1 "Stonelock" 
The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  maandag 22 april 2002 20:56 
2 "Bob Kolker" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  maandag 22 april 2002 21:49 
3 "Neverend" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  maandag 22 april 2002 22:04 
4 "Old Man" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  maandag 22 april 2002 22:40 
5 "greysky" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  dinsdag 23 april 2002 6:48 
6 "Ed Keane III" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  dinsdag 23 april 2002 16:57 
7 "Stonelock" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  woensdag 24 april 2002 2:00 
8 "Ed Keane III" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  woensdag 24 april 2002 17:39 
9 "Nicolaas Vroom" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  vrijdag 26 april 2002 14:39 
10 "Stonelock" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  zaterdag 27 april 2002 14:18 
11 "Ed Keane III" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  zondag 28 april 2002 4:01 
12 "Richard" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  zondag 28 april 2002 4:21 
13 "greysky" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  dinsdag 30 april 2002 3:31 
14 "Nicolaas Vroom" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  dinsdag 30 april 2002 14:36 
15 "greysky" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  woensdag 1 mei 2002 6:17 
16 "Nicolaas Vroom" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  woensdag 1 mei 2002 11:30 
17 "greysky" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  donderdag 2 mei 2002 2:29 
18 "Nicolaas Vroom" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  donderdag 2 mei 2002 10:26 
19 "greysky" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  vrijdag 3 mei 2002 1:27 
20 "Nicolaas Vroom" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  vrijdag 3 mei 2002 17:37 
21 "Ed Keane III" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  vrijdag 3 mei 2002 18:37 
22 "Nicolaas Vroom" 
Re: The double slit experiment proves that light is not a wave but a particle  zaterdag 4 mei 2002 12:26 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together.
Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result?
StoneLock
> 
Doesn't this make sense? Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
Unless the photon went through both slits at once.
Or perhaps there is a Pilot Wave, as Bohm supposes.
Bob Kolker
Stonelock
> 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
Correct, this suggests that a photon doesn't have to interact with another photon in order to produce the pattern. This doesn't, however, prove that the photon is a particle. In fact, this suggests that it is indeed a wave. The pattern on the screen is produced by the wave constructively and destructively interfering with itself (heh, heh). There is no satisfactory explanation for this effect in only particle terms.
Turns out all particles can also behave as waves. Cool eh?
Nev.
Stonelock
> 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? StoneLock 
The two slit experiment and the wave nature of light are adequately explained by classical electrodynamics. The particle nature of light or photons are demonstrated by phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering. [Old Man]
"Bob Kolker"
> 
Stonelock wrote: 
> > 
Doesn't this make sense? Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> 
Unless the photon went through both slits at once. Or perhaps there is a Pilot Wave, as Bohm supposes. 
The electron in transit is a complex wave. The determination of whether the electron goes through a slit or not is solely determined by probability. Once the electron collapses, an imaginary probability wave is left over, along with a detected event ( a particle). Imaginary probabilities can self interact to produce virtual electrons which mimic the information in the complex wave. Since it's the probability of the electron passing through either slit that interacts, there is no need for a pilot wave  and this is just as valid for a single electron as for many particles.
Greysky
Stonelock
> 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
It does make some sense to attach such a meaning to the apparent fact that photons interfere with themselves and not each other. If I understand your question. If you are not bothered by the idea of the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as well as space in order to cause off center interference?
The photoelectric effect and Compton scattering are usually considered to be the best support of the particle definition.
"Ed Keane III"
> 
Stonelock 
> > 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> 
It does make some sense to attach such a meaning to the apparent fact that photons interfere with themselves and not each other. 
Actually, I meant that they do not interact with other photons nor with themselves but are simply particles (double particles) deflected at different angles according to the proximity of the slits (if we consider the infinitessimal distance at which the slits are from one another). Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit.
>  If I understand your question. If you are not bothered by the idea of the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as well as space in order to cause off center interference? 
Why complicate matters when it can be explained simply though? dots are observed over a period of time on the collision surface, not interference patterns. What happens is that the whole process eventually ends up producing the "interference" patterns when the myriad of luminescent dots seem to have merged, lost in the multitude of dots.
