No, but if you have a modern (made inlast 60 years or so) camera you do something very much like it every time you take a pictures as it has a multi-layer dielect coating on the lense. Alternate layers are a different dielectric. At each layer interface some light is reflected and some is transmitted. The layer thickness and their index of refraction are such that the reflection from interface "n" and interface (n+1) destructively interfer so instead of losing ~4% of the incident light to reflections with a simple glass lense, almost all goes on to expose the film (or now days do its work in solid state pixel array). This is much like many slits stacked one after another.Have you heard of the double double slit experiment? No doubt it has been done but I could not find it on a Google search. Searches work best if you know the proper name of the set up.
The above is a paraphrase not an exact quote. The person who said it did not claim that it took away all the mystery, but at least it made such behavoir less mysterious.It helps to think that photons (& other quantum entities) travel as waves, but depart & arrive as particles.
Not a bad first cut, but makes understand all I described in post 11 very difficult. I.e. the long photon is "pumped out" over time, etc.While there is much in Quantum Theory which is weird & counterintuitive, one of the experts said:The above is a paraphrase not an exact quote. The person who said it did not claim that it took away all the mystery, but at least it made such behavoir less mysterious.
WIKIPEDIA said:"The electromagnetic waves that compose electromagnetic radiation can be imagined as a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic fields. This diagram shows a plane linearly polarized EMR wave propagating from left to right. The electric field is in a vertical plane and the magnetic field in a horizontal plane. The two types of fields in EMR waves are always in phase with each other, and no matter how powerful, have a ratio of electric to magnetic intensity which is fixed and never varies"