Maker Pro
Maker Pro

electron emitter details for double slit experiment

J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi,

I am curious about the electron emitter used in the classic double slit
experiment.

As dots appear on the screen in this experiment, do the dots appear
each time the emitter is pulsed to emit an electron, or do they appear
slowly over time as the emitter runs with a fixed output power?

Also in either case, do the dots appear steadily with no variation in
the elapsed time between each new dots appearance, and does more than
one dot ever appear at a time, or do they always appear one at a time?

cheers,
Jamie
 
A

Androcles

Jan 1, 1970
0
| Hi,
|
| I am curious about the electron emitter used in the classic double slit
| experiment.
|
| As dots appear on the screen in this experiment, do the dots appear
| each time the emitter is pulsed to emit an electron, or do they appear
| slowly over time as the emitter runs with a fixed output power?
|
| Also in either case, do the dots appear steadily with no variation in
| the elapsed time between each new dots appearance, and does more than
| one dot ever appear at a time, or do they always appear one at a time?
|
| cheers,
| Jamie

Actually there is no "classic double slit experiment" using electrons, the
gap between "slits" is on the atomic scale and a crystal is used as a
diffraction
grating. What you get is this:
http://tinyurl.com/5nenwv
http://it.stlawu.edu/~koon/classes/221.222/221L/gifs/ElectronDiffractionCircuitDiagram.gif
 
The dots appear at whatever rate the electron source produces them.

The easy way to do the experiment is with thermal emmission
of electrons under a magnetic field -- your classic vacuum tube
filament, but designed to be a really, really weak emmiter.
In that case the electrons would appear slowly and irregularly.

I am told that you can also create the electrons one at a time
through autoionization of doubly excited Helium atoms, but I
imagine it would be a real pain feeding the atoms in one at a
time.

Were you aware that double slit experiments have been done
with neutrons, atoms and even molecules?  They have done them
with carbon-60 fullerenes (buckyballs), and they have even
shown interference fringes for C60F48, a 108 atom fluorinated
buckyball with a mass of 1600!

So, can we do it by flying airplanes through *really* large
slits and crashing them into a brick wall? How about smaller
slits and bullets?

I am going to quote Wikipedia on that one, because, to be
honest with you, my physics knowledge gets a bit shaky at
this point (I am an engineer, not a physicist).

 "Whether objects heavier than the Planck mass (about the
  weight of a large bacterium) have a de Broglie wavelength
  is theoretically unclear and experimentally unreachable;
  above the Planck mass a particle's Compton wavelength would
  be smaller than the Planck length and its own Schwarzschild
  radius, a scale at which current theories of physics may
  break down or need to be replaced by more general ones."
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-Particle_duality#Wave_behavior_of_l....

As always with Wikipedia, follow the references and look at the
source material.

Here is a video where you can watch the pattern emerge yourself.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...tp://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

John, the double slit experiment is of course usually done using light
in the visible spectrum.

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

It's a diffraction/interference demonstration that illustrates
fundamental principles of physical optics. I myself have never heard
of it being performed with electrons, but their is always a first time
for everything.

For a serious student, perform the double-slit experiment using
monochromatic visible light of a particular wavelength, then compare
the your computed predictions, and the results will confirm theory.
I'm pretty sure that if you performed the experiment using electrons
of a precisely known enery and hence wavelength, you would obtain the
same result.

The problem in doing this is that obtaining electrons of a specific
enegy and a corresponding fixed wavelength is extremely hard to do,
and the difficulty of constucting a double-slit apparatus for
electrons is even more difficult.

Harry C.
 
J

Jon Slaughter

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jamie Morken said:
Hi,

I am curious about the electron emitter used in the classic double slit
experiment.

As dots appear on the screen in this experiment, do the dots appear
each time the emitter is pulsed to emit an electron, or do they appear
slowly over time as the emitter runs with a fixed output power?

Also in either case, do the dots appear steadily with no variation in
the elapsed time between each new dots appearance, and does more than
one dot ever appear at a time, or do they always appear one at a time?

You can use a cathode-ray. You put the slits inside and run the device. The
electrons strike the phosphorescent screen and light it up for a short
amount of time(exactly like they are suppose to work). Of course the only
difference is, is that the electrons strike the double slit and some make it
through while others don't.

The pattern itself is a probabilistic pattern and is not what one expects
which would be the sum of two gaussian(or approximately at least)
distributes but a much more complex pattern. i.e., classical mechanics
predicts something different than what actually happens. Essentially there
is an interference term that apears.

Remember, one is only sending one electron in at a time. Its not that there
is interference between electrons but that the electron interfers with
itself by the two slits. Essentially it goes through both.... after all, it
is a wave.

To get the pattern you have to keep track of the dots location. Using the
cathode ray tube will only give you a dot for a very short amount of time...
although the more electrons you send in the more the pattern will show up.
(if only, say, one at a time then you'll get one dot at a time)
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
Most electron sources emit randomly, so the interference pattern is
made up of electrons arriving randomly. Every single electron
participates, interfering with itself, no matter what the rate.


Hi,

I kind of assumed that an electron gun existed that could fire a single
electron at the screen on demand. However it sounds like the electrons
are in fact emitted randomly, and the emitter is tuned to the power
level required to form dots on the screen at the desired rate?

Just because a dot appears on the screen doesn't mean that a single
electron has been emitted necessarily. The screen is composed of light
sensitive material that requires its molecules electrons to jump an
orbital for a dot to appear.

The quantum mechanics view is that ALL energy released from an electron
that drops an orbit, is absorbed by a single electron that raised its
orbit. So in this case, once the energy from an emission has been
absorbed, there is no possibility to detect the emission elsewhere.

The classical view is that ALL energy released from an electron that
drops an orbit, is emitted evenly as an electromagnetic wave traveling
outwards spherically, with decreasing intensity at the speed of light.
This allows for the possibility to detect this emission, however as the
emitted energy decreases as it travels outwards, there is not enough
energy to raise an electrons orbit, unless that electron was already
nearly at the next orbital energy level, which is possible if you look
at these two effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect

Those two effects show that electron orbital state changes aren't fixed
but instead can be dynamic based on the electrostatic or electromagnetic
background field.

The other way to detect this electromagnetic energy without having to
use a atomic/molecular method (electron orbital jumping) would be an
electrostatic or electromagnetic field detector. In this case you can
detect an emission at two places at once without having to absorb all
the energy of the emission.

Quantum mechanics interpretation requires that all energy be absorbed in
transactions between molecules, rather than there being a background
field that is added to or removed from by electrons jumping or dropping
orbitals. Quantum mechanics interpretation means that 100% of the
energy released from an electron dropping an orbit 100 light years away,
will be absorbed by the electron that jumps an orbit when that light is
absorbed. The classical view is that 100 light years away, there will
be almost no energy left to absorb, as it will be dispersed evenly over
a 100 light year radius sphere, however this energy could still possibly
cause one or more electrons to jump orbits, if they were already nearly
at the next orbital energy level, based on other electromagnetic fields
in combination with the energy emitted from the electron that dropped
its atomic or molecular orbit.

For the double slit experiment if you assume that the emitted energy
from the electron gun is wave based, then it is possible to see that
this energy will always hit the screen in the pattern that is shown
as the final result of this experiment. The reason only one dot appears
on the screen at a time is that the emitters intensity has been reduced
to a level that will only trigger atomic/molecular electron orbital
jumps on the screen for electrons that are very close to the next
orbital level already based on their local electromagnetic field energy.

Perhaps all electrons in the screen are susceptible to jumping orbits to
the next state, and they will only jump a certain percentage of the
time, depending on the strength of the wave based field coming from the
emitter. This means that if the emitters intensity is decreased, it
will cause dots to form slowly on the screen, and the dots will form
at a higher rate in the areas of stronger field intensity.