StoneLock
Stonelock
> 
"Ed Keane III" 
> > 
Stonelock 
> > >  Doesn't this make sense? 
> 
Actually, I meant that they do not interact with other photons nor with themselves but are simply particles (double particles) deflected at different angles according to the proximity of the slits (if we consider the infinitessimal distance at which the slits are from one another). 
Your analysis could be correct except for this point. The width of the slits needs to be as small as the wavelength. It makes no difference how far apart the slits are.
>  Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit. 
Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or absorbing.
> >  If you are not bothered by the idea of the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as well as space in order to cause off center interference? 
> 
Why complicate matters when it can be explained simply though? dots are observed over a period of time on the collision surface, not interference patterns. What happens is that the whole process eventually ends up producing the "interference" patterns when the myriad of luminescent dots seem to have merged, lost in the multitude of dots. 
Are you saying that if you shine the light bright enough to see it only looks like an interference pattern? Sorry just kidding. I think that what you are saying is that an effect other than interference is responsible for the pattern.
The mystery of this experiment usually ends up with questions about how the photon/electron or emitter could *know* whether the slit that it is not going through is either open or closed. That is *if* you assume that it can only go through one.
The point that I tried to make earlier is that if one wanted to think of the photon as two particles going through two slits (that are far enough apart for the following to be meaningful) that somehow recombine you must explain the difference of the distances that they travel in order to produce any off center pattern.
"Bob Kolker"
> 
Stonelock wrote: 
> > 
Doesn't this make sense? Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> 
Unless the photon went through both slits at once. 
The most sensible answer is that each single photon (assuming there is an interference pattern) goes through both slits. A single photon is nothing more than a packet of energy.
The fact that you can count photons (packets) is not in conflict with that interpretation, because that is in reality the only thing that you can do with single photons.
The following url: "Particle or wave" contains a very nice
demonstration about the two slit experiment.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005775/Theory/particle_or_wave.html
Select : See the two slit experiment.
This demonstration shows what is observed when resp.:
balls, light (many photons) and single electrons go through
a single or double slit.
Unfortunate it does not contain a demonstration what is
observed (how) when single photons go through a double slit.
> 
Or perhaps there is a Pilot Wave, as Bohm supposes.
Bob Kolker 
Nick Http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
"Ed Keane III"
> 
Stonelock 
> > 
"Ed Keane III" 
> > > 
Stonelock 
> > > >  Doesn't this make sense? 
> > 
Actually, I meant that they do not interact with other photons nor with themselves but are simply particles (double particles) deflected at different angles according to the proximity of the slits (if we consider the infinitessimal distance at which the slits are from one another). 
> 
Your analysis could be correct except for this point. The width of the slits needs to be as small as the wavelength. 
Yes, but that is a given.
>  It makes no difference how far apart the slits are. 
So what you are telling me is that the interference pattern aren't differen't weather the slits a a few nanometers, inches, or meters apart?
> >  Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit. 
> 
Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or absorbing. 
Why should it not? If it is considered a particles (double particle), and since all particles in this universe are charged, why shouldnt it interact with matter?
> > >  If you are not bothered by the idea of the interference pattern implying an effect involving both slits have you thought about the need for the effect to be extended in time as well as space in order to cause off center interference? 
> > 
Why complicate matters when it can be explained simply though? dots are observed over a period of time on the collision surface, not interference patterns. What happens is that the whole process eventually ends up producing the "interference" patterns when the myriad of luminescent dots seem to have merged, lost in the multitude of dots. 
> 
Are you saying that if you shine the light bright enough to see it only looks like an interference pattern? Sorry just kidding. 
Wah!! Horrible :).
>  I think that what you are saying is that an effect other than interference is responsible for the pattern. 
Yes, exactly
>  The mystery of this experiment usually ends up with questions about how the photon/electron or emitter could *know* whether the slit that it is not going through is either open or closed. That is *if* you assume that it can only go through one. 
