Re: Double Slit & Aharonov Bohm Effect



David wrote: 
RP wrote:

David wrote:

In volume II page 15-11 and 12 of Feynman Lectures of
Physics. Iron whiskers are mentioned as in:

"Precisely this experiment has recently been done. It is a very,
very difficult experiment. Because the wavelength of the
electrons is so small, the apparatus must be on a tiny scale
to observe the interference. The slits must be very close
together, and that means that one needs an exceedingly
small solenoid. It turns out that in certain circumstances,
iron crystals will grow in the form of very long,
microscopically thin filaments called whiskers. When
these iron whiskers are magnetized they are like a
tiny solenoid, and there is no field outside except
near the ends. The electron interference experiment
was done with such a whisker between two slits,
and the predicted displacement in the pattern of
electrons were observed".

Guys. Isn't it the official Aharonov Bohm experiment was
conducted in 1985. How could Feynman be mentioning
it in his 1964 book unless he was referring to another
experiment?. I thought 1985 was when it was first
experimentally confirmed. Can anyone all clarify this?


It's impossible to produce a contained alternating field.  Let me
explain the alternating part: Any passing electron will induce a
polarization of any material whatsoever, especially that located


within

the system, i.e. nearer the trajectory.  Look up "magnetron". The
presence and and subsequent absence of any body at all from the


system

constitutes a change in the system geometry, and a subsequent 

alteration

to the interference pattern.  The effect may be too small to measure
given some instances, but large enough to measure given others. The
presence of a polarized macroscopic field should certainly produce an



observable effect.

Recall that, in the thread to which the OP refers, I posited that 

the

em waves pass through everything, never being absorbed, but simply 

being

superposed over destructively by secondary radiation of the 

intercepted

charges, i.e. that radiation produced by their recoil. All of these
waves are spherical per Einstein's 1905 paper. Thus, though a field


may

be nulled by some means external to the coil, it is not nulled within


it, and the waves that I refer to pass through it, i.e. into the 

region

in which the field isn't nulled. Thus secondary radiation will  be
emitted by the particles within the coil as well, and one would
understandably expect this secondary radiation to influenced by the
internal field. IOW, the radiation due to the recoil of the charges
within the coil will by torqued in a manner similar to the torque
provided by a calcite filter.  Though the result of this influence


may

be difficult to account for in a quantitative fashion, it is
nevertheless an obvious general prediction of my model.

Richard Perry



Are you saying the electron wave pass thru anything? If it does,
then there should be no interference since the slits don't
exist in the path of the wave. But it does. If you put only one
slit, there is no interference pattern, putting a second one
gives the pattern. This means the wave doesn't just pass thru
the wall of the slit and into the inside of the solenoid and
got altered on its way to the detector. Anyway. Try to illustrate
your idea by some kind of drawing or diagram of how the wave
can regroup into a single particle. You know what. A wave function
concept as depicted by QM where the particle rides in it without
location and materializing upon hitting the detector with
the rule set by probability is more elegant and nice and is in
the tradition of entanglement, non-locality and all those Harry
Potter stuff :)

If you could in theory map out every path and every probability *in the real world* then the QM approach is not only equally as complicated as classical wave interference, but is essentially exactly the same theory, with the terms renamed and reinterpreted :) The probability wave is perfectly classical in its dynamics; why not just let the electron ride along a classical wave and be directed by the gradient that all of the em feedback lays out for it, following a geodesic, a curvature of space-time introduced by *charge*. Is there some particular reason that we cannot localize the electron in any instant? HUP, of course, but then this is a measurement problem, nothing more.

As for many of the problems encountered attempting such approaches in terms of em waves that carrying energy, or are considered to be energy, then I'll remind everyone that the em field is a field of force, it carries no energy except in potential, and it certainly isn't composed of energy. The em field exerts a force on a charge, and the energy gained by the charge can be quite negative wrt one frame but positive wrt another. Moreover the net energy *imparted* to a group of charges is proportional to the net charge. It is just this complication with the notion of em waves *having energy*, and with the insistence that energy is somehow actually moving as an independent form of matter one is lead to the preference of photons. OTOH, photons, as units of energy, are no more localizable than the energy within the em wave background, and thus there is no advantage to the photon approach in this regard, that is, wrt propagation and location. Both E and B are fields that *represent* energy, but only because they can cause a particle to gain energy. Geometry is the accountant. Moreover, both E and B are macroscopic fields, neither representing the field of the bare electron in any FoR.

The field (singular) imparts energy to a particle by forcing the particle rather than depositing energy on it, whatever that might mean. Photon theory is a step in the wrong direction as regards explanatory power, since the interaction between a photon and an electron is an impossibility in a physical sense. Are there yet other types of bosons mediating the exchange? "Turtles all the way down" is simply not acceptable. QM, as accurate as it may be in its domain, deals only with the probabilities of certain outcomes. It should refrain from its tendency toward solidifying its entities, in that the only things that one may apply the probabilities to are things that are themselves tangible rather than probabilities. They are the objects that the probabilities refer to, and these objects are not probably here or probably there, they are actually here or there. Possibility is literally just a measure of ones ignorance.

Classical em is somewhat incomplete, and this is the bottom line, but it isn't incapable.

Richard Perry

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
    ... You say that E=mc^2 violates law of conservation of energy, ... to emerge from this geometry, are said to be mini gyroscopes. ... electron was also a wave. ... Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Light
    ... While a traveling wave electro-magnetic wave does contain both an electric ... As Mr. Russel indicated light is only one form of EM energy. ... The wavelength is inversely proportional to the ... energy does not have to be driven by electron orbitals. ...
    (sci.engr.color)
  • Re: Zero Point Electron Orbit Stability?
    ... be, by definition, a perpetual motion system. ... An electron has mass and charge properties, ... finite energy level, may occupy. ... An electron is a wave and this is empirically demonstrated by applying ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
    ... not change its radius sensitibley depending on its energy uptake, ... if the energy capacity of old orbital electron ... questioned is to have radius of electron ring possible to emit ... standing wave forming ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Zero Point Electron Orbit Stability?
    ... be, by definition, a perpetual motion system. ... An electron has mass and charge properties, ... finite energy level, may occupy. ... An electron is a wave and this is empirically demonstrated by applying ...
    (sci.physics.particle)