Comments on: Two Slits Are Better Than One

By: Chris Bailey

Chris Bailey — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:30:23 +0000

I’d like to know what the time interval is between firing single particles during the two-slit experiment? Are they fired 1 every second, every 5 seconds? And what would happen if you fired one every hour (without taking a measurement) or every day? Would you still get the interference pattern?

I’m no physicist (quantum or otherwise) but I’d like to hear the opinions of those more qualified on a thought I had….

Could it be possible that a single particle is not interfering with itself, instead it is interfering with the wave function of the previous particle? So somehow the wave function of the previous particle exists even after the particle is absorbed upon reaching it’s destination (at least for a while, hence my question about time intervals between firing particles).

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:29:04 +0000

Young's experiment has now been carried out using a hydrogen molecule

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:32:29 +0000

Okay, we’ll wait to hear more from you once you’ve asserted your IP rights. As to the magnetic interference aspect of the double slit experiment, perhaps you could elaborate…

By: Adolf Erdmann

Adolf Erdmann — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:39:10 +0000

David,
The Lorentz contraction is only a theory as far as I know, there may acttually be more to it than that. At this time I cannot comment too much on the apparatus I described, since we have registered it recently with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and are waiting for confirmation. The instrument uses also a laser and beam splitter. If anyone is interested, we will share the construction plans once we have received the registration number.

On the subject of the experiment “Two Slits Are Better Than One” I like to say that it is not that controversial to me if we consider that an electron when moving creates a magnetic field around its path. Is it not possible that the interference wave pattern is produced somehow by the interference in the magnetic fields.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:15:07 +0000

Adolf, I am sure there are readers who will be able to spot any flaws in your argument. Superficially, it sounds like a reasonable thought experiment, but have you considered Lorenz contraction factors in your calculations on your cube moving at “high speed”? I assume by “high speed”, you mean a velocity close to the speed of light.

By: Adolf Erdmann

Adolf Erdmann — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:55:57 +0000

My brother and I have recently conducted some experiments in optics which you might find interesting. We found that the speed of an observer in relation to the speed of light can be measured by what is commonly known by astronomers as “stellar drift”.

The principle of the experiment is very simple and works as follows: Imagine you had a large cube on a rocket ship. On each corner of the cube you placed a light source of identical wavelength. If the observer (observing device) is exactly in the middle, the angle between any two lights would be 90 degrees when the space ship is not in motion. Now let’s assume the spaceship is moving at a high speed, the angle between the two lights in the front will be greater than 90 degrees, because the observer has moved from the position at which time the light signals left their sources. On the other hand, the angle between the two light in the back is now less than 90 degrees because the observer has moved farther away from those light sources. Even Einstein mentioned in his famous train experiment that the observer located in the middle of the train will see the front lightening of the forked lightening strike sooner.

You may say that there is nothing new about that effect, and that it is well known and therefore does not need to be proven. You may also what useful purpose does it have? The answer to that is that NASA will be able to measure the speed of rockets in outer space. Since we do not have a rocket at our disposal, we have used the speed of the earth around the sun by aiming the device forward or backward, and by taking readings, several times a day. And since, the angle difference is very small, we have used Young’s pinhole experiment to measure the shift in angle. It may seem very simple, but there are other factors to consider; not only do the angles between the light sources change, but also the angles at which the waves approach the observer. To illustrate the latter, let’s assume you are at one side of a fast flowing river, and a boat is crossing the river from the other side to meet you, you will see that the boat is approaching you in a straight line, but its front is facing upstream rather than you.

We have observed that there is a definite difference in the observed angles at different times of the day, or when the instrument is turned. But there are also unexplained changes in the angle occurring frequently. So far, we have not been able to come up with an exact measurement of the earth motion. All we can say at this point is that the instrument shows that the earth moves.

Sincerely,
Adolf Erdmann

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:10:03 +0000

In related news – Physicists at the University of Michigan have coaxed two separate atoms to communicate with a sort of quantum intuition that Albert Einstein called “spooky.” In doing so, the researchers have made an advance toward super-fast quantum computing. The research could also be a building block for a quantum internet.

SOURCE: UMich via Newswise

By: Howard Wiseman

Howard Wiseman — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:31:39 +0000

To answer Wayne’s latest question, the short answer is no: in the absence of the particle the wave leaves no impression. That fails to capture all the subtlety of quantum physics, but basically if a detector *doesn’t* detect a particle, that means it doesn’t detect anything. It just the collapses the wave, to a new wave which has *zero amplitude* wherever the detector is. In the case of the slits, that means that if the particle is not absorbed by the card, the wavefunction is collapsed to a new wavefunction that is zero everywhere except where the slits are. This is the initial wavefunction that is assumed at the start of the experiment. If that seems weird, well, that’s quantum mechanics.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:39:45 +0000

Tony, it’s an interesting thought, but I think there is a world of difference between electrons being fired through a hole in a sheet of lithium metal and the behaviour of dissolved lithium ions in the human brain. If anything, wouldn’t you think that adding lithium to a schizophrenic brain would produce two signals from one and so actually make those double entry thought occur? Incidentally, I found nothing on this Googling and no entries for the terms “lithium schizophrenia quantum” on PubMed. Anyone else have references to support Tony’s suggestion.

By: tony

tony — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:02:11 +0000

This is a little off topic. Reading this reminded me of an article i read in The Economist, around 1980-83. The article was about Quantum Physics. One experiment that was discussed has stuck with me. Here it is. I hope i remember it properly. Everything in our world is made up of atoms, electrons, protons etc. The scientists took one sheet of pure lithium. The sheet had one tiny hole in it. One electron was shot through the hole and two came out. From what i remember, the two were not simply one cut in half, but two complete electrons. This is one interesting theory came from the experiment. People who are schizophrenic see and hear things that are not there. These people are often treated with Lithium to control their condition; so they don’t hear or see these “imaginary” things. The theory that was postulated was, what if one of the electrons was from “our world/dimension” and the other was from a “dimension/world” the people with schizophrenia see. Are these people really imagining these things or are they real, only to be seen/heard by them? I hope i remembered this correctly, i hate to sound stupid. :) Any comments?