Wow sorry for the long email it is just hard to describe what I was
trying to say! :)

cheers,
Jamie
 
A

Androcles

Jan 1, 1970
0
| On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:05:23 +0100, "Androcles"
|
| >
| >| >| Hi,
| >|
| >| I am curious about the electron emitter used in the classic double slit
| >| experiment.
| >|
| >| As dots appear on the screen in this experiment, do the dots appear
| >| each time the emitter is pulsed to emit an electron, or do they appear
| >| slowly over time as the emitter runs with a fixed output power?
| >|
| >| Also in either case, do the dots appear steadily with no variation in
| >| the elapsed time between each new dots appearance, and does more than
| >| one dot ever appear at a time, or do they always appear one at a time?
| >|
| >| cheers,
| >| Jamie
| >
| >Actually there is no "classic double slit experiment" using electrons,
the
| >gap between "slits" is on the atomic scale and a crystal is used as a
| >diffraction
| >grating. What you get is this:
| > http://tinyurl.com/5nenwv
| >
http://it.stlawu.edu/~koon/classes/221.222/221L/gifs/ElectronDiffractionCircuitDiagram.gif
|
|
| http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745
|
| "But in 1961 Claus Jönsson of Tübingen, who had been one of
| Möllenstedt's students, finally performed an actual double-slit
| experiment with electrons for the first time (Zeitschrift für Physik
| 161 454). Indeed, he demonstrated interference with up to five slits."
|
A first time experiment in 1961 is "classical" and five slits is "double".

Thank you, now I understand.
Neil Armstrong went to the Moon and back in a classical Saturn V
double stage rocket with up to 5 stages.

Would you mind telling me from which ivy league university you got
your classical double doctorate in learning to count up to five and
what the fees were? I want one then I can appear intelligent like you.
 
A

Androcles

Jan 1, 1970
0
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
|
|
| Androcles wrote:
| >
| >[it doesn't matter who] wrote:
| >
| >| http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745
| >|
| >| "But in 1961 Claus Jönsson of Tübingen, who had been one of
| >| Möllenstedt's students, finally performed an actual double-slit
| >| experiment with electrons for the first time (Zeitschrift für Physik
| >| 161 454). Indeed, he demonstrated interference with up to five slits."
| >|
| >
| >A first time experiment in 1961 is "classical" and five slits is
"double".
| >
| >Thank you, now I understand.
| >Neil Armstrong went to the Moon and back in a classical Saturn V
| >double stage rocket with up to 5 stages.
| >
| >Would you mind telling me from which ivy league university you got
| >your classical double doctorate in learning to count up to five and
| >what the fees were? I want one then I can appear intelligent like you.
|
| Let's review this particular bit of asswipery, shall we?

No, we shall not. **** off, it does matter who or anyone can quote
any crap they like.
 
