Double Slit Experiment

Egads! These answers are all over the place. Whatever happened to a "unified field theory" or the "unification of our system of physics"?

Let's see now. You put in a particle, and you get out a wave. Please explain that in detail without the gobblety gook.

The answer can be derived by taking the Fourier transform of the wave to derive the standing waves at the output of the double slit. To do this, you have to assumed that the input is a transverse wave. Since they correlate, the photon is a wave. A similar result is obtained from electromagnetic waves, which was put to practical use in microwave antennas.
 
Let's see now. You put in a particle, and you get out a wave. Please explain that in detail without the gobblety gook.

No. You put in a particle and get out a particle. It just behaves like a wave in between. The reason for this is that photons are fundamentally a field, and the particles that we observe are quantum excitations of that field. The field has wavelike properties, hence the "behaving like a wave" but it's eigenstates are particle states, so we only observe particles. Quantum field theories like I just described are the most accurately tested theories of physics ever.
 
Something in the initial source emission(s) dynamic is being retained throughout the particle(s) journey?
 
Something in the initial source emission(s) dynamic is being retained throughout the particle(s) journey?
Yes. I don't / can't do QED fields calculations etc. but in the terms of post 10, the photon carries with it the the energy difference between the upper and lower energy levels of the transition of the atom that emitted it. If I remember the selections rules / laws there is always a "delta l = 1" (angular momentum change of one) between those levels as the "excited electron" falls down into the lower energy level. The photon has one unit of spin, it carries too as it travels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. I don't / can't do QED fields calculations etc. but in the terms of post 10, the photon carries with it the the energy difference between the upper and lower energy levels of the transition of the atom that emitted it. If I remember the selections rules / laws there is always a "delta l = 1" (angular momentum change of one) between those levels as the "excited electron" falls down into the lower energy level. The photon has one unit of spin, it carries too as it travels.

You're thinking that what I'm conveying here, might be a component of the photon's spin? I was under the understanding that the photon traveled in "packages" or bundled units of several photons?
 
You're thinking that what I'm conveying here, might be a component of the photon's spin? I was under the understanding that the photon traveled in "packages" or bundled units of several photons?
I said it before but will try again: Typically when an electron transitions from an excited state to a available lower energy state in an isolated atom (i.e. not caused by collision with another atom) there is both a reduction in the energy and angular momentum of that atom. This angular moment and energy reduction is now in the photon to make both conserved.

s far as photon being "in a package" that is not best classical way to look at it. The photon IS a package, if you want to use that term, but you can not "open the package" to see it. Typically the energy of the photon extends of 10s of centimeters along the direction of its travel and I don't know much about how widely it is distributed transverse to the direction of travel, but tend to think that in some classical sense is a few mm at most, probably less than one if the concept even makes any sense, which I doubt.

The length of the photon is inversely related to the transition probability of the electronic transition than made it. I.e. an isolated atom, which does not have the radiative process disturbed by a collision, will produce longer photons if the transition probably is low. These "long photons" will again in a classical sense, have more cycles of oscillation and thus have more precisely defined energy as it is proportional to their oscillation frequency. I.e. these spectral lines (many photons) will be sharp.

This is all related to the uncertanity principle of quantum mechanics. I.e. a precisely defined frequency is a small "delta E" so the "Delta T" will be large - I.e. it is less possible to tell when it was radiated or where it is when traveling - this is not-measurement difficulty, but a fundamental impossibility to know when it was emitted or where it is very precisely at any time - This shows up when you try to measure its length as it measures as "long."

It is not easy (perhaps impossible?) to make very long photons in the lab because the gasous source they would come from must have very low density to avoid collisions disturbing the longer lasting radiative process. That very low density source would need to be thousands of cubic meters in volume to give readily detected intensity (there are always noise sources in the detector) But some of lines from the Northern lines are very long - seveal meters. Especially the so called "Oxygen green line," which has very low transition probability as it is actually a first order forbidden transition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1). If two photons leave a source, in opposing directions (and at the same instant), do they not retain entangled communication with each other (spooky action at a distance)?

2). How many ways is a spin momentum similar to a linear (forward) momentum?

Relate this back to the slit experiment...
 
1). If two photons leave a source, in opposing directions (and at the same instant), do they not retain entangled communication with each other (spooky action at a distance)?
probably not. Getting "entangled photons" I think is normally done by deriving two from one of twice the energy in a crystal that has strong non-linearity in its dielectric constant. (It also must be cut just right so that dispersion considerations keep original and daughter photons traveling at same speed thru it.)
2). How many ways is a spin momentum similar to a linear (forward) momentum?...
Not at all - the spin is quantized and only has one value for all photons and the linear momentum is a continuum variable.

I can't say anything (doubt anyone can) about what is taking place near the slits. I have already discussed what takes place at the screen - the observables, when photon is showing its "particle nature." Also remember: EACH PHOTON ONLY INTERFERES WITH ITSELF. Thus the spin orientations are a "perfect match"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
?????

No. You put in a particle and get out a particle. It just behaves like a wave in between. The reason for this is that photons are fundamentally a field, and the particles that we observe are q. The field has wavelike properties, hence the "behaving like a wave" but it's eigenstates are particle states, so we only observe particles. Quantum field theories like I just described are the most accurately tested theories of physics ever.


You say that "you put in a particle and get out a particle", but "it behaves as a field in between". What does that mean? What is "in between"? Where does "in between" start and stop"? What is your reasoning for this and your supporting evidence?

You say that: "The field has wavelike properties, hence the "behaving like a wave" but it's eigenstates are particle states, so we only observe particles." Your statements are confusing. How can particles be the "quantum excitations of that field"?

Planck showed that a photon is emitted or absorbed when an atom changes state. We know that a photon has a frequency associated with it, so isn't it reasonable to believe that it is a field wave that is oscillating?
 
Waves get more energy as you increase the amplitude continuously. A stream of co-moving identical particles get more energy in discrete chunks. Nature validates the latter view, but the chunk sizes are pretty small by everyday standards.

When the amplitude is increased the wave's energy is increased? What about when the energy is increased? Does a wave of amplitude 2A travel equally as fast as a wave of amplitude 10A? Alternatively, does a wave of wavelength 3λ travel equally as fast as a wave of wavelength 12λ?
 
In propagation which is nearly linear, a wave of amplitude 2 travels equally as fast as a wave of amplitude 10. But one possible non-linear effect is amplitude dispersion such as the soliton solution of the Korteweg–de Vries equation (modeling waves in shallow water) where the propagation speed is a function of the wave height and water depth.
$$v = \sqrt{g(h+d)}$$

But even in nearly linear media, a wave of wavelength 3 need not travel equally as fast as a wave of wavelength 12. Waves traveling at different speeds is called dispersion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation
 
Back
Top