Mike Helland
Sep16-04, 07:09 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nOk, I want to recreate the double slit experiment in two different\nways:\n\n1. In my garage\n\nI\'ve done some reading, and I\'ve seen different specs for the\nexperiment. Is there a definitive specification for this experiment I\nshould be working from?\n\nWhat I really need to know is the distances involved. From the photon\nemitter to the wall, from the wall to the photomultiplier. Distance\nbetween the slits.\n\nI\'m also interested in whether or not the size of the wall is\nimportant. From what I know about QED (which is only pop-science\nstuff, whatever I read in Feynman\'s book "QED") it should be possible\nfor photons to go over or under the separater instead of through one\nof the slits. How does this effect the experiment, or is this\npossibility eliminated from the experiment by enclosing both the top\nand bottom of the wall?\n\n2. In my computer\n\nI\'ve written many many programs and I think I can write one for the\ndouble slit experiment that doesn\'t involve random number generation.\nBut I need to get an idea of the computer power I\'ll need.\n\nInstead of knowing distances, I need to know atom counts since I\nintend to create this model with no "hard-coded" features except for\nelectrons, protons, neutrons, and photons.\n\nHow thick in atoms/molecules does the wall have to be? How wide in\natoms/molecules is the distance between the two slits in the wall?\n\nIf anyone is interested, I\'m going to define this model with precisely\ndetermined particles. But despite the certainty of the model, when\nexperiments are performed in the model, the results of the experiments\nwill not demonstrate certainly known particle properties. I figure it\nis the results of the experiments that need to be consistent with\nscientific principles, not the model itself. Is that the correct\napproach?\n\n--\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ok, I want to recreate the double slit experiment in two different
ways:
1. In my garage
I've done some reading, and I've seen different specs for the
experiment. Is there a definitive specification for this experiment I
should be working from?
What I really need to know is the distances involved. From the photon
emitter to the wall, from the wall to the photomultiplier. Distance
between the slits.
I'm also interested in whether or not the size of the wall is
important. From what I know about QED (which is only pop-science
stuff, whatever I read in Feynman's book "QED") it should be possible
for photons to go over or under the separater instead of through one
of the slits. How does this effect the experiment, or is this
possibility eliminated from the experiment by enclosing both the top
and bottom of the wall?
2. In my computer
I've written many many programs and I think I can write one for the
double slit experiment that doesn't involve random number generation.
But I need to get an idea of the computer power I'll need.
Instead of knowing distances, I need to know atom counts since I
intend to create this model with no "hard-coded" features except for
electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons.
How thick in atoms/molecules does the wall have to be? How wide in
atoms/molecules is the distance between the two slits in the wall?
If anyone is interested, I'm going to define this model with precisely
determined particles. But despite the certainty of the model, when
experiments are performed in the model, the results of the experiments
will not demonstrate certainly known particle properties. I figure it
is the results of the experiments that need to be consistent with
scientific principles, not the model itself. Is that the correct
approach?
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
ways:
1. In my garage
I've done some reading, and I've seen different specs for the
experiment. Is there a definitive specification for this experiment I
should be working from?
What I really need to know is the distances involved. From the photon
emitter to the wall, from the wall to the photomultiplier. Distance
between the slits.
I'm also interested in whether or not the size of the wall is
important. From what I know about QED (which is only pop-science
stuff, whatever I read in Feynman's book "QED") it should be possible
for photons to go over or under the separater instead of through one
of the slits. How does this effect the experiment, or is this
possibility eliminated from the experiment by enclosing both the top
and bottom of the wall?
2. In my computer
I've written many many programs and I think I can write one for the
double slit experiment that doesn't involve random number generation.
But I need to get an idea of the computer power I'll need.
Instead of knowing distances, I need to know atom counts since I
intend to create this model with no "hard-coded" features except for
electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons.
How thick in atoms/molecules does the wall have to be? How wide in
atoms/molecules is the distance between the two slits in the wall?
If anyone is interested, I'm going to define this model with precisely
determined particles. But despite the certainty of the model, when
experiments are performed in the model, the results of the experiments
will not demonstrate certainly known particle properties. I figure it
is the results of the experiments that need to be consistent with
scientific principles, not the model itself. Is that the correct
approach?
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm