Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590803 > unrolled thread

Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 06:05 -0700
    Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:12 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 08:36 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:10 -0500
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 09:39 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 11:46 -0400
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-26 10:38 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 12:23 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-26 17:05 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 19:10 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:29 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 22:15 -0700
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:28 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 10:36 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:37 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 20:04 +0000
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:48 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 13:29 +0000
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:01 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-27 09:30 -0700
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-27 09:40 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 19:13 +0000
              Young's two-pinhole moire' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:25 -0700
          just say, no, thank you noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:00 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 22:11 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-31 00:48 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 10:51 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-31 00:46 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:31 +0200
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 14:01 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:38 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:57 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 23:31 -0700
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 04:28 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:23 -0500
      sumably, pre- noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:01 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-28 19:35 -0400
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:43 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:29 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 12:29 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 17:06 -0400
            Light: a history noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:38 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:29 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 17:03 -0400
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:06 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 20:13 -0400
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:44 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 17:56 -0400
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:45 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 17:58 -0400
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 17:10 -0400
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:15 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 20:25 -0400
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:47 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 18:00 -0400
                    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:02 -0500
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-30 18:05 -0400
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 18:41 -0400
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 12:24 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:33 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 03:32 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:27 -0500
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 03:29 -0700
              can you read that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 12:12 -0700
                Re: can you read that Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:29 -0400
                  Re: can you read that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:22 -0700
                    t.h.a.t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 12:33 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-31 01:00 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:26 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-31 17:12 -0400
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:09 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 03:35 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:34 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:07 +0200
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 12:10 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#591395

On 7/31/2016 2:24 PM, ken quirici wrote:
> So why do 'they' say that the interference pattern  demonstrates the wave part of the particle/wave duality of the photon?
>
> I'm more confused than ever.

I don't think quantum mechanics implies that the distribution will be 
continuous, as Ben was alluding to. (Quite the opposite in fact.)

But even in the "lumpy" distribution you get (which approaches 
continuity if you let this deposit happen for a very long time), the 
shape -- that is, the location of the maxima and minima -- only make 
sense if you treat each photon as being a wave that behaves like it 
travels through both slits at once. Now, you can ask, how is it possible 
that this photon which is a small thing can pass through both slits at 
once? And can I put detectors to sense that it is going through both 
slits at once? The problem is thinking that the photon is a small thing. 
It deposits all of its energy in one small spot, yes, but that does not 
mean that it is also small in flight. It behaves exactly as though it 
were a thing that extends over a LARGE REGION, even though if you try to 
observe it, it will only result in an energy deposit in one small spot.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591483

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 22:33:22 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 7/31/2016 2:24 PM, ken quirici wrote:
> > So why do 'they' say that the interference pattern  demonstrates the wave part of the particle/wave duality of the photon?
> >
> > I'm more confused than ever.
> 
> I don't think quantum mechanics implies that the distribution will be 
> continuous, as Ben was alluding to. (Quite the opposite in fact.)
> 
> But even in the "lumpy" distribution you get (which approaches 
> continuity if you let this deposit happen for a very long time), the 
> shape -- that is, the location of the maxima and minima -- only make 
> sense if you treat each photon as being a wave that behaves like it 
> travels through both slits at once. Now, you can ask, how is it possible 
> that this photon which is a small thing can pass through both slits at 
> once? And can I put detectors to sense that it is going through both 
> slits at once? The problem is thinking that the photon is a small thing. 
> It deposits all of its energy in one small spot, yes, but that does not 
> mean that it is also small in flight. It behaves exactly as though it 
> were a thing that extends over a LARGE REGION, even though if you try to 
> observe it, it will only result in an energy deposit in one small spot.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
==========================
imbecile pig!!
it is never a single  photon


IT IS A HUGE ***BUNDLE OF SINGKE PHOTONS*** !!!
Y.Porat
=================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591394

On 7/30/2016 5:41 PM, benj wrote:
> OK?
>
> You are right to be puzzled as to why the center of the pattern is
> between the slits even when single photons are sent. The pattern does
> not depend on large numbers of photons being sent at once. You can send
> a large number with each one sent singly and you get the same result.
>
> It will be fun to watch Boinker try to find an "official" book to
> explain all this.

