A wave that can only be detected in one location

[LostConjugate]

A detector is a device that once it absorbs a minimum amount of energy changes its state and returns data to an observer.

The energy in a wave is proportional to the wave number, or momentum, and is continuous.

A wave packet of total energy equal to the minimum detection energy could interfere with itself while only being detected when the interference is constructive, as any amount of destructive interference would result in a wave below the minimum detection energy.

It could never be detected in more than one location. The constructive energy of two locations, being above the minimum detection energy, would be higher than the initial energy of the packet.

Does the double slit experiment for a photon seem so mysterious now?

 

[DrChinese]

A detector is a device that once it absorbs a minimum amount of energy changes its state and returns data to an observer.

The energy in a wave is proportional to the wave number, or momentum, and is continuous.

A wave packet of total energy equal to the minimum detection energy could interfere with itself while only being detected when the interference is constructive, as any amount of destructive interference would result in a wave below the minimum detection energy.

It could never be detected in more than one location. The constructive energy of two locations, being above the minimum detection energy, would be higher than the initial energy of the packet.

Does the double slit experiment for a photon seem so mysterious now?

I fail to see how this explains anything about the double slit.

Were your description accurate, the implication would be that the energy of the wave is itself spreading out. It would decrease with time (distance). Yet that does not happen.

 

[LostConjugate]

I fail to see how this explains anything about the double slit.

Were your description accurate, the implication would be that the energy of the wave is itself spreading out. It would decrease with time (distance). Yet that does not happen.

When they setup these photon guns, they decrease the intensity until only a single detection is made at a time. Could it be that the energy at the emitter is higher than the minimum detection energy, but just the right amount that by the time it reaches the detector it is the minimum detection energy.

A photon emitter wouldn't work so well if you pointed it at two slits on the moon without re-adjustment right?

 

[Cthugha]

When they setup these photon guns, they decrease the intensity until only a single detection is made at a time. Could it be that the energy at the emitter is higher than the minimum detection energy, but just the right amount that by the time it reaches the detector it is the minimum detection energy.

No, this is completely ruled out by experiments showing antibunching for single photon sources.

 

[filegraphy]

Yes, but does this explain how the particle is at two places, in one moment of time. I think we need more facts to explain this amazing experiment. What do you think?

 

[Doc Al]

Yes, but does this explain how the particle is at two places, in one moment of time. I think we need more facts to explain this amazing experiment. What do you think?

Where do you see the particle in two places at once?

 

[filegraphy]

The particle went through both slits at once. When they were observed, they acted as a particle. Here is a video from you tube

 

[glengarry]

If something can be detected, then this means that it must necessarily exist in more than one location. Mathematically speaking, a location is simply a non-dimensional geometric point. In a three-dimensional universe such as ours, any object that occupies any less that three full dimensions occupies precisely zero space, and therefore fails to exist.

The purpose for field/continuum theories is to gain a theoretical handle on the logically necessary concept of, for want of a better phrase, "spatial occupancy."

Wave theories (which deal in modulations of fields) are therefore perfectly well equipped to deal with the problem of how it is that integral volumes of space may be involved in our so-called "localistic" experiences of physical reality.

 

[DrChinese]

The particle went through both slits at once.

It was not observed at 2 places. Just 1. The inference was that it traveled through both slits. This does not relate to the OP's comment that the doubli slit was "solved" somehow by considering it as a wave in 2 places. The mystery is how a wave in different spots collapses to be in just one.

 

[filegraphy]

In the book I am reading it states " We fired an atom one at a time. The atom acted differently and our detectors picked up the data that the atom went through both slits at once." (Jim Al-Khalili 14) What a mystery this is.

 

[DrChinese]

If something can be detected, then this means that it must necessarily exist in more than one location.

This is a curious statement.

 

[LostConjugate]

In order to be detected it must have some momentum, and in order to define momentum you must have 2 locations to take the difference of. So I guess that is a true statement.

