Michel Jullian wrote:
> A wave packet coalescing into a point-like particle when it hits the
screen, yes that's about as close to common sense understandability as
it can get. Makes one realize the wave aspect of particles is a hard fact.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Any QM expert can correct any possible errors, but here's how I've
understood the double slit. Both slits are open. Before the single
photon even emits it must decide which hole it is going to go through.
To accomplish this task it is understood that the photon "plays out" the
entire process before hand, like some theatrical play. This is called
the wave function. So instantly the wave function traverses the path,
travels through both slits, and hits the detection screen, and from
there decides what path the photon will take. Supposedly the wave
function traverses at infinite velocity as if there were no time. Note
that the wave function causes interference patterns on the detection
screen due to the double slits. So now the photon knows exactly where
it will strike. There are physicists who interpret this as meaning the
photon never traverses space, but simply transports to its new
guaranteed location.
Now, what if we tried to detect which slit the photon traversed
through. In this case the wave function would consider the new
detection device the new destination. Therefore, the photon would strike
the detection device (collapse of the wave function) and from that
location the photon would generate a new wave function, which is why the
interference patterns vanish when trying to detect which slit the photon
travels through.
What is amazing is how the wave function predicts the future. For
example, lets say we emit the single photon while the detection device
is off and then quickly turn on the detection device before the photon
is expected to arrive. It seems somehow the photon is able to predict
all of this! This predictable nature is displayed in the "Delayed
choice" experiment -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
I would like to know if or how M-theory predicts the double slit
experiment. For those who are not aware of M-theory (Wow, yikes, where
have you been!) -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
No offense to anyone, but I just cannot imagine not hearing about
M-theory. It's by far the biggest thing in physics now. In 1995 Edward
Witten created M-theory from the five flavors of superstring theories.
At one time there were five flavors of superstring theories, which drove
physicists crazy as to why. They questioned if God couldn't make up his
mind, and thought perhaps God simply made five versions, lol. Then came
the genius, Ed Witten, who solved the big puzzle to discover
mathematically all five flavors were really the same thing. If M-theory
is proven then it will replace QM, which is why so many top physicists
are diligently working on M-theory. A great deal of money is being
spent to prove M-theory by means of experimentation.
M-theory removes all the chaos found in QM and reveals a calm and
***predictable*** universe. IMHO the true nature of reality resembles
something far closer to M-theory than QM, which has been my gripe about
QM from the start. Today we have high speed photography and computers,
which could allow us to predict things such as a drop of water bouncing
all over the place on a hot skillet. What seemed impossible a 1000
years ago is trivial today. In the same sense, what may seem impossible
to QM will be predictable and trivial. Lets hope M-theory is closer to
the truth.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
>
>
>> OrionWorks wrote:
>>>> From: Michel Jullian
>>>>
>>>> Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or
>>>> electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof
>>>> of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can
>>>> anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference
>>>> patterns? I mean, the QM equations will yield those patterns all
>>>> right, but does QM itself make common sense?
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>> The only logical explanation my brain can make out of the paradoxical
>> double
>>> slit experiment is the notion that what we perceive, and more
importantly
>>> MEASURE, as "particles" are perhaps not really ISOLATED pinpoints
>>> of –matter- after all.
>>>
>>> The only rational explanation I can comprehend is that what we
define as
>>> ISOLATED pin-points of "matter" are most likely waves of EM energy
>> that have
>>> coalesced or configured themselves into patterns that our measuring
>> devices,
>>> which reside in the macro world, interpret as "physical" particles. Of
>>> course, WE are the ones doing all the interpreting. It's as if there
>> is an
>>> almost desperate-like human tendency to fit as much bizzare QM
>> behavior into
>>> the more framiliar rules of the macro world, cuz that's the only
>> reality our
>>> brains can make any sense out of. And indeed, these highly
>> concentrated EM
>>> patterns may occasionally seem to take on the characteristics of
"matter"
>>> which we human beings find so comforting. But to define these QM
patterns
>>> (i.e. photons) as ISOLATED pin points of "matter" does not
>> necessarily mean
>>> it's the most accurate interpretation of what is really going on
>> under the
>>> hood.
>>>
>>> Oh dear, caught in the act of pontificating, once again.
>>>
>>> >From a strictly philosophical non-scientific POV it all seems to
>> come down
>>> to MAYA, the illusion of reality that we all seem to be so entranced
>> with.
>>> The sand box, after all, with all of its inherent granularity can
>>> occasionally be a fun place in which to build temporary sand
castles in.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>> www.OrionWorks.com
>>
>>
>> What's fascinating about double slit is its wave and particle duality.
>> The bar patterns demonstrate the electrons wave behavior, like a
>> wave-train or pulse. On the other hand there's just one collision on
the
>> screen per electron. If the electron were merely a wave then it would
>> crash against the screen like an oceans wave. That's probably why it's
>> referred to as the collapse of the wave function in QM.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Paul Lowrance