But the idea is that nothing is known, but as I said, a 'gap' (the slit) that is right next to the slit in which the photon goes through MUST have an influence on the behavior of the photon, causing it to very specifically deviate according to certain angles only.
>  The point that I tried to make earlier is that if one wanted to think of the photon as two particles going through two slits (that are far enough apart for the following to be meaningful) that somehow recombine you must explain the difference of the distances that they travel in order to produce any off center pattern. 
Not 2 particles(photons) passing through 2 slits, but 1 pulsating structure constituted of 2 particles passing through 1 slit, and the explanation is right above :).
StoneLock
Stonelock
> 
"Ed Keane III" 
> > 
Stonelock 
> > > 
"Ed Keane III" 
> > > > 
Stonelock 
> > > > >  Doesn't this make sense? 
> > 
It makes no difference how far apart the slits are. 
> 
So what you are telling me is that the interference pattern aren't differen't weather the slits a a few nanometers, inches, or meters apart? 
You can put them far enough apart and only open both at the same time for such a brief moment that the information that there is or isn't another slit would have to travel at faster than the speed of light.
> >  Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons 
> > >  at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit. 
> > 
The double slit can be replaced by a beam splitter, which is basically an angled mirror with 50% transparency. You get a photon at either one output or the other if you look at them individually and an interference pattern if you combine them.
> >  Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or absorbing. 
> 
Why should it not? If it is considered a particles (double particle), and since all particles in this universe are charged, why shouldnt it interact with matter? 
A lot of particle mass, neutrons, is not charged. I don't know if that matters to your idea. Photons are definitly not charged.
>  But the idea is that nothing is known, but as I said, a 'gap' (the slit) that is right next to the slit in which the photon goes through MUST have an influence on the behavior of the photon, causing it to very specifically deviate according to certain angles only. 
But for that to be the case it has been demonstrated that such an influence must be exerted from the one gap to the other at faster than the speed of light.
Ed Keane III wrote in message:
> 
Stonelock 
> > 
"Ed Keane III" 
> > > 
Stonelock 
> > > > 
"Ed Keane III" 
> > > > > 
Stonelock 
> > > > > >  Doesn't this make sense? 
> > > 
It makes no difference how far apart the slits are. 
> > 
So what you are telling me is that the interference pattern aren't differen't weather the slits a a few nanometers, inches, or meters apart? 
> 
You can put them far enough apart and only open both at the same time for such a brief moment that the information that there is or isn't another slit would have to travel at faster than the speed of light. 
> > > 
Considering also that matter strongly interacts with photons 
> > > >  at close proximity, I see a 'gap' in the 'uniform surface' right next to the slit by which the photon passes through as a very important disturbance factor that allows for the photons to be deviated only at specific angles depending on where the photon passes in the slit. 
> > > 
> 
The double slit can be replaced by a beam splitter, which is basically an angled mirror with 50% transparency. You get a photon at either one output or the other if you look at them individually and an interference pattern if you combine them. 
> > > 
Besides the point that the gap need not be right next to the slit matter does not interact with photons, except of course for scattering or absorbing. 
> > 
Why should it not? If it is considered a particles (double particle), and since all particles in this universe are charged, why shouldnt it interact with matter? 
> 
A lot of particle mass, neutrons, is not charged. I don't know if that matters to your idea. Photons are definitly not charged. 
> > 
But the idea is that nothing is known, but as I said, a 'gap' (the slit) that is right next to the slit in which the photon goes through MUST have an influence on the behavior of the photon, causing it to very specifically deviate according to certain angles only. 
> 
But for that to be the case it has been demonstrated that such an influence must be exerted from the one gap to the other at faster than the speed of light. 
The photon is a wave, get over it and move on.

Richard Perry
Electromagnetism: First Principles
(A correct variation of the Weber/Gauss synthesis,
derived from what else? First Principles, i.e. from the empirical
evidence.)
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
htm. and pdf. versions
"Stonelock"
> 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of going through either slit. The probability interferes with itself. Now, you can't see this interference pattern with only a single photon, but the pattern does emerge when enough photons are used. If you close off one slit, you loose the pattern because the photon has a 100% certainty of going through just one slit, unless it hits the slit material. Same can be said with matter waves. It's all in the probabilities .