I've already recommended a couple of books on this.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591482

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 22:27:30 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 7/30/2016 5:41 PM, benj wrote:
> > OK?
> >
> > You are right to be puzzled as to why the center of the pattern is
> > between the slits even when single photons are sent. The pattern does
> > not depend on large numbers of photons being sent at once. You can send
> > a large number with each one sent singly and you get the same result.
> >
> > It will be fun to watch Boinker try to find an "official" book to
> > explain all this.
> 
> I've already recommended a couple of books on this.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
===================
 shameless  blockhead criminal against mankind !!!

what is the one (again ONE)  AT A TIME ???!!

Y.Porat
=============================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591892 — can you read that

suppose that a jump from one electronic orbit
to another electronic orbit (lower or higher,
is presumed to emit or absorb only one wavelength oflight
of a particular period (1/frequency

> what is the one (again ONE)  AT A TIME ???!!
> 
> Y.Porat
> =============================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592313 — Re: can you read that

In the case of an electron dropping to a lower orbit (circular orbit
for simplicity's sake) around a proton, the total energy (E) of the
system (atom) remains the same. It has lost potential energy (U) by
moving closer to the positive charge. It has gained an equal amount of
kinetic energy (K) because it's velocity must increase for its new
centrifugal force (mv^2/r) to balance the stronger electrostatic force
(ke^2/r^2). It has to move faster (more kinetic energy) in its tighter
orbit because the attractive force is greater at this reduced distance
(more negative potential energy). Total energy (E = U + K ) remains
constant.

This orbiting electron radiates a changing electric field into the
universe due to the motion of its source (the orbiting electron). This
field, and the changes in it, move out (propagate) out from the
electron in all directions at the speed of light. This is similar to
how the static electric field produced by a stationary electron moves
away at the speed of light. In the case of an isolated atom (as Bohr
postulated) the orbiting electron can lose no energy due to radiating
this changing electric field because there is no other charge in the
universe to absorb energy from this field (convert some of its
potential energy into kinetic energy). If another charge is present,
the electric field exerts a force on it and it's electric field exerts
a force on the orbiting electron and each of them can then gain or
lose energy.

The electron remains in a stable orbit and does not spiral in to the
nucleus, contrary to what many of us were taught in Physics 214
(Tippler). This was the third and last college physics course for EEs.
10-20 years ago I figured out why - lol. Too much of it is wrong like
that electron spiraling into the nucleus story which is a clear
violation of electrodynamics.

In the real universe, the orbiting electron's radiated electric field
(E = kq/r^2) exerts a force on all other charges (q) in the universe
including those of the proton it is orbiting. This force (F = Eq) adds
or subtractss kinetic energy (velocity) to/from all other charges in
the universe. These other charges, in turn, radiate an electric field
that adds to or subtracts from the kinetic energy (velocity) of our
orbiting electron. Assuming an equal distribution of charge in the
universe, this force balances out to a net of zero on a large scale
and our electron does not gain or lose any kinetic energy (on average)
from the universe at large. It remains in a stable orbit so the atom
remains stable.

Up close to the orbiting electron, things are quite different. The
electron "feels" an ever changing central force from the nucleus which
does not exactly balance its constant centrifugal force of orbit. This
is due to the positive and negative charges of the proton (and
probably its quark constituents) constantly moving. Therefore the
"center of charge" of the nucleus is constantly moving. The constantly
changing distance and direction to the center of charge causes the
force felt by the orbiting electron to constantly change in magnitude
and direction.

The total force the orbiting electron feels at any time is the sum of
the varying forces from other charges (positive and negative) in the
universe together with the varying and much stronger force from the
closer charges of its nucleus that it is trying to orbit. This force
is almost constant and balances the centrifugal force of the orbiting
electron.

Occasionally, though, a "rogue wave/pulse" of electric field with
sufficient amplitude (strength) hits the electron. This electric field
(force) is sufficient to either eject the electron from orbit
(ionization) or inject the orbit into the nucleus (de-orbit the
electron into the nucleus) which is called electron capture (a form of
radioactive decay).

This ever changing electric field (force) at the electron's location
is practically impossible to calculate so a statistical treatment is
usually employed to predict how often, on average, such "rogue
wave/pulses" will arrive and either eject the electron from the atom
or inject it into the nucleus.

The same applies to electrons or positrons ejected from the nucleus
(beta decay) which also react to the ever changing electric field
produced by all the charges of a nucleus constantly in motion. This is
why radioactive half-lives refer to bulk matter and the actual
ionization of and individual atom or decay of and individual nucleus
is not practically predictable.

