/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6154841]

<== The first real explanation of the double-slit interference pattern. No funky wave-particle duality, no sentient particles who know when they are watched. Fuck the Copenhagen interpretation, light travels as discrete particles.

Prove me wrong /sci/
Also why has no one ever come up with this before? Einstein knew it was an illusion but just didn't explain it.

[Anonymous No.6154847]

Cont.

The light travels in straight lines from source to interception/reflection. Though it can be explained with waves, that is a round about explanation. Simple geometry and probability based on source density comes to the same conclusions.

[Anonymous No.6154854]

Though it is fair to say that the majority of the laser beam has coherence there is light that has refracted from within the crystal that has a slightly altered vector value(red)

[Anonymous No.6154849]

all the beams coming from the source are parallel

[Anonymous No.6154861]

>>6154849
Not exactly, the majority are but we can still see light emitted from source outside of the coherant beam. (this image is going to be a blender vid but I haven't made it yet.)

[Anonymous No.6154877]

>>615486

Yes they are

[Anonymous No.6154895]

Op knows absolutely nothing about lasers.

be they solid state pumped lasers
be they dye lasers
be they semiconductor quantum well lasers

[Anonymous No.6154907]

>>6154895
The large degree of coherence is obvious when compared to regular light but despite the ordered phase change there is always some photons that behave out of sequence which is already an accepted feature of any laser today. In the ideal world the laser would exhibit not divergence over any given distance but this is known not to be the case, no matter the precision of manufacturing.

[Anonymous No.6154906]

if that was the case, we'd see two gaussian distributions overlaid (top image). but we dont. we see the interference pattern.

[Anonymous No.6154918]

>>6154906
The top image's normal distribution is more than just the single interference pattern, it is caused by billions of photons acting in unison. You have predicted two overlaid patterns but it would in practice actually manifest many many times more than that. That is the pattern that you are seeing.

[Anonymous No.6154934]

>>6154918
i'm not sure what you mean, but I've added more red lines to in hopes of convincing your otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6154937]

>no sentient particles who know when they are watched
I thought we only talked about them being 'observed' because observing them requires allowing particles to hit them so they can bounce back and be detected, thus interfering. with shit.

[Anonymous No.6154947]

>>6154934

In order for this to be a good argument you would need to continue to draw lines methodically not just arbitrary ones and then average the amount of light in each area. Remember, the soft shadows do not mean that there is a complete absence of photons but a decreased likelihood of that being their destination.

[Anonymous No.6154950]

>>6154947
ok, sure. but ths same applies to you. in order for your argument to be good, you need to methodically draw the lines and show that you get the interference pattern. because I'm pretty sure you dont get any interference with your model, and you haven't done any math to show that the interference pattern pops out.

[Anonymous No.6154951]

>>6154937

Completely right, the act of observing a photon with the crude tools we have does interfere with it's trajectory, with no need to explain these behaviors with a waveform collapse theory of light.

[Anonymous No.6154952]

ITT: we watch as OP struggles with a poor understanding of physics

Someone that has the will to explain to him all the places where he has gone wrong should do so.

[Anonymous No.6154963]

>>6154950
The math for the relationship between the features of the pattern, the distance of the light source to the slits to the photo detector has already been worked out and has been for a long time. Luckily these features were all relatively easy to measure. What separates my model is not the mathematical relationship between these components but the understanding of the light and the minor variability of the light vectors that cause the phenomenon. Where the light tapers, that angle of light origin has come to be gradually blocked by the barrier and becomes more dim. Likewise where there is a peak density in the Gaussian distribution there is also the greatest light intensity from the whole beam where it is unobstructed.

[Anonymous No.6154968]

>>6154952
translation: I feel OP is wrong but because I don't understand this material myself I will hope in vain for someone to come along to affirm my belief in incomprehensible counter intuitive quantum models already in place.

[Anonymous No.6154970]

OP They've done this with single photons, one at a time in a completely straight line. The same thing always happens: The single photons make an interference pattern.

Wavefunction collapse is the best they can do right now without any better tools. Hopefully soon with the ongoing research in quantum computers, they'll be able to make a device that can measure without interfering.

>but that's impossiburu
Only with our current understanding of physics.

[Anonymous No.6154969]

Shine a laser at a hair and you get the interference pattern, the interference patter is not limited to the double slit.
You model would not explain 99% of interference pattern scenarios.
Not to mention your model fails to explain the collapse state and the single photon interference.

[Anonymous No.6154976]

>>6154963
I dont think you get it. You are saying exactly what the old model would say. The old model is wrong, because it predicts no interference. Your model cannot predict interference, and you dont seem to understand that.

[Anonymous No.6154980]

>>6154907

How do I shot laser optics?


you can make a laser beam arbitrarily close to the fundamental limit of precision (dEdT)


there is no limit on the polarization. neither theoretically nor experimentally.