"greysky"
> 
"Stonelock" 
> > 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> 
The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of going through either slit. 
To answer that question you have to describe the experiment that you perform
in great detail.
To perform an experiment with individual photons you start with a single
photon generator, no screen with slits
and a matrix of for example 100*100 CCD's
A single photon generator is a laser which generates single photons
such that each small time period only one CCD is activated.
For example you can have a single photon generator which creates
60 photons per minute which means that all the CCD's together are hit 60
times, the CCD's in the centre more often and CCD at the border not.
Next you place a screen with two slits in front of your matrix, you open
one slit (the left) and you count the number of hits in one minute.
This number can be 60.
When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through
the left slit.
Next you open the right slit only and you count the number of hits in 1 min.
This number can be 60.
When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through
the right slit.
Next you open both slits and you count the number of hits in 1 min.
This number will be 60.
When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through
both slits "in some way" because you observe an interference pattern
(dark light bands) compared with a normal distribution in the previous case.
The number of hits with a single slit can be less than zero. When you place a slit opposite the border of your matrix the number of hits will be zero.
>  The probability interferes with itself. 
>  Now, you can't see this interference pattern with only a single photon, but the pattern does emerge when enough photons are used. 
>  If you close off one slit, you loose the pattern because the photon has a 100% certainty of going through just one slit, unless it hits the slit material. 
What you should do is to make a screen with many slits
and open each slit one by one (and close all the others)
and count the hits per minute for each slit.
(if you have 100 slits than you should do it 100 times)
My prediction is that the total number of hits for
all the slits together is more than 60.
>  Same can be said with matter waves. It's all in the probabilities . 
The physical reality is not controlled by probabilities. Probabilities are part of the tools that describe the physical reality. The same with laws.
Nick
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
"Nicolaas Vroom"
> 
"greysky" 
> > 
"Stonelock" 
> > > 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> > 
The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of going through either slit. 
>  How do you know that ? How do you know that each single photon only goes through either the left or the right slit ? ie only goes through one particular slit ? 
In a slit experiment, no matter how many slits you have open, the total probability of the electron passing through a slit and being detected equals 100% *if* there has beeen a detected event at the CCD. Sticking to only 2 slits makes it easier to visualize, and the researcher can modify the probability by placing his photon emmitter on a perpindicular moving track. But say there is a 60% probability that the electron will pass through slit A, and a 40% probability it will pass through slit B, I am saying there is always going to be a 100% probability of the electron going through one of the slits if your detector has registered an event. It will always be 100%. If your electron hits the slit, say slit A, this information says nothing about the electron passing through slit B  the probability is still 40% even after the event. As far as the probability is concerned, it must always add up to 100% otherwise particles would not be stable. The 40% simply does not go away. In this regard, the electron will go through both slits at the same time whether an event is recorded or not. If the apparatus you are using is not disturbed, an interference pattern, determined by the probabilitiy you have set up for the photon, will develop after many hits are recorded. Even though the set up you describe is nice, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of moving particles.
> 
To answer that question you have to describe the experiment that you perform in great detail. To perform an experiment with individual photons you start with a single photon generator, no screen with slits and a matrix of for example 100*100 CCD's A single photon generator is a laser which generates single photons such that each small time period only one CCD is activated. For example you can have a single photon generator which creates 60 photons per minute which means that all the CCD's together are hit 60 times, the CCD's in the centre more often and CCD at the border not. Next you place a screen with two slits in front of your matrix, you open one slit (the left) and you count the number of hits in one minute. This number can be 60. When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through the left slit. Next you open the right slit only and you count the number of hits in 1 min. This number can be 60. When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through the right slit. Next you open both slits and you count the number of hits in 1 min. This number will be 60. When that is the case you know that each single photon goes through both slits "in some way" because you observe an interference pattern (dark light bands) compared with a normal distribution in the previous case. The number of hits with a single slit can be less than zero. When you place a slit opposite the border of your matrix the number of hits will be zero. 