A

Androcles

Jan 1, 1970
0
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

| On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:43:26 +0100, "Androcles"
|
| >
| >
message
| >| >| On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:05:23 +0100, "Androcles"
| >|
| >| >
| >| >| >| >| Hi,
| >| >|
| >| >| I am curious about the electron emitter used in the classic double
slit
| >| >| experiment.
| >| >|
| >| >| As dots appear on the screen in this experiment, do the dots appear
| >| >| each time the emitter is pulsed to emit an electron, or do they
appear
| >| >| slowly over time as the emitter runs with a fixed output power?
| >| >|
| >| >| Also in either case, do the dots appear steadily with no variation
in
| >| >| the elapsed time between each new dots appearance, and does more
than
| >| >| one dot ever appear at a time, or do they always appear one at a
time?
| >| >|
| >| >| cheers,
| >| >| Jamie
| >| >
| >| >Actually there is no "classic double slit experiment" using electrons,
| >the
| >| >gap between "slits" is on the atomic scale and a crystal is used as a
| >| >diffraction
| >| >grating. What you get is this:
| >| > http://tinyurl.com/5nenwv
| >| >
|
| >|
| >|
| >| http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745
| >|
| >| "But in 1961 Claus Jönsson of Tübingen, who had been one of
| >| Möllenstedt's students, finally performed an actual double-slit
| >| experiment with electrons for the first time (Zeitschrift für Physik
| >| 161 454). Indeed, he demonstrated interference with up to five slits."
| >|
| >A first time experiment in 1961 is "classical" and five slits is
"double".
| >
| >Thank you, now I understand.
| >Neil Armstrong went to the Moon and back in a classical Saturn V
| >double stage rocket with up to 5 stages.
| >
| >Would you mind telling me from which ivy league university you got
| >your classical double doctorate in learning to count up to five and
| >what the fees were? I want one then I can appear intelligent like you.
|
|
| You would have saved a lot of time by just saying something like "Oh.
| Interesting. Thanks."
|

Sure, but doing it my way quickly gets a reaction from the pathetic
one-liner trolls such as "jjlarkin" and then they have to change their
name again to troll me some more as I kill-file them, which is fun.
I've got lots of bytes left on my hard drive for killing shitheads and
plenty of time since I'm retired.
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Guy Macon said:
If the De Broglie wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum,
then, in theory, would a really slow-moving bus be able to pass
hrough a tiny slit?

It would, but the whole thing would have to be cooled to a few nanokelvin.
Heat carries momentum as well.

Tim
 
S

Satoru Uzawa

Jan 1, 1970
0
In sci.electronics.design Jamie Morken said:
Hi,

I am curious about the electron emitter used in the classic double slit
experiment.

As dots appear on the screen in this experiment, do the dots appear
each time the emitter is pulsed to emit an electron, or do they appear
slowly over time as the emitter runs with a fixed output power?

Also in either case, do the dots appear steadily with no variation in
the elapsed time between each new dots appearance, and does more than
one dot ever appear at a time, or do they always appear one at a time?

cheers,
Jamie

I think you can use somehthing similar to eletron emission gun used in
electron microscopes. In eletron microscope, a fluorescent plate is
used to visualize the electron beam. Works quite well.

Satoru
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Were you aware that double slit experiments have been done
with neutrons, atoms and even molecules? They have done them
with carbon-60 fullerenes (buckyballs), and they have even
shown interference fringes for C60F48, a 108 atom fluorinated
buckyball with a mass of 1600!

I've heard that even machine gun bullets diffract.

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I think there are synchronous single-electron emitters, but they're
pretty exotic. There are lots of electron sources that dole out
electrons randomly, but at arbitrarily low rates.


An electron multiplier can image single electron hits, but all such
gadgets have a finite background noise level, typically in the 10's of
hits per sq cm per second. So very low electron fringes will get lost
in that noise.



One electron, impacting a phosphor with a lot of energy, can kick out
hundreds of photons. An electron can easily come in with, say, 30 KEV
of energy (accelerated by a 30,000 volt power supply), and a photon is
just a couple of ev.

A single electron can whack a phosphor and be visible with the naked
eye, or easily visible in an image intensifier.





Each electron hits the screen at exactly one place. It is a particle,
after all. It's just more probable that it will hit in some places
than in other places, and those places are arranged in stripes.




A high-voltage electron will crash into a lot of phosphor molecules
before it stops, so can release a lot of photons.

I don't believe in "photons", rather I look at a "photon" as a
predictable electromagnetic emission from matter. Just like a
submarine can tell a ship by its propeller noise, matter also emits
characteristic electromagnetic energy (ie. due to the quantized electron
orbitals), but to go from that to saying all electromagnetic energy is
quantized seems to be illogical.

