Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)


"Benj" <bjacoby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1296e0d6-b1d7-4ec2-a06e-f80825c75321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 20, 4:15 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Summary

This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of
the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle.
Or
it may be some form of wave function.

But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is
a
reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation
has
nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.

Nice try Bill! Too bad your theory has a couple of holes in it.

I would be STUNNED if it inly had a couple of holes! But let's see about a
few of your points...

Here's why. First off, it is NOT any radiation that is interacting at
the detector to form the pattern. The reason is that one can use
various detectors instead of film. The rate and transfer time of
energy in say the photoelectric effect is such that WAVES or radiation
CANNOT be the mechanism!

TILT! Please remember that we are dealing with the same lab setup whether
we are studying light (where the anomoly was discovered) or electrons,
atoms, molecules and perhaps according to Fred) Bricks. So the detection
mechanism MUST be detecting radiation. (Unless you want to slide down the
slippery slope of saying that light passing through a slit changes into
particles. I'll be waiting at the bottow with the ambulance!)

The short transfer time demands a particle
effect of some kind. In other words what is happening would be the
DEFLECTION of the electrons after they leave the slit.

Agin, please recall that this works with radiation or with particles. You
don't get to pick one vs the other.

So to modify
your theory to conform to observations you have the electrons hurtling
toward the slits. They enter one of them and excite that "slot
antenna" as well as the second antenna as a "parasitic element". Then
the electron leaves it's slit and proceeds toward the detector. The
electron strikes the detector creating a flash at one point in space.

Yes, the electron will likely impact the detector. But as it passed through
the slit, some of its energy was lost as it induced Transition Radiation.
That Primary radiation does two things.

First, it radiates energy onto the plate.

Second, it interacts with the second slit/slot causing the second slot to
re-radiate energy.

Both of these radiation sources impact/interact at the plate.


BUT, "somehow" the radiation it induced in the slits can cause the
trajectory of the electron to be altered after it leaves the slit in
such a way that on average they tend to be deflected into angles that
result in a pattern corresponding to the traditional double slit
diffraction pattern.

No that's not what is happening. The electron's trajectory is not severely
influenced. The primary pattern is radiation caused. The secondary pattern
is the electron(s) splatting into the plate.

While the "slot antenna" idea is a good one, as is the idea of the
second slit being a parasitic element to the driven slit, there are I
believe two problems with that. One is that the characteristics of the
slot antenna depends on the material from which it is made. Metal or
plastic (conductor or insulator) makes a difference.

I agree. I am ASSUMING that in all these experiments, the slit was in metal.
(After all, at least the vacuum and atom/molecule tests must be done in
vacuum. And outgassing from plastics would destroy the integrity.)

Does anyone KNOW whether the slot material was metal???
In diffraction it
only need be opaque. Plus causality demands a time delay between the
driven element and the parasitic one. This means that the pattern
with an electron going through the right slit will be different from
the pattern with the electron going through the left slit.

Yes. But the experiments I have read about seem to be quite physically
symmetrical. Also, what I have seen from the somewhat fuzzy blob-patterns
that have been published seems to suggest that the patterns are not
IDENTICAL -- just very similar.

Finally we have the problem of the experiment working not only with
electrons (which are traditionally used to drive antennas) but also
the experiment also works with molecules, neutrons and photons which
are electrically neutral. So this means one has to explain how
neutral currents can drive an aperture antenna.

Yes. This is a good point. WRT light waves/photons, there is a huge amount
of lore associated with what happens when light waves graze an edge --
whether the edge is metal or dielectric -- and go off at an odd angle. We
even see this happening at UHF/VHF frequencies when radio waves graze the
top of a mountain. Re-radiation is the key there-- even though the mountain
is not a conducter.

WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help but
wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of charge???

But the bottom line, however, is that you've got the thinking started
in what I believe to be the correct direction. Namely, to say "Well,
just how COULD these experimental results arise from the physics we
know?" rather than the usual approach of just throwing up one's hands
and saying "It simply can never be known!".

YEAH! I used slot antennas and arrays as a model because these items
generate patterns that are a LOT like the patterns associated with double
slits. I'll be perfectly happy with an alternate coupling method between the
slots. But it seems very logical that the slits are coupling to each other.
I like that idea a LOT better than sentient particles and intelligent
seeing-eye waves!

Bill

Benj


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
    ... "In the double-slit experiment, light is shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. ... Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands parallel to it on each side. ... Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is photographic plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation, let's look at where that radiation might come from. ... I believe the way an electron experiment is done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that is recorded. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: Two-slit experiment
    ... electron) at a wall that contains two slits will result in an interference ... pattern on the wall beyond the holes. ... A double slit pattern is not the sum of two single slit patterns. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Two-slit experiment
    ... Quick review of what I believe I know: Shooting a single photon (or ... A series of single photons will build up a pattern similar to that seen ... detecting which of the two holes the electron passes through ... in the case where one determines through which slit each ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... There's nothing there at all about a double slit experiment ... A single electron is not entangled with another, ... 1.TURN OFF THE ELECTRON DETECTORS AT THE SLITS. ... An individual photon passing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
    ... Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a ... let's look at where that radiation might come from. ... I believe the way an electron experiment is done is ... An electron is also a wave. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
Loading