> > 
The probability interferes with itself. 
>  Probablities can not interfere with itself. Photons can interfere with each other. Single photons can interfere with itself (A single photon is a package of energy that is observed/registerd as one separate hit/count at one CCD) 
> > 
Now, you can't see this interference pattern with only a single photon, but the pattern does emerge when enough photons are used. 
>  Correct 
> > 
If you close off one slit, you loose the pattern because the photon has a 100% certainty of going through just one slit, unless it hits the slit material. 
> 
When only one slit is open each photon can only go through one slit
but when you know that on average there are 60 photons generated
it does not mean that all 60 actual go through this slit.
There can be less than 60. Some will hit the screen.
What you should do is to make a screen with many slits and open each slit one by one (and close all the others) and count the hits per minute for each slit. (if you have 100 slits than you should do it 100 times) My prediction is that the total number of hits for all the slits together is more than 60. 
> > 
Same can be said with matter waves. It's all in the probabilities . 
> 
The physical reality is not controlled by probabilities. Probabilities are part of the tools that describe the physical reality. The same with laws. 
Greysky
"greysky"
> 
"Nicolaas Vroom" 
> > 
"greysky" 
> > > 
"Stonelock" 
> > > > 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> > > 
The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of going through either slit. 
> >  How do you know that ? How do you know that each single photon only goes through either the left or the right slit ? ie only goes through one particular slit ? 
> 
In a slit experiment, no matter how many slits you have open, the total probability of the electron passing through a slit and being detected equals 100% *if* there has beeen a detected event at the CCD. Sticking to only 2 slits makes it easier to visualize, and the researcher can modify the probability by placing his photon emmitter on a perpindicular moving track. But say there is a 60% probability that the electron will pass through slit A, and a 40% probability it will pass through slit B, 
1) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 100 3: 100 4: 100
That means that in this case "you" have measured always 100
counts / minute (in reality each value plus or minus 2)
2) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 40 3: 40 4: 40
That means when one slit is open you measure less hits
but when you open two slits the total number does not increase.
3) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
That means the number of hits when two slits is open
is equal to the sum of the single slits.
4) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100
Slight modification of reply #3
What is your reply ?
What are the true results of the experiment.
What are the facts.
Next we will calculate the probabilities,
but those probabilities are not the bare facts.
I do not know the answers because I have never performed those experiments, but in order to understand I want to hear them from someone who as actual done them. My quess is something like answer #2.
>  I am saying there is always going to be a 100% probability of the electron going through one of the slits if your detector has registered an event. It will always be 100%. If your electron hits the slit, say slit A, this information says nothing about the electron passing through slit B  the probability is still 40% even after the event. As far as the probability is concerned, it must always add up to 100% otherwise particles would not be stable. The 40% simply does not go away. In this regard, the electron will go through both slits at the same time whether an event is recorded or not. If the apparatus you are using is not disturbed, an interference pattern, determined by the probabilitiy you have set up for the photon, will develop after many hits are recorded. 
>  Even though the set up you describe is nice, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of moving particles. 
> >  The physical reality is not controlled by probabilities. Probabilities are part of the tools that describe the physical reality. The same with laws. 
> 
Physical reality is layer after layer of quantum probabilities made manifest. 
Based on this new reality (ie the bare results of your experiments) you can make a model of the past (undisturbed) reality.
Only by performing different experiments you have a chance to improve your model.
>  Our experience, what we call reality, is nothing more than this concept seen through our gross senses. Mathematical tools allow exploration of this fact, 
With Mathematical tools you can do two things:
1. Define your model.
(your model in principle can include probabilities)
2. Post process the measurements ie calculate averages
and probabilities.
(But those two probabilities do not reflect the same)
>  but probability itself is what it is exploring, not the other way around. 
>  Greysky 
Nick
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
"Nicolaas Vroom"
> 
"greysky" 
> > 
"Nicolaas Vroom" 
> > > 
"greysky" 
> > > > 
"Stonelock" 
> > > > > 
Doesn't this make sense?