A magnetic field is completely non quantized, and its strength decreases
continuously as you move away from the magnet. How can this field be
made of quantized photons (virtual photons they say!) if it has a
continuously varying intensity over distance? I think the only way is
to assume space and distance itself is also quantized which seems even
more unlikely than the concept of a photon.

Planck's constant, 6.626 * 10^-34 Joule*seconds, is that the energy that
is released by the electron dropping an orbital in the hydrogen atom?

If Planck's constant describes this or something similar, then also it
should be looked at that this is a variable amount of energy depending
on the external continuous electric or magnetic field that the hydrogen
atom is immersed in, ie. the Stark and Zeeman effects. So if that is
the case Planck's constant is only a theoretical quantization of an
isolated atom, which doesn't exist in reality, ie. there is the cosmic
microwave background radiation everywhere, which will shift the amount
of energy released by an electron that jumps an orbital.

cheers,
Jamie
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
You can run any of the Youngs slit experiments at a flux rate where
there is only one particle in the apparatus at any one time and still
get interference fringes. You can even run it with protons, neutrons,
silver atoms or buckeyballs (I think that is the largest mass particle
that has been tried to date).

And the fun bit is that even when there is only one particle at a time
it still generates the interference pattern it just takes longer to
develop. ISTR it was done live at one of the UK Royal Institution Xmas
childrens lectures a few years back.

Alan Boksenberg developed a pre-CCD era astronomical Image Photon
Counting System that relied on converting rare photons from a high
dispersion astronomical spectrograph into electrons, accelerating them
and measuring the centroid of the resulting photon splash on a
phosphor. It was a highly successful technique in its day. Much more
sensitive than anything else available at the time. See for example:

http://www.ing.iac.es/PR/wht_info/ipcs.html
I don't believe in "photons", rather I look at a "photon" as a
predictable electromagnetic emission from matter.  Just like a

You are going to have a very hard time explaining the photoelectric
effect then (and also avoiding the UV catastrophe for that matter).
Einstein got the 1921 Nobel prize in part for his work on quantum
theory published in 1905.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
A magnetic field is completely non quantized, and its strength decreases
continuously as you move away from the magnet.  How can this field be
made of quantized photons (virtual photons they say!) if it has a
continuously varying intensity over distance?  

It isn't continuously varying. You can measure the ultimate quantum
step of magnetisation with a Josephson junction SQUID. eg,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/squid.html

They are equisitely sensitive magnetic field detectors. Measuring flux
quantisation in a SQUID was an optional third year physics practical
experiment at my university.
I think the only way is
to assume space and distance itself is also quantized which seems even
more unlikely than the concept of a photon.

Space itself could also be quantised or foamlike at least on the scale
of the Plank length. However, that is so tiny that apart from in the
earliest stages of the Big Bang it is to all intents and purposes
continuous.

You are probably not going to like virtual photons then. See for
example the Casimir effect.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9747
A measurable force has been observed as predicted by theory.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
Martin said:
You can run any of the Youngs slit experiments at a flux rate where
there is only one particle in the apparatus at any one time and still
get interference fringes. You can even run it with protons, neutrons,
silver atoms or buckeyballs (I think that is the largest mass particle
that has been tried to date).


And the fun bit is that even when there is only one particle at a time
it still generates the interference pattern it just takes longer to
develop. ISTR it was done live at one of the UK Royal Institution Xmas
childrens lectures a few years back.


Alan Boksenberg developed a pre-CCD era astronomical Image Photon
Counting System that relied on converting rare photons from a high
dispersion astronomical spectrograph into electrons, accelerating them
and measuring the centroid of the resulting photon splash on a
phosphor. It was a highly successful technique in its day. Much more
sensitive than anything else available at the time. See for example:

http://www.ing.iac.es/PR/wht_info/ipcs.html


You are going to have a very hard time explaining the photoelectric
effect then (and also avoiding the UV catastrophe for that matter).
Einstein got the 1921 Nobel prize in part for his work on quantum
theory published in 1905.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm

The photoelectric effect is just proof that matters energy states are
quantized, as it requires stepped frequencies of electromagnetic energy
to trigger it to release electrons. It doesn't mean that the
electromagnetic energy itself is quantized. The UV catastrophe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_catastrophe

is what happens when you don't acknowledge that matters energy states
are quantized.