This is how free electron lasers work.


SLAC, pls.

[Anonymous No.6154981]

[Anonymous No.6154991]

>>6154980
you dont need a laser to do a double slit. lasers are used often because they usually only emit one wavelength, but they arent required.

[Anonymous No.6154994]

>>6154970
thanks for the comment, please see my post here.
>>6154947
that series of images was taken with a single photon at a time. I'm well aware of this situation and account for it whether the light is a collective beam or a single ray. To say that a single photon is traveling coherently to the main beam is an approximation that can not be 100% true because of the imperfection of our light sources that we use.

[Anonymous No.6154997]

OP's picture makes no sense whatsoever.


The beam source is of the same size as the slit separation.

eg: 250x250 nm quantum well (solid state laser, dirt cheap, "laser pointer) laser

[Anonymous No.6155000]

>>6154991

correct.


if you don't use a laser you absolutely have to use polarizing filters. In that case you have a massively wide energy distribution but your polarization is the same. still not coherent.


A flashlight doesnt work bub.

[Anonymous No.6155002]

>>6154976
Please clarify, when you say "old model" it is ambiguous. There are "old" models that can predict both outcomes.

[Anonymous No.6155007]

>>6155000
a flashlight works, you just get a mesh of interference patters for each wavelength

[Anonymous No.6155009]

>>6155002
please list or cite, I'd be super interested.
by old I meant particle models

[Anonymous No.6155011]

>>6154994
Fair enough, lets see if your theory passes the litmus test. Draw us a picture of what happens when an observation device is present.

[Anonymous No.6155018]

>>6154981
OP has already made a case for this, the spread of the laser is more apparent with a less dense central dispersion, but the imperfectly refracted vectors will allow for the same range even with a small single slit. The more I think about this the more it actually makes sense.
>>6154854

[Anonymous No.6155040]

>>6155009
The current wave models are the other old theories that model this interference. The other particle theories of light prior to this do not model the light vectors completely by disregarding the imperfect refractionary vectors.

[Anonymous No.6155039]

Sorry, i don't know much of this, but:
they use a laser in order to mostly eliminate the efect OP bring in consideration. The effect is still showing, so it must be for funky wave-particle duality, sentient particles who know when they are watched. The Copenhagen interpretation, light travels as discrete particles.
Theories exist to be proved or desestimate.

[Anonymous No.6155055]

I knew retards posted on this board but OP's retardation is so fucking grand that he's the new king of retards on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6155066]

hey OP,

1) can you explain how a SINGLE ELECTRON can create a diffraction pattern when fired at TWO slits?

2) Can you explain how a SINGLE ELECTRON can create diffraction pattern when fired at a SINGLE slit?

[Anonymous No.6155073]

>>6154841
Although the pictured experiment involves two slits, it is not the famous 'double slit experiment'. The slits are too big and there're way too many sources.

[Anonymous No.6155081]

>>6155066
The answer to both of these questions is that with only one particle there can not be a pattern.

That being said I think you might have meant one at a time? In this case, choose any vector value that can emerge from the light source and instead of sending them all at once analyze each of their trajectories individually.

[Anonymous No.6155085]

>>6155073

It's really not. The problem with OP's picture is that it tacitly assumes a diffraction pattern shows up, but really it will just be an extended smear on the screen, if his ray optics shit were valid

[Anonymous No.6155091]

>>6155073
>way too many
>talking about photons

Get used to it.

Also the calibration can be variable with any of the values. An interference pattern is not guaranteed with the wrong calibration but there are an infinite number of scenarios that would produce some interference.

[Anonymous No.6155100]

>>6155091
>>way too many
>>talking about photons
>Get used to it.

Sources of photons are not photons. You want (only) waves in the plane of the slits.

[Anonymous No.6155098]

>>6155007

no you dont you literally get destructive interference that destroys the pattern that would have been created if the light were coherent and in phase.

because a diffuse source is both incoherent and composed of a mixture of arbitrarily many polarizations, you will get destructive interference at every node of the hypothetical interference pattern except for the straight through classical positions


Before lasers, when they would do experiments like this with mercury and noble gas discharge lamps, they would use complicated optics to filter the light until it was as close to being coherent as they could get it.

[Anonymous No.6155103]

>>6155009

I think he means wavelets... Huygens principle, etc.

[Anonymous No.6155108]

>>6155085
That would only be the case assuming that from the coherent beam new vectors of light can emerge which is not the case (excluding reflection by the medium ie: air) There is only one source of production of the vector values for the light. The divergence from the coherent beam could only be produced at the source of the light and not spontaneously from the beam.