Single photons are sent one at a time towards the double slit, but the same pattern emerges after some time than when the experience is conducted with billions of those same photons sent more or so together. Doesn't this imply that the observed pattern is not interphoton dependant since individual photons sent over a certain period of time give the same result? 
> > > > 
The reason an individual photon can create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment is because the photon has a certain probability of going through either slit. 
> > >  How do you know that ? How do you know that each single photon only goes through either the left or the right slit ? ie only goes through one particular slit ? 
> > 
In a slit experiment, no matter how many slits you have open, the total
probability of the electron passing through a slit and being detected
equals 100% *if* there has beeen a detected event at the CCD. Sticking to
only 2 slits makes it easier to visualize, and the researcher can modify the
probability by placing his photon emmitter on a perpindicular moving track. 
> 
Let us first discuss only single photons.
Please answer the following questions.
All the questions have a time period per minute
The two slits are of equal size. 1. Question with no screen in front of CCD matrix. How many single photons does your photon emitter generates per minute ? ie. How many counts (hits) are there in total. 2. Question with screen and only A slit open. How many hits are counted ? 3. Question with screen and only B slit open. How many hits are counted ? 4. Question with both A and B slit open: How many hits are counted
1) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 100 3: 100 4: 100 
This is correct, the CCD will detect all electrons because there is nothing impeding them. The probability is 100. This is your control setup.
> 
2) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 40 3: 40 4: 40 
With only one slit open, and the photon emmitter off axes (which doesn't help), for the photons going through the slit, the numbers are undefined because you have no way of knowing whether the photon is going to go through the slit to hit the detector. But, the probability is still 100. The photon will either hit the slit, or detector.
> 
3) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 That means the number of hits when two slits is open is equal to the sum of the single slits. 
4 doesn't have to be 100 necessairly. The probability of hits at the detector depends on just how many photons impact the slit material. This is random  it is undefined until the event is detected. But, even in the case where 4 = 0, #2 & #3 will still add up to 100 (in this case, all electrons have impacted the slit). In a time averaged system, the net probability of slit impact will yield values close to 60 for slit 1 and 40 for slit 2. Further, you can't really say more about the system unless you also include detectors at the slits themselves.
> 
4) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 
See above. BTW, where did #1 come from?
> 
What is your reply ? What are the true results of the experiment. What are the facts. Next we will calculate the probabilities, but those probabilities are not the bare facts. I do not know the answers because I have never performed those experiments, but in order to understand I want to hear them from someone who as actual done them. My quess is something like answer #2. 
> > 
I am saying there is
always going to be a 100% probability of the electron going through one of
the slits if your detector has registered an event.
It will always be 100%. 
>  The only thing what is true is that the interference pattern is a function (assuming both slits are open) of the size of the two slits and of the distance between the two slits The same for the number of hits. 
> > 
Even though the set up you describe is nice, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of moving particles. 
> 

> > > 
The physical reality is not controlled by probabilities. Probabilities are part of the tools that describe the physical reality. The same with laws. 
> > 
Physical reality is layer after layer of quantum probabilities made manifest. 
> 
The problem is when you perform any experiment
you modify the present/past reality
and you create a new reality.
Based on this new reality (ie the bare results of your experiments) you can make a model of the past (undisturbed) reality. Only by performing different experiments you have a chance to improve your model. 
You can't extrapolate back from any of the results you obtain. HUP doesn't allow this. The models you will develop will be classical in nature. All you can speak about is the results of your detection event for particles. Yes, you can set up the probability for photons passing through the slits, but it is dynamical, and not predictable in advance or retroactivly. This is why I limited myself to only discussing the probabilities,and not the actual outcome of the experiment.
> 
> > 
Our experience, what we call reality, is nothing more than this concept seen through our gross senses. Mathematical tools allow exploration of this fact, 
> 
With Mathematical tools you can do two things: 
> > 
but probability itself is what it is exploring, not the other way around. 
As I said, it is probability that will eventually create your interference pattern, not the photons themselves  they just provide the dot on your CCD, or photographic paper.