It isn't continuously varying. You can measure the ultimate quantum
step of magnetisation with a Josephson junction SQUID. eg,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/squid.html

They are equisitely sensitive magnetic field detectors. Measuring flux
quantisation in a SQUID was an optional third year physics practical
experiment at my university.

From reading about these, they are formed from two Josephson junctions,
and those output a varying quantized frequency proportional to the field
being sensed. This doesn't necessarily mean that the field itself is
quantized, it may be that the instrument, ie. the tunneling of the
cooper pairs through the junction, is quantized.

From reading about cooper pairs on this site:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/bcs.html#c1

"This pairing results from a slight attraction between the electrons
related to lattice vibrations; the coupling to the lattice is called a
phonon interaction."

So these cooper pairs are governed by the "phonon interaction" and phonons:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/phonon.html#c1

are quantized vibrations in matter (all vibration in matter is
quantized?). So it seems that the measured field may in fact be
continuously varying. Is there any way to measure a field with
matter where you won't see quantization? I think normal electron
flow in matter is not governed by quantization, and therefore a
simple antenna should output a continuous signal in the presence
of a continuous field, whether this is theorectically possible to
measure below the quantization level of a Josephson junction SQUID is
another matter.

Space itself could also be quantised or foamlike at least on the scale
of the Plank length. However, that is so tiny that apart from in the
earliest stages of the Big Bang it is to all intents and purposes
continuous.

You are probably not going to like virtual photons then. See for
example the Casimir effect.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9747
A measurable force has been observed as predicted by theory.

The Casimir effect is thought to occur from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_energy

I can imagine a field like this that isn't quantized,
and doesn't require "virtual photons", but that is
just my imagination, but like Einstein said:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Any continuous system can be quantized if desired, it is just
a model that some people like thinking in terms of, I personally
don't understand why someone would want to quantize every thing
possible under the stars, but I guess it is a model that can
describe reality in a unique way, even if it is complete nonsense.

cheers,
Jamie
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
Guy said:
Evidence, please. Cite the experiment that measured a change
in magnetic flux that is a small fraction of 10 to the minus
15 Webers (the size of the quantum fluxoid) with a change of
distance that is a small fraction of 10 to the minus 35 meters
(the Plank length).


I would be interested in how you calculate the likelyhood
of something being quantitized vs. non-quantized. Do you
have any basis for deciding which is more likely other than
gut feeling?

The fact that we are able to discuss whether something is
quantized or not continuously is pretty good evidence for me ;)

cheers,
Jamie
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
Guy said:
That's no evidence at all! Is the fact that we are able to
discuss whether a song coming out of a speaker is quantitized
(on a CD) vs. non-quantized (on a vinyl record) evidence
that CDs don't exist?

I'm not saying its impossible that electromagnetic energy
is quantized, I just prefer to view it as a continuous field,
instead of take on the abstract concepts of quantum mechanics
like "measurement collapses the wave function", I don't believe
in the wave function, I believe in an actual wave, that is not
possible to collapse, only is able to be partially absorbed by
matter, with a corresponding vibrational states change in the
matter.

Quantum mechanics should only be applied to systems with proven
discrete state changes, ie. matter. I don't understand why it was
applied to light, as I don't think it is possible to prove that
light is quantized or not, only that matter interacts with light
in certain quantities. Light was basically erased by quantum
mechanics into probability waves, seems like a human idea rather
than reality to me.

Also possibly gravity is an electromagnetic force (of unmeasured
high frequency) that pushes matter together, like the Casimir effect.

