Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



one photon slit experiment

2000 seperate one photon double split experiments
  [vote for,

Because the EM field carries/is the photon and is not separated then, this says to me, that the edge of the photon decays away into the EM field below our measurement capability. Below this line anything can be happening.

So with a standard setup photons are fired one after another at the slits. This seems to me that the EM field may have artifacts, a below measurement wake from previous firings.

So how about 2000 same setup slit experiments, all around the world, where the test bed is turned on, one photon fired, single result recorded and sent for stitching together at a reputable Institution.

No EM field wake anomaly possibility.

wjt, Oct 09 2021

for [sninctown] https://xkcd.com/298/
[pertinax, Oct 10 2021]

First photo of light as both particle and wave. https://earthsky.or...JdxEMVZ5yHJAN45QGes
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 10 2021]


       Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but what result do you expect and what does the anticipated result prove?
xenzag, Oct 09 2021

       as far as i can tell, shining a single photon light source at a double slit would produce an interference pattern in the detected photons.   

       presumably, doing this experiment as described (2000 separate double slit experiments running 1 photon each) would produce the same result as doing this experiment the normal way (1 double slit setup running 2000 photons). the diffraction pattern can be calculated using wave mechanics, as a probability of finding a photon in each area. the particle physicists or people who have taken a quantum electrodynamics course might have a better explanation for you. i believe each photon is described by a set of (complex-valued, quantized) probability amplitudes for all possible locations of that photon, which can interfere with each other to produce a (real-valued, quantized) probability of detecting the photon at each location on the detector (e.g. photographic plate). No wake or other artifact is needed to explain this. However, there is no harm in doing the experiment you propose. I would predict that a wave equation would describe the resulting diffraction pattern either way.   

       A current research topic in physics is where mass comes from. The LHC is trying to measure Higgs bosons, to verify a theory about the Higgs field and where mass comes from. Another research topic is plasma wake field acceleration, which i vaguely recall is something to do with creating high voltages in a plasma to accelerate particles.   

       [] since i see no mention of cats in this idea.
sninctown, Oct 09 2021

       I still fail to see what is expected to be proved or not proved regardless of the result. The fact will still remain that the action of observing and measuring the result becomes part of generating the result. The wave form still collapses. The photons will know what you're up to in all versions of the double slit.
xenzag, Oct 09 2021

       [wjt] theory is that interference fringes might result from a "wake" left behind previous photons, not from self- interference of a single photon. Since pretty much all observations of interference fringes use many photons, seems possible to [wjt] that the interference that people are actually observing is between a photon and subsequent photons, not self-interference of probability amplitudes for a single photon.   

       The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment seems to contradict [wjt]'s theory: a single photon can interfere with itself, or not interfere with itself, depending on whether or not the two beam paths recombine, not depending on where the photon was last time. But it's good to confirm things experimentally if only to check one's math.
sninctown, Oct 09 2021

       This is just a conspiracy by people who believe in wave-particle physics to push their interference agenda on us all…
RayfordSteele, Oct 09 2021

       Could run the experiment just once and run bets on the outcome. Enough bets should demonstrate an interference pattern, thus proving that gamblers and bookies are something.
pocmloc, Oct 09 2021

       [xenxag] I want to check that there is not something happen between subsequent photons via the EM field. In theory, this experiment an the normal slit experiment should be the same but if the pattern worked out slightly different then it would indicate more knowledge is needed on the substance mechanism of charge-magnetic stuff and the current very accurate mathematical EM field description.   

       With the quantum eraser, this line would check a pair of entangled photons are not linked with the previous pair via an unseen EM field mechanic.
wjt, Oct 09 2021

       Sometimes I worry that the Universe is only pretending to be running per mathematical rules, and actually runs on something else, like narrative cliches.
sninctown, Oct 10 2021

       See link, [sninc].
pertinax, Oct 10 2021

sninctown, Oct 10 2021

       I was reading an interesting article about this very subject this morning. [link]   

       ^Light in a material filled EM field. Is that lazer pulse one photon interacting with itself as a standing wave or a series of trapped photons? Still a composite of electron snapshots. Just more questions. In the macro world, a single wave can look like a particle but a single particle can't look like a wave.
wjt, Oct 23 2021

       If you're interested in diffraction patterns, a good textbook is "Optics" by Hecht
sninctown, Oct 27 2021

       How we chortled as our Physics tutor would describe photons interfering with themselves to produce interference patterns.
DenholmRicshaw, Oct 27 2021

       Here's a simpler modification of this experiment that you can perform all by yourself: Send a single photon through a double slit setup and record the results. Cover one slit and send a beam of light (confirm no interference pattern). Cover the other slit and send a beam of light (confirm no interference). Send the next single photon with both slits open and record the result. Repeat until you have enough data to confirm whether or not there is an interference pattern for the single photons.   

       If you want to be really careful, I guess you could replace the two slit filter every time, though you'd need to be sure that you aren't messing up the interference pattern because of minute differences between the different filters or their placement.
scad mientist, Oct 29 2021

       True, stitching together the various teams of experiments might be a bit uncertain.   

       I did think about one photon a day, turning off all powered test bed equipment in between. Hopefully any time dimension effects are short lived enough to be avoided.
wjt, Oct 31 2021


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle