Double Slit Experiment

[Abstruce]

Hello I've got a question

 

In the electron slit experiment:

Electrons are fired one at a time through a double slit. An interference pattern appears after some time.

 

Now if I fire an electron, point particle, I'd fire it straight at the centre of the double slit. None would get through that piece of cardboard! It seems to me that uncertainty to the electron's movement would perhaps be determined by the firing device?

 

Oh well, I'm sure the scientists thought of that :hyper:

 

 

Uncertainty to the electron's movement is the result of the space the electron traverses.

 

The closer to the target the more accurate the gun. Even the empty space in a vacuum possess energy fields. These fields effect the path of the electron.

 

The only uncertainty with the path of the electron is our ability to calculate what we can not detect.

[Qfwfq]

Now if I fire an electron, point particle, I'd fire it straight at the centre of the double slit. None would get through that piece of cardboard! It seems to me that uncertainty to the electron's movement would perhaps be determined by the firing device?

I think that, to understand the matter better, you should look up a good, detailed outline of Young's two-slit experiment which shows the effect of diffraction and interference as an optical phenomenon. For the meaning of diffraction of waves you could lookup Huygens. Understanding these things comes before the issues of quantum mechanics.

 

It's essential for the two slits to be illuminated by a monochromatic source and in such a way that they act as sources in a definite phase relation with each other, so the source must aim at an area that comprises both slits. It's obvious that only what goes through the slits contributes to the final pattern.

[InfiniteNow]

It's obvious that only what goes through the slits contributes to the final pattern.

I pretty much agree, but to play devil's advocate here, we really do not know that... QM is very strange indeed.

[Qfwfq]

I know indeed how strange QM is but :hihi: it's easy to argue against the devil's advocate if we're not condidering the material to be incompletely opaque. Focus the initial beam off the slits like Repeater suggested. Or, decrease the area of the slits by a variable amount. Change the shape of them. As long as the source is good enough for the purpose, the resulting pattern will always match up with the predictions of optics.

[Abstruce]

I pretty much agree, but to play devil's advocate here, we really do not know that... QM is very strange indeed.

 

We also know mass and electromagnetic fields distorts the fabric of space.

 

If the distortion is similar to hydrodynamics, this may solve the problem.

[Qfwfq]

In what way "similar to hydrodynamics"? If you want to know the details, you could look up gauge symmetry and how it describes the forces.

[Abstruce]

In what way "similar to hydrodynamics"? If you want to know the details, you could look up gauge symmetry and how it describes the forces.

 

The gauge theory, accurately describes experimental predictions regarding three of the four fundamental forces of nature.

 

Gravitational forces along with the other three fundamental forces all effect each other.

 

The motion and fluctuates of these fundamental forces are what may prove similar to hydrodynamics. Because these forces effect the trajectory of the particulate matter in the double slit experiment, this may account for the chaos in the experiment.

[Qfwfq]

The gauge theory, accurately describes experimental predictions regarding three of the four fundamental forces of nature.

 

Gravitational forces along with the other three fundamental forces all effect each other.

I'm not sure which three of the four you mean but they are all described as a gauge field.

 

The motion and fluctuates of these fundamental forces are what may prove similar to hydrodynamics. Because these forces effect the trajectory of the particulate matter in the double slit experiment, this may account for the chaos in the experiment.

Gauge symmetry is used in quantum field theory so I don't see how you would explain the oddities of QM with it.

[Abstruce]

I'm not sure which three of the four you mean but they are all described as a gauge field.

 

Electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction are the three I was referencing.

 

Being, Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, are all the force of one Source, (Not yet recognized by science) they are all Gravitational forces.

 

This is why Gluons are not proven to be factual.

 

I am referring to interactions of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational forces.

 

Gauge symmetry is used in quantum field theory so I don't see how you would explain the oddities of QM with it.

 

How can one gauge what is not proven? i.e. Gluons.

 

And I am not sure Gauge Symmetry allows for fluctuating fields.

 

As Quantum chromo dynamics is similar to Hydrodynamics, here we are working current within a medium.

[Qfwfq]

If you want to know more, try studying Itzykson-Zuber and Ramond, these are two of the best texts around.

[Dyothelite]

This is knda cheesy and I posted it in another thread but thought you might like it:

 

Qedit: ...so I link to it instead of duplicating a post (see rules).

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/5527-can-astrology-have-scientific-basis-post144134.html

 

If you try to predict the outcome of a double-slit event, the future will be determined by the act of observation.

 

I'll admit its a little hokey but I kinda like the analogy

[Abstruce]

This makes sense when you consider that a “conscious observer” such as a human being is, in a quantum mechanical sense, merely a large ensemble of interacting particles. Other ensembles – a large rock, for instance – are as capable of causing decoherence as a human observer is.

 

Simplify;

 

Everything is Energy (E) in different states. Different states of E, react differently with other states of the same E, the only constant is change.

 

JQ