[Anonymous No.6155110]

>>6155081

>with a single particle there can not be a pattern


one at a time


literally single particle experiments will show that each particle will diffract, hitting a point that over a large number of firings equals the diffraction pattern of a steady state source.


Single particle experiments are performed routinely and verify everything about nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum theories.

[Anonymous No.6155130]

>>6155103
Please do not get me wrong, the fact that the photons are treated as discrete particles does not exclude the fact that they are wave packets (a la Penrose). This fact is important for explaining the light's behavior as it emerges from the diode. But also it does not mean that the light behaves as a wave because they are in phase and monochrome but rather that the individual particles can be generally treated to be acting in the same manner.

[Anonymous No.6155161]

>>6155081
>The answer to both of these questions is that with only one particle there can not be a pattern.

But there is. Which just shows how stupid your theory is.

[Anonymous No.6155191]

>>6155161
hahhaahah please try to remember back to kindergarten when the majority of us realized that a pattern requires sequence and repetition. A singular can not form a pattern regardless of if we're talking about light or fabric. I would say that a singular can not form a pattern but can be a discrete unit of the pattern. For future reference please just let the adults do the talking.

[Anonymous No.6155193]

If you shine coherent light at a sphere, you will get a bright spot directly behind the sphere. How does your theory explain this?

[Anonymous No.6155196]

>>6154841

> no sentient particles who know when they are watched

Confirmed retard.

[Anonymous No.6155200]

>>6155191

Yeah you're a fucking retard. Go pick up an elementary babby tier quantum book like Griffiths.

[Anonymous No.6155228]

>>6154841

OP I'm still not understanding how this is going to actually disprove the theory, Can you summarize your theory. If you don't mind. In a single post.

[newt !!mafLcacC6uu No.6155260]

>>6155193
that's an outright lie

[Anonymous No.6155343]

>>6155228
> In a single word.
Crap

[Anonymous No.6155385]

>>6155228
Please read my second post in this thread. The essentials of the theory are contained in that post.

[Anonymous No.6155394]

Well done OP, I just realized that I don't know if it is you or I who is the retard. If this is true, why is this the first I'm hearing about it? Shouldn't other physicists have proposed this by now?

[Anonymous No.6155395]

>>6155385
You still haven't showed what would happen if you placed a sensor infront of one of the slits.

[Anonymous No.6155404]

>>6155395
This is a triviality to the theory, if you are interested please watch this lecture from U Waterloo. It is pretty succinct video from some experts in the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt84rSJa7VI

I'm sure the schematics in the video will show you some of the modern techniques.

[Anonymous No.6155408]

>>6154841
holy shit you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6155411]

>>6155404

I mean as a drawing, like your first posts.

[Anonymous No.6155417]

finally some interesting discussion on this board
you have earned one Craig Ferguson for your ideas OP

[Anonymous No.6155427]

You'd have a better argument if you were saying that the slit was bending the light.

[Anonymous No.6155440]

Complete bollocks. As people have said you have very selectively drawn rays, the appearance of fringes is bad drawing not theory. You get double slit interference with parallel rays which your idea doesn't describe.

[Anonymous No.6155506]

>>6155440
Correct, my idea does not describe interference in this way. But assuming 99% of the rays are in phase and parallel then it would work. I invite you to draw the rays yourself, the interference will become obvious around to 50 000 mark.

[Anonymous No.6155698]

>>6155506
No. It wouldn't work. This is what you get without interference:
>>6154976

[Anonymous No.6155705]

OP, I've notified the Committee. Expect yours in mail next week. This is the breakthrough of the millenium!

[Anonymous No.6155842]

>>6155705
quit exaggerating, this is not Nobel worthy, but definitely how I'm going to understand this experiment from now on. It's a decent interpretation.

[Anonymous No.6155860]

>>6155842
>how I'm going to understand this experiment from now on.
lmao

>It's a decent interpretation

LMAO!!!

[Anonymous No.6155876]

>>6155860
I started laughing once he recommended we draw 50,000 lines in order to see the pattern

[Anonymous No.6155899]

>>6155876
lol yeah rigorous proofs are entertaining. But this can be done with fairly simple math, just develop the tools you need to understand on your own.

[Anonymous No.6155904]

>>6155876
I'm pretty sure this was sarcasm for the trolls, I got interference pattern results after only 9500!

[Anonymous No.6155923]

>>6154841
OP this is some good shit. Publish this before one of the lurkers actually sees the value in this...like me for example.

[Anonymous No.6156053]

>>6155842
wow, you missed the sarcasm and the retardation.

[Anonymous No.6156195]

>>6155842
>quit exaggerating, this is not Nobel worthy, but definitely how I'm going to understand this experiment from now on. It's a decent interpretation.

What are you talking about? Nobel Committee has checked out this thread and they loved it. Please send them you name & mailing information so they can send you the medal.