These radiated electric fields circumvent the problem of how one
particle causes "action at a distance" on another particle. According
to classical mechanics, this seemed to require a material or medium to
convey the energy and contain the energy as it was in transit from one
particle to the other. The energy of a sound wave is contained in the
potential energy of the compressed air (like a compressed spring
stores energy) as it moves from source to receiver. Maxwell, Mach, and
others, wanted a medium to contain the electric energy while it was
being transferred between the two charged particles in a vacuum. What
was the "nature" of the kinetic energy (K = .5mv^2) and what contained
it while it was in transit between the particles and thereby belonged
to neither of the particles. As kinetic energy is classically defined
as mass in motion, Maxwell proposed the transit occurred through an
aether medium which was extremely rigid yet extremely rarified. These
two attributes seemed contradictory to him. I find it noteworthy that
Maxwell signed off his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" with
the following statement concerning the propagation of light (an
electromagnetic wave): "The idea of an aether cannot be got rid of."


On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:12:37 -0700 (PDT), noTthaTguY
<abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:

>suppose that a jump from one electronic orbit
>to another electronic orbit (lower or higher,
>is presumed to emit or absorb only one wavelength oflight
>of a particular period (1/frequency
>
>> what is the one (again ONE)  AT A TIME ???!!
>> 
>> Y.Porat
>> =============================================
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592407 — Re: can you read that

I haven't rtead it, yet;
my unpatented mode is to scroll to the end,
delete the sigfile & repost the last paragraph-or-so

> These radiated electric fields circumvent the problem of how one
> particle causes "action at a distance" on another particle. According
> to classical mechanics, this seemed to require a material or medium to
> convey the energy and contain the energy as it was in transit from one
> particle to the other. The energy of a sound wave is contained in the
> potential energy of the compressed air (like a compressed spring
> stores energy) as it moves from source to receiver. Maxwell, Mach, and
> others, wanted a medium to contain the electric energy while it was
> being transferred between the two charged particles in a vacuum. What
> was the "nature" of the kinetic energy (K = .5mv^2) and what contained
> it while it was in transit between the particles and thereby belonged
> to neither of the particles. As kinetic energy is classically defined
> as mass in motion, Maxwell proposed the transit occurred through an
> aether medium which was extremely rigid yet extremely rarified. These
> two attributes seemed contradictory to him. I find it noteworthy that
> Maxwell signed off his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" with
> the following statement concerning the propagation of light (an
> electromagnetic wave): "The idea of an aether cannot be got rid of."
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:12:37 -0700 (PDT), noTthaTguY
> <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >suppose that a jump from one electronic orbit
> >to another electronic orbit (lower or higher,
> >is presumed to emit or absorb only one wavelength oflight
> >of a particular period (1/frequency
> >
> >> what is the one (again ONE)  AT A TIME ???!!
> >> 
> >> Y.Porat
> >> =============================================
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592543 — t.h.a.t

it seems to be coherence of various orbits,
which have to be paired in orbits e.g;
there is a new solution due to this guy

> > was the "nature" of the kinetic energy (K = .5mv^2) and what contained
> > it while it was in transit between the particles and thereby belonged
> > to neither of the particles. As kinetic energy is classically defined
> > as mass in motion, Maxwell proposed the transit occurred through an
> > aether medium which was extremely rigid yet extremely rarified. These
> > two attributes seemed contradictory to him. I find it noteworthy that
> > Maxwell signed off his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" with
> > the following statement concerning the propagation of light (an
> > electromagnetic wave): "The idea of an aether cannot be got rid of."
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:12:37 -0700 (PDT), noTthaTguY
> > <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >suppose that a jump from one electronic orbit
> > >to another electronic orbit (lower or higher,
> > >is presumed to emit or absorb only one wavelength oflight
> > >of a particular period (1/frequency
> > >
> > >> what is the one (again ONE)  AT A TIME ???!!
> > >> 
> > >> Y.Porat
> > >> =============================================
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591366

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 01:05:26 UTC+3, מאת Wally W.:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
> >> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
> >> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
> >>
> >
> >An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many 
> >photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more 
> >than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
> >
> >However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed 
> >even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus, 
> >such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so 
> >you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
> 
> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
> 
> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> same slit.
> 
> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
> 
> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> in either case?
> 
> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
> 
> 
> >Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical 
> >dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any 
> >maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is 
> >determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance 
> >between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the 
> >angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see 
> >the pattern anyway.)
===========================
E=hf is not the energy of the real single photon
it is a huge bundle of single photons 
see my new thresd 
=
CAN ANY ENERGY EVENT /PHENOMENON - BE DONE AT NO TIME ??!!
2
h f  -IS  ***only !!! ONE SECOND DEFINED !!
(IN CASE YOU STILL DIDNT NOTICED IT !!
maybe it will  take you  all of ''you 'another
100 years to notice it !!!....

