PG20_Physics_and_Theory_Journal

Jan 18 2005

Continuing the previous topic.

My questions regarding the two slit experiment.

1. Can it be assumed that the device that emits photons at 1 photon per x does so in relatively the same way each and every time? In other words does it fire the photon in a straight path every time?

2. Given the answer to question 1 is that the device fires the photon straight every time; In absense of the actual slit apparatus explain why -assuming this is true - that the photon will hit at a 'random' coordinate on the wall.

3. What role or to what degree if any, does scattering such as the compton effect or otherwise, have with regards to question 2. Or a more general question to answer, the path a photon will take in any given gas as a result of scattering with particles within that gas and is this the result of the randomness?

4. Given the answer to question 3 is true and recognized, does not 1 photon effectively become more than 1 photon? And if so, can and how does that relate to interference patterns observed? Additionally, how many "child and parent" photons are produced in a typical two slit 1 photon fired experiment? - How many are produced in the distance from the device, the obstruction and the wall- eg. points A B and C comparitively.

5. It has been stated that a "superposition of paths" is present in a 1 photon fired experiment and thus can explain both the interference patterns and the ability to take both paths at the same time. Does this have physical meaning or is it complete nonsense?

My questions regarding the observation of light.

With the particle-like duality of the photon in mind, given the knowledge that a photon(s) needs to travel to your eye to be observed; to have unlimited perspectives available to observe a typical laser beam of light, it can be assumed that a percentage of photons will be scattered towards your and every other vantage point.

1. What percentage? - also relate that to the observed intensity. Additionally are the percentages equal to all perspectives? - minus a heads on perspective

3. What causes the scattering? Is the scattering a result of photon-photon collision or photon-electron collision or otherwise?

My interpretation

A beam of light is comprised of many physical entites called photons, there is no wave function to the actual beam of light; it as a whole, is a linear vector object. The photons themselves are the source of a wavelike phenonmenon, they travel if you will in a linear + wavelike motion. The cause of this peculiar motion is unknown to me although it's related closely with it's given energy eg. It's level of excitation, point is the photon is a particle wave in context. It does so very rapidly and if you would be able to observe it as it is, it would appear as a blur and only when it is detected/stoped in it's path does it obviously come to a halt (wave-function collapse) and we see it as it truely is, a particle.

A photon's magnitude of lateral or otherwise oscillation is its Amplitude- this as a whole is the photons displacement. The Frequency in hertz is the number of cycles of the repetitive waveform per second -how many times per second does it reach it's peak. Period is the reciprocal of the frequency and is the exact time taken to reach it's peak- exactly how long it takes to complete 1 cycle. Wavelength of course has an inverse relationship to frequency and is known as the distance between peaks. Nothing new there, So you take the frequency and wavelength together to get the photons path. The path that is illustrated is what you call a wave. "Wave" is all about path just like you thought from the beginning it really is that simple.

Now ask yourself, what does a superposition of paths mean?

First of all, the defintion of "superposition principle" is as follows.

"The principle of superposition states that the net displacement at a given place and time caused by two or more waves traversing the same space is the vector sum of the displacements which would have been produced by the individual waves separately."

Entanglement? The effect of superposition is that the magnitude of each subsystems wavefunction is the sum of each subsystems indivdual magnitude- so in a two photon entanglment the magnitude is doubled. This has absolutely nothing to do with the double slit 1 photon experiment -so far. - There are several type of interference, most common are constructive and detructive, I just refered to constructive, in the case of destructive the wave function would cancel, out more on that later.

Now the defintion of "quantum superposition" on wikipedia is this.

"Quantum superposition is the application of superposition principle to quantum mechanics. It occurs when an object simultaneously "possesses" two or more values for an observable quantity (e.g. the position or energy of a particle)."

The best I can guess what they are trying to say is that they are observing an entangled pair of photons and treat it as if it were a single entity/photon, and in the process they are measuring the values of each individual subsystem/photon. BUT those values should be identical. Only in the case that the subsystems are opposite one another, should different values occur and that can only be said in the context of the entangled pair as a whole. This is more along the lines of polarization of an entangled system- 1 photon is at it's peak while simultaniously the other is at it's trough.

Soooo, let's roll with this a second. If we imagine for a moment that the 1 photon fired is actually an entangled pair of photons, we immediatly see the potential for the system to be able to exibit nonlocal behavior and pass if you will through both slits perhaps, but only given the fact that the magnitude or displacement of the system is great enough to cover the area containing the slits. It also assumes a horizontal displacement. Now what about the interference patterns? That is a very good question. I have only this to say, it comes about as the result of interaction of the obstruction (obviously), the mechanics of it I am still working out. Additionally you can assume that the exact state or position of an exactly similar future pair will differ in interaction- collision position(s)- of the apparatus due to the extreme rapid oscillation nature of quantum particles we are talking about, appearing and for the most part effectively random.

We could also imagine where interference patterns would arise as a function of internal collision in the system, but the specific time at which that happens is unclear and if that is the case or not. Additionally what you detect when you measure or what hits the wall, is not 1 photon but two photons or...? I think this requires more thought.

Ok how about this idea. The photon whether its a pair or not, lets just say it is, actually does not have to have a horizontal displacement large enough to cover the area of the slits. The system HITS the obstruction, splits into two effective particles going left and right through the slits then according to a _____ mutual attraction combine back together behind the obstruction and collide once, then twice and so one until they are at a state prior to collision. That is where you get your interference pattern PATH. How that relates to where the particle hits is something I would like to consider more. Also know that we could assume only one particle to hit because it came back together prior to detection. The time taken to 'normalize' is a question to be answered.

