Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement
- From: RP <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:28:43 -0600
bz wrote:
RP <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:3b0uh8F6a2ujuU1 @individual.net:
When the two slits are opened, the waves interfere constructively at the maximum, i.e. the amplitude is doubled. In wave mechanics however, a doubling of the amplitude means a quadrupling of the energy. Destructive interference is taking place at the minima. The count is thus directly proportional to the wave energy, exactly as I stated in an earlier post. To wit, "the probability of a transition is greater where the energy is greater."
count is count. The energy of each these photons is h nu. Since they are from a laser, or a band pass filter, they are all the same energy.
If the beam is attenuated to drop the count rate in half, and the clock times are doubled, the counts do not change. If you change the frequency of the laser (and thus the wave length and energy) the counts don't change, the interference bands just shift (spacing between them changes).
If you attenuate the beam by 10 and increase the clock times by 10, the counts do not change.
How can waves that arrive at widely separated times add togther in amplitude?
You, like your QM predecessors, are begging the question. You are assuming that the transitions are caused by point particles striking the detector. Then you are assuming, simply because you have calculated it to be so, that only one of these is passing to the detector at a time. I'm relating to you that it's a sequence of waves, and the number of them may indeed be finite and countable, but you're going to need a different experiment to count them because what you are counting in these interference experiments are transitions within the detector, and these in turn are proportional to the wave energy incident on a given area, on average. You provided the empirical evidence of this yourself, in the link that you gave. And then you seemed to stick your head in the sand when confronted with the fact that the count goes up doubly from what is expected when both slits are opened. Where did these extra photons come from bz? Where did your one-to-one correspondence suddenly go?
I find it ironic that the article is selling a device for counting photons, and in it's sales pitch it states matter-of-factly that there is a paradox presented when attempting this endeavor.
It is no accident that I was able to provide the solution to the so-called "quantum paradox" in two sentences. I have thought this thing out, and the empirical evidence is always taken as my initial premise in any argument, unless of course on those occasions when I have obtained faulty data. This isn't the case in this argument however, since you provided that data, and I think most of the world would agree that the data is correct. It is my model that fits that data however, while yours doesn't. It is also my model that is consistent with Minkowski spacetime, while yours isn't. It is also my model that maintains superposition, while yours doesn't. And last but not least, it is my model that is derived, whilst yours is contrived. The probability is that of the atom transitions, not of the wave to pass though it. The wave is destined to pass through *everything* in time; it expands spherically, and is unabated in its travels.
In the Minkowski context however, there isn't even a wave, the so-called absorption of energy from the field is itself just a transfer of fermion energy directly through spacetime. The 3D-plus-time waves thus have no intrinsic energy, because in reality they don't even exist. Back in 3D space of our experience, global conservation of energy is due to the fact that a constructive interference between two spherical waves at point p, is accompanied by a destructive interference of the same waves at p'. Thus energy "appears" to propagate instantly from one area of space to another. It's just geometry though, and the observed conservation of energy is perfect proof that the geometry is non-negotiable, i.e. there is no indeterminacy in nature. Feynman was simply mistaken in his notions, but ironically nobody new more than he did how very possible that might be.
Richard Perry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Apollo 13 Hoax???
- Next by Date: Re: Apollo 13 Hoax???
- Previous by thread: Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement
- Next by thread: Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