> 
> > 
Greysky 
> 
"greysky"
> 
"Nicolaas Vroom" 
> > 
Please answer the following questions.
All the questions have a time period per minute
The two slits are of equal size. 1) The following sequence of answers is possible: 1: 100 2: 100 3: 100 4: 100 That means that in this case "you" have measured always 100 counts / minute (in reality each value plus or minus 2) 
> 
This is correct, the CCD will detect all electrons because there is nothing impeding them. The probability is 100. This is your control setup. 
> > 
3) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 
> 
4 doesn't have to be 100 necessairly. 
> > 
4) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 
> 
See above. BTW, where did #1 come from? 
Because of this comment apparently my whole text
is not clear.
I tried to explain an experiment consisting of
4 parts (cases).
First no screen, screen with A slit, screen with B slit
screen with two slits.
In each of those cases for 1 minute single photons
are generated, emitted.
The question is how many hits are detected in each of
those cases.
I supllied 4 different possible scenarios.
They can all be wrong.
or maximum only one can right.
For example
you can say:
#1 is right but then #2, 3 and 4 are wrong.
You can not say:
#1 is right but #2 is also right when you make
the following assumptions.
You can say
All are wrong:
This is the answer: 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? 4 ?
My answer is #2 and #1,3 and 4 are wrong.
Remember all the values I used you should not take absolute but plus or minus 2. For example possibilty 3 is also
> > 
1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 1: 101 2: 59 3: 41 4: 101 1: 99 2: 61 3: 39 4: 98 
> > 
What is your reply ? 
Please answer my previous posting again. Either select one possible answer or make your scenario of counts.
Nick
"Nicolaas Vroom"
> 
"greysky" 
> > 
"Nicolaas Vroom" 
> > > 
Please answer the following questions.
All the questions have a time period per minute
The two slits are of equal size.
1) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 100 2: 100 3: 100 4: 100 
> > 
This is correct, the CCD will detect all electrons because there is nothing impeding them. The probability is 100. This is your control setup. 
> > > 
3) The following sequence of answers is possible: 1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 That means the number of hits when two slits is open is equal to the sum of the single slits. 
> > 
4 doesn't have to be 100 necessairly. 
> > > 
4) The following sequence of answers is possible:
1: 400 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 
> > 
See above. BTW, where did #1 come from? 
> 
Because of this comment apparently my whole text
is not clear.
I tried to explain an experiment consisting of
4 parts (cases).
First no screen, screen with A slit, screen with B slit
screen with two slits.
In each of those cases for 1 minute single photons
are generated, emitted.
The question is how many hits are detected in each of
those cases.
I supllied 4 different possible scenarios.
They can all be wrong.
or maximum only one can right.
For example My answer is #2 and #1,3 and 4 are wrong. Remember all the values I used you should not take absolute but plus or minus 2. For example possibilty 3 is also 
> > > 
1: 100 2: 60 3: 40 4: 100 1: 101 2: 59 3: 41 4: 101 1: 99 2: 61 3: 39 4: 98 What is your reply ? 
> 
Please answer my previous posting again. Either select one possible answer or make your scenario of counts. Nick 
I meant, for the case in question, where did you come up with a count of 400? Do you mean that 400 photons were emitted, but only 100 of them were detected, even though 60 of them passed through slit A and 40 of them passed through slit B? If so, this is most certainly not right. As far as the other scenarios go, all you can talk about is not the individual photon, but only the probability of which slit they passed through. If you start with 100 photons, then you must account for 100 photons, no matter where they wind up. So for 1 & 4 you get the same number 1: 100 2: 60 3:40 4: extrapolation back from the detection event to the slit is not possible as you would know 2 values absolutely for the same photon, and HUP will not allow this. If you see a dot appear on the photographic plate, you can't say "this photon came from slit A" Running the experiment in reverse will not give the same results for the same photon. All you can say is that all photons have been accounted for, not how they got where they are. Only the probabilities will add up, in which case #4 will be the same as #1.