Ok I would add this now, you might wonder how in an entangled system the particles that comprise it do not hit each other in normal function. Perhaps they do sometimes, for the most part though they do not because that would unstablize it. We could further speculate that the attraction to maintain the entanglment is an electric charge. We could also suggest that the frequency is angular, meaning the particles oscillate in an semi-eliptical orbit. Actually no, the spacial separation would be great enough to allow freedom of movement, because when 1 is at the peak the other is at the trough which is a wavelength of distance behind. Very speculative but I'm getting somewhere...

Actually a photon pair with mutual attraction as I described above traveling forward would be the perfect explaination of a quantum wave. Because if you think about it, a single photon has no reason to travel in a wave, it just goes straight till it hits something...?

I dont want to get too crazy, but I think were missing a fundemental particle group in the standard model as it relates to EMR. Consider the possibility that the electron emits a "_____" which is an entangled photon pair instead of the classical idea that the electron emits a single photon. Or you could say that the pair is the photon, and the subsystem particles of that photon are "_____".

/something I would have liked to get to but did not "Phase" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_%28waves%29

Oh and also I used the word entanglement lightly because who knows-not me- what it really is given the interpretational nature of it. I admit I find it a rather convenient term to describe a pair of particles working together to create a single system.

More on entanglement

The way I see it, this principle has dual context depending on the application or subject. You can effectively enduce entanglement in the sense that you impose a desired state on a particle to create a sort of clone as it were. The technique is to create a matching pair of photons for example, a difference being they can be opposite in polarization so whereby you can measure the state(s) of one photon and know the other photon(s) state at that time.
In that sense you can store them and separate them by any desired distance and they retain the coorelation of energy states. This is really no different than say taking two atomic clocks if you wish and setting a time by which you make a measurement or something to that effect. Theory says though when you make a measurement you discontinue the relationship... That is more the fault of the method of detection rather than a 'virtual connection' between the pair.

Do not misunderstand it as a nonlocality "spooky action at a distance" phenomenon, and even suggested faster than light comunication effect because there is absolutly no 'information' sent to the other pair other than when it was created. The discontinued relationship is mearly and effect of destroying one or the others states, while the other particle retains its given state. In other words once separated they cease to be an entangled pair, they are now known as like-particles and spacially independent.

On the other hand entanglment can mean something entirely different but still relatable. You can enduce entanglement to create a singlet system whereby that system becomes its own entity and has new properties to the effect of a sum of properties or even a cancellation of particular measureable properties altogether. This is closely related to constructive and destructive interference, and it is possible to concieveably apply the interference principle to multiple properties, Polarization, spin, charge, frequency ect... or not. Additionally you could measure the state of an individual subsystem or the system as a whole, do so mistakenly or not. This is different from separate single photons that travel in or out of phase through space. We are talking about a 'new particle' known as a singlet system.

Jan 30 2005

Found this interesting, if I have mentioned it or knew this before I must have forgotten. The speed of sound waves is relevent to the temperature of the air through which it travels.

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/refract/refract.html

"Suppose you are camping on the shore of a lake which is not too wide, maybe 1/2 a mile across or so. During the day you can see campers on the other side of the lake, but you cannot hear them. At night, however, you can not only see the campers on the other side of the lake but you can also hear their conversations as they sit around their camp fire. This phenomena is due to the refraction of sound waves."

And the manner in which refraction of sound waves occurs if you read on is dependent of air temperature.

Also, the speed of sound increases with an increase in temperature. So that at temperature 86F the speed of sound is 783 mph, at temperature 54F we get 759 mph in dry air.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe.html#c1

"It is important to note that the sound speed in air is determined by the air itself. It is not dependent upon the sound amplitude, frequency or wavelength."

Wave speeds are directly dependent on the medium through which they travel.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe2.html#c1

There are a few questions I could pose about what relationships or similarities we could make with regards to the speed of light, the actual particle quantum mechanics of a sound and light waves, even gravity waves ect. But I will leave that for personal thought.

Feb 13 2005

A very comprehensive and intriging paper here on various subjects of interest related to the current state of research and development at the usaf. Various theoretical propositions of potential venues of research that would lead to a form of teleportation is discussed in length. In the process of such many subtopics and known theories arise and are presented as sort of a history lesson if one is familar with the subjects previously- Entanglement, quantum crytography, GR and geometry of spaces, wormholes ect.

That is not all I have to say about it as I have not read it entirely, what I have read so far - 38 pages- is probably the best written paper I have read to date.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

I also came across several hundred pages 646 pgs of feyman lectures in pdf format. I'm not exactly sure what I got but it appears to be an offical book or textbook that was written by him. I can't imagine even begining to read it unless I was extremely bored or it counted as a degree in physics - which it should considering. I am interesting in physics but that would be pretty unusual for me to sit here and basically take the equivilent of an advanced physics class, 2-4 yrs worth I'm guessing, from start to finish and not have it count for anything other than me saying I read it. However I couldnt think of a better teacher of physics, I consider him more highly than Einstien himself. One thing that he clearly had a mind for was using classical physics to describe the quantum world. The well know feyman diagrams easily represent the only possible explaination for the attraction of quantum or any particles; for example if an electron ejects a photon in Y direction that action causes the electron to move in the opposite direction - even Newton had this explained. So in order for a pair of electrons to be 'attracted' to each other they would need to expell a photon away from each other to bring the two electrons together, vice versa to repell the electrons - Newton's 3rd? law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There is no other way, as simple as it may be, if you think about it long and hard. An arbitrary mediator particle system or any given field theory (magnetism, electric, gravity, strong force, weak force of the like) of such mediator particles between the electrons does not work as you will conclude.