 

[glengarry]

This is a curious statement.

Quoted out of context it is. Reading further, I was trying to show that the only rigorously mathematical concept of location is that of the geometric point. Since a point occupies precisely no part of any spatial volume, it cannot be said to have anything to do with the phenomena of our universe. If we think of the smallest of spaces as necessarily being "more than" a single location (or even an infinity of them: 0+0+0...=0), then the curiosity factor of the statement will hopefully be minimized.

 

[Doc Al]

Quoted out of context it is. Reading further, I was trying to show that the only rigorously mathematical concept of location is that of the geometric point. Since a point occupies precisely no part of any spatial volume, it cannot be said to have anything to do with the phenomena of our universe. If we think of the smallest of spaces as necessarily being "more than" a single location (or even an infinity of them: 0+0+0...=0), then the curiosity factor of the statement will hopefully be minimized.

You seem to be saying, to use an analogy with baseballs: Since a baseball, to exist, must occupy space, it must of necessity be in more than one place at the same time. (Or at least parts of it must occupy different points of space.)

I don't see the relevance of this to the double slit experiment, where the analogy would be closer to the baseball being at first base and at third base at the same time.

 

[DrChinese]

Quoted out of context it is. Reading further, I was trying to show that the only rigorously mathematical concept of location is that of the geometric point. Since a point occupies precisely no part of any spatial volume, it cannot be said to have anything to do with the phenomena of our universe. If we think of the smallest of spaces as necessarily being "more than" a single location (or even an infinity of them: 0+0+0...=0), then the curiosity factor of the statement will hopefully be minimized.

I guess that makes sense. That an infinitely precise point location means not observable, and is therefore all objects must exhibit some size; and therefore occupy 2 points.

 

[filegraphy]

Yes, the atom was in two places at once. The atom had a wave function. (http://notendur.hi.is/hj/QuantumMechanics/scrod.gif) this gives you an equation for the wave function. Am I correct?

 

[DrChinese]

Yes, the atom was in two places at once. The atom had a wave function. (http://notendur.hi.is/hj/QuantumMechanics/scrod.gif) this gives you an equation for the wave function. Am I correct?

If an atom could be considered a point particle, then yes. But it can't, that is what the experiment proves. As it is acting as a wave, instead of a particle, it exhibits interference effects. Particles don't do that.

 

[filegraphy]

Right, that is the question is how did matter have a wave function that allowed it to be in two places at once. What is your thinking on this subject?

 

[Doc Al]

Right, that is the question is how did matter have a wave function that allowed it to be in two places at once. What is your thinking on this subject?

A wavefunction going through both slits is not quite the same thing as a particle going through both slits. Often the latter statement is made as an interpretation of the formalism, but it is not demanded. We never detect a particle being in two places.

 

[LostConjugate]

My attempt was to remove the need for the word particle by describing a wave that can only be detected in one place. Is it not possible?

 

[filegraphy]

The two-slit experiment showed that the atom (particle) had a wave function using http://notendur.hi.is/hj/QuantumMechanics/scrod.gif gives us the wave function of the atom. It is hard to think about, but that atom itself had a wave function causing it to be in two places at once. I do not have a better explanation. I do not think the atom split into two because that does not follow mathematically. What do you think? Do you have a different view of this matter?

 

[my_wan]

I think the OP model is reasonable. It could even be that destructive interference leaves no wave at all in some cases. Somewhat analogous to cancelling sound with sound. It would help explain why the total energy of the Universe appears to be zero. It would even make sense to assume the total energy density of spacetime was a purely relativistic concept. It would help with the vacuum catastrophe issue.

The problem is exactly how the constants of nature would fit into such a model. Not the least of which is the nature of Planck's constant and quantization. It seems to impose a disconnect between QM and GR that has yet to be bridged. It can't follow a strict classical analog, but the similarities are fairly extensive.