TIA
Y.Porat
=========================================
 


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591393

On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>
>>
>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>
>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>
> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>
> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> same slit.
>
> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>
> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> in either case?

It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.

If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two 
maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of 
the slits. The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location 
of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see, 
even when you're firing the photons one at a time.

>
> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?

If this were the case, you would expect that at low rate, there would be 
a single-slit diffraction pattern behind each slit, lined up so the 
central maximum is colinear with slit and source, as described above. 
This is not what is seen.

>
>
>> Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
>> dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
>> maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
>> determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
>> between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
>> angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
>> the pattern anyway.)
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591420

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>>
>>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>>
>> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>>
>> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
>> same slit.
>>
>> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>>
>> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
>> in either case?
>
>It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.

I refer to the radiation patterns in this image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ebohr1_IP.svg

There is a radiation pattern centered at the left side of the image.

When the waves encounter slits in the middle of the image, two
radiation patterns emerge: each centered on a slit.

The explanation for water waves is simple: the medium exists on both
sides of the two slits, and the energy re-radiates from where the two
sides are connected.

If there is no medium for the propagation of light, the reason for the
emergence of two new centers of radiation must have a different
explanation for photons in the double-slit experiment.

>If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two 
>maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of 
>the slits.

Based on the radiation pattern in the image cited above, the brighter
spots might be expected to be at the locations on the target
perpendicular to the new centers of radiation.

> The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location 
>of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see, 
>even when you're firing the photons one at a time.

Just pondering out loud: Every photon near the slit doesn't go through
the slit. Some are stopped on the solid parts of the wall where the
slits are not. If the photons that *do* go through the slit need to do
so along a certain portion of their wavelength, then all photons
through the slit are "in phase" even if fired one at a time.

What happens to a photon that hits the wall at the point in its
wavelength when the electric portion of the wave has an amplitude of
zero? Would it make a mark on the wall?

If all photons through a slit are in-phase and the distance
relationships are the same whether photons are fired one at a time or
in great numbers, the "interference pattern" may be the same for
reasons that are not so spooky.

>> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
>> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
>
>If this were the case, you would expect that at low rate, there would be 
>a single-slit diffraction pattern behind each slit, lined up so the 
>central maximum is colinear with slit and source, as described above. 
>This is not what is seen.
>
>>
>>
>>> Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
>>> dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
>>> maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
>>> determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
>>> between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
>>> angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
>>> the pattern anyway.)
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591430

On 7/31/2016 4:12 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>>>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>>>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>>>
>>>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>>>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>>>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>>>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>>>
>>> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>>>
>>> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
>>> same slit.
>>>
>>> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>>>
>>> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
>>> in either case?
>>
>> It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.
>
> I refer to the radiation patterns in this image:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ebohr1_IP.svg
>
> There is a radiation pattern centered at the left side of the image.

Well, ok, there is a representation of a traveling wave, yes.

>
> When the waves encounter slits in the middle of the image, two
> radiation patterns emerge: each centered on a slit.

Right, traveling waves emerging from each.

But a traveling wave is a continuous delivery of energy, which is 
observable over a large region of space at once.

Photons are not a continuous delivery of energy, and they are never 
*observed* to be over a large region of space at once. However, a large 
*collection* of photons will emulate continuous delivery of energy and 
emulate a population over a large region of space at once.

>
> The explanation for water waves is simple: the medium exists on both
> sides of the two slits, and the energy re-radiates from where the two
> sides are connected.
>
> If there is no medium for the propagation of light, the reason for the
> emergence of two new centers of radiation must have a different
> explanation for photons in the double-slit experiment.

:-) Did you have something in mind?

>
>> If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two
>> maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of
>> the slits.
>
> Based on the radiation pattern in the image cited above, the brighter
> spots might be expected to be at the locations on the target
> perpendicular to the new centers of radiation.

No, this turns out not to be the case. Here, I suggest taking a look at 
Feynman's book as recommended where he specifically calls out the 
difference between what you are thinking of and what is actually observed.