Greysky
"greysky"
>  As far as the other scenarios go, all you can talk about is not the individual photon, but only the probability of which slit they passed through. 
I do not agree with you and or I do not understand your meaning of probability
The same with this previous posting you wrote:
>  As I said, it is probability that will eventually create your interference pattern, not the photons themselves  they just provide the dot on your CCD, or photographic paper. 
so lets start again.
First we do the experiment with no screen.
Suppose we run our single photon emitter for 5 min.
and we count 500 hits.
We clear all the CCD's
and we repeat this whole sequence again for 5 min.
now we get 502 hits.
The next time 498 hits.
Do you agree that such an outcome is feasible ?
Second we place in front of the CCD's a screen we two
slits but only the A slit is open.
Again we do the same as above for 5 minutes and count
the number of hits.
There is no change in the photon emitter.
The maximum number of hits that you can get is 500
(plus minus 5)
But IMO you get less because some photons will
not go through the A slit.
IMO the number is for example 300 (roughly)
We can repeat the whole and then IMO the following
outcome is feasible: 298, 302, 300, 299 etc.
What is your selection ?
Third we close both slits. The number of hits is zero. Agreed ?
Fourth we open only the B slit IMO the number of hits is again roughly 300
What is your selection ? Is it approx. the same as in step 2 ? If not please explain.
Fifth now we open both slits A and B
How many hits are there ?
Based on my selection there are roughly
4 posiblities:
300, 305, 400 and 500
500 is highly unlikely because that means
that all of a sudden all photons go through
the two slits which are very close together.
400 IMO is also unlikely.
My selection is 305 ie slightly more
as when only A or B is open.
If you assume that when only A is open you get 500 hits and when only B is open you get 500 hits than when both are open the only possibility is 500 hits.
What is your selection ?
As soon as when I know what your selection is (specific for the last question) we can discuss (in case both slits are open) if we can say something through which slit each photon goes and or if this a matter of probabilty.
Nick.
> 
Please answer the following questions. All the questions have a time period per minute. 
That's your problem. You are thinking about statistical mechanics. The length of time that it takes for an excited particle to emit a photon varies and can only be predicted with a certain probability. It was Einstein's application of the probabilistic half life used to calculate nuclear decay to photon emission that was the beginning of quantum mechanics. It is not possible to emit single photons at any exact time or rate.
>  How many single photons does your photon emitter generates per minute ? 
"Ed Keane III"
> 
Nicolaas Vroom 
> > 
Please answer the following questions. All the questions have a time period per minute. 
> 
That's your problem. You are thinking about statistical mechanics. 
>  The length of time that it takes for an excited particle to emit a photon varies and can only be predicted with a certain probability. 
Suppose you measure in 1 minute with no screen (slit) 120 hits.
Does that mean that in the next minute you also get 120 hits ?
We will both most probably say: no
A sequence like: 115, 123, 119, 121, 124 is more likely.
The same when if only slit A is open.
Suppose you answered on my 4 questions.
120, 120, 120, 120
Than my interpretation is:
It does not matter which slit is open, A, B or both,
on the average you will get 120 hits in one minute.
(that's why I wrote plus or minus 2)
My next question would be: Do you agree: that in case of no screen, only slit A is open and only slit B is open that the hits form a normal distrubition ? Do you agree: that when both slits are open that the hits form an interference pattern ?
My next question would be:
Which statement is true:
When two slits are open (and you observe
an interference pattern) each single photon
1. goes through either slit A or slit B.
2. goes through both slits.
3. goes through slit A but not true slit B.
4. ? (explain)
>  It was Einstein's application of the probabilistic half life used to calculate nuclear decay to photon emission that was the beginning of quantum mechanics. 
I doubt if you can calculate half life of nuclear decay. Half life of nuclear decay can only be established by observations and or experiments. Suppose that you have a certain quantity of a radio active element with a half life of 1 year I agree that you can not say which particular atom will decay and which one will not within 1 year. The only thing is, that you can predict, that 50% will decay within 1 year.
>  It is not possible to emit single photons at any exact time or rate. 
Nick
Back to my home page Contents of This Document