To go a step beyond physics to philosophy, maybe the only way to
acknowledge the continuous nature of light and the universe is to
experience it "spiritually". That is what Schroedinger did, who called
himself a Vedantist (Hindu philosopher):

http://www.photonics.cusat.edu/article2.html

who extended the classical wave equations to matters quantized
vibrations, he had to be convinced by Bohr to go along with quantum
mechanics, and in his later life he lectured from a wave based
perspective only:

http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/erwin-schrodinger.php

"Schrödinger disliked the generally accepted dual description in terms
of waves and particles, with a statistical interpretation for the waves,
and tried to set up a theory in terms of waves only. This led him into
controversy with other leading physicists."

Also "Schrödinger's cat" was a thought experiment by Schrödinger
to show the ridiculous nature of quantum mechanics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

The whole idea of observation and measurement is the problem in
quantum mechanics. Observation and measurement is merely the
absorption of electromagnetic energy by matter, nothing more, and
there is no "wave function" collapse associated with this absorption.
That strange concept only comes when you assume light is quantized
and doesn't actually exist except as a transaction token between matter.

cheers,
Jamie
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
He had some good lines.

Some other famous guy, I can't remember who, said that if quantum
mechanics doesn't frighten you, you haven't studied it enough.

I've always thought that the beam-splitter interferometer was
frightening. It's like those photons were being deliberately
malicious.

Some of them are. >:->

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
When a photon hits a good half-silvered mirror, all of it is either is
reflected or all of it passes through. A pair of photon-counting
detectors will demonstrate this. But if you remove the detectors, it
does both... it splits and the pieces can be made to interfere with
themselves, even after traveling enormous distances. But you can never
detect one of the split pieces as being anything but the original
photon, and you can never detect them both.

For this experiment from a wave perspective of light, you emit a
characteristic frequency and energy of electromagnetic energy, and
this wave, of fixed frequency, hits and passes through the silvered
mirror at the same time, every time. It will interfere with itself when
rejoined any time in the future, constructively or destructively based
on the path length of the split beams. I think this can explain most
interferometer setups, but I couldn't find an example of the exact
experiment you describe.

From this page:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Locality/Locality.html

If you assume that light is quantized as photons, then try to understand
an interferometer in those terms, that is when things become paradoxical
and confusing (non locality / spooky action at a distance), isn't that a
good hint that maybe the initial assumption of light being quantized is
incorrect? :)

I like to try to analyze all these setups from a wave perspective and
avoid acknowledging the possibility of particles, seems to keep things
more simple, maybe incorrect too, but simple is nice ;)

cheers,
Jamie
 
J

Jamie Morken

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
No. It's an indication that your expectations are incorrect. It does
what it does.

Hi,

Do you have a link to the experiment setup that you were
describing with the photon detectors? I would like to
take a look at it closer but didnt see the exact setup.

Regarding entanglement where the two measured particles have
opposite spins, I would think that when the two particles are
created they get their opposite spins at that point.

cheers,
Jamie
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jamie Morken said:
From reading about these, they are formed from two Josephson junctions,
and those output a varying quantized frequency proportional to the field
being sensed. This doesn't necessarily mean that the field itself is
quantized, it may be that the instrument, ie. the tunneling of the
cooper pairs through the junction, is quantized.

So, let me get this straight...

In other words, you have NO evidence to suggest that fields are not
quantized, correct?

What's more, you state that all quantum field experiments (like the
Josephson junction) give an inherently quantized measurement. Since these
are the ONLY sort of measurements that can produce accurate results,
quantized though they may be, I ask you: what difference does it make,
then, if the field IS quantized?

Look. You can go through life all you want, thinking life ain't quantum,
but let me tell you, you'll have one hell of a hard time trying to work any
real problems in modern physics. The biggest proof of quantum mechanics is
that it works -- and that is all the proof that is necessary in physical
modelling.

Tim
 
Top