>
>> The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location
>> of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see,
>> even when you're firing the photons one at a time.
>
> Just pondering out loud: Every photon near the slit doesn't go through
> the slit. Some are stopped on the solid parts of the wall where the
> slits are not. If the photons that *do* go through the slit need to do
> so along a certain portion of their wavelength, then all photons
> through the slit are "in phase" even if fired one at a time.

I think you're going to have a hard time proving that. Especially since 
I can fire the photons in a random Poisson distribution.

>
> What happens to a photon that hits the wall at the point in its
> wavelength when the electric portion of the wave has an amplitude of
> zero? Would it make a mark on the wall?
>
> If all photons through a slit are in-phase and the distance
> relationships are the same whether photons are fired one at a time or
> in great numbers, the "interference pattern" may be the same for
> reasons that are not so spooky.
>
>>> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
>>> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
>>
>> If this were the case, you would expect that at low rate, there would be
>> a single-slit diffraction pattern behind each slit, lined up so the
>> central maximum is colinear with slit and source, as described above.
>> This is not what is seen.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
>>>> dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
>>>> maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
>>>> determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
>>>> between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
>>>> angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
>>>> the pattern anyway.)
>>>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591484

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 22:26:20 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
> >>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
> >>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
> >>>
> >>
> >> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
> >> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
> >> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
> >>
> >> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
> >> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
> >> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
> >> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
> >
> > So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
> >
> > When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> > same slit.
> >
> > Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
> >
> > Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> > in either case?
> 
> It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.
> 
> If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two 
> maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of 
> the slits. The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location 
> of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see, 
> even when you're firing the photons one at a time.
> 
> >
> > If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> > radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
> 
> If this were the case, you would expect that at low rate, there would be 
> a single-slit diffraction pattern behind each slit, lined up so the 
> central maximum is colinear with slit and source, as described above. 
> This is not what is seen.
> 
> >
> >
> >> Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
> >> dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
> >> maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
> >> determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
> >> between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
> >> angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
> >> the pattern anyway.)
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591448

of course, they do, even with a diffraction grating,
which is hte ultimate expression of Youbg's two-pinho;e moire' patterns

> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> same slit.
> 
> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
> 
> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> in either case?
> 
> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
> 
> 
> >Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical 
> >dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any 
> >maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is 
> >determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance 
> >between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the 
> >angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see 
> >the pattern anyway.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591251

Dne 26/07/2016 v 15:05 ken quirici napsal(a):
> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
> 

It cannot, but its wave function amplitude square
at the target has the same interference patterns.

Those patterns are macro, resp quantum manifestation
of the probability of the photon impact.

---------
A photon passing 2 slits WITHOUT pass detectors
is ( in some sense ) analogical to linearly polarized light.

Each photon is quantum superposition
of 2 equally probable quantum states:

slit scenario:a photon passing slit 1 + photon passing slit 2,
light scenario: photon left polarized + right polarized.

The amplitude square of the wave function for such photons
on the target plane has the same patterns
as the interference patterns as sum of impacts many photons.
----------
A photon passing 2 slits WITH pass detectors
is ( in some sense ) analogical to non polarized light.

The photon flow of such light consists
of half photons in quantum state 1,
the other one in the quantum state 2.

slit scenario: either passing slit 1, either slit 2.
light scenario: either polarized left, either right.

The amplitude square of the wave functions
for such photons of state1 and state2 is independent each other
and the target patterns are sum of 2 circularly symmetric patterns.
---
QM experts may correct me.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591891

has been used in cellphones for at least a decade, that
polarization is minimally three-dimensional (although
still retaining handedness, I suppose

> A photon passing 2 slits WITHOUT pass detectors
> is ( in some sense ) analogical to linearly polarized light.
> 
> Each photon is quantum superposition
> of 2 equally probable quantum states:
> 
> slit scenario:a photon passing slit 1 + photon passing slit 2,
> light scenario: photon left polarized + right polarized.
> 
> The amplitude square of the wave function for such photons
> on the target plane has the same patterns
> as the interference patterns as sum of impacts many photons.
> ----------
> A photon passing 2 slits WITH pass detectors
> is ( in some sense ) analogical to non polarized light.
> 
> The photon flow of such light consists
> of half photons in quantum state 1,
> the other one in the quantum state 2.
> 
> slit scenario: either passing slit 1, either slit 2.
> light scenario: either polarized left, either right.
> 
> The amplitude square of the wave functions
> for such photons of state1 and state2 is independent each other
> and the target patterns are sum of 2 circularly symmetric patterns.
> ---
> QM experts may correct me.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web