Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom

  • Thread starter onycho
  • Start date
  • #1
onycho
[SOLVED] Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom

The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizzare particle wisdom.

A gun is able to fire one atom every hour at a plate with photographic emulsion on its surface. If an atom hits the plate it makes a spot on the film. If a solid plate is placed in front of the back emulsion film, any atom striking the front solid plate is stopped and seen no more. If the atom happens to pass through the slit on the front plate it continues to the photographic emulsion.

When only one slit is open, the gun continues to fire one atom an hour and a large number of spots accumulate on the emulsion and one can notice the expected fuzzy diffraction pattern. Now if the first slit is closed and the second slit is opened in the front solid plate, the repeated atom firings produce the same pattern but offset by the distance that separates the the two slits. The atoms are producing the diffraction pattern characteristics of waves passing through a narrow harbor opening.

Now when both slits are opened and again the gun fires one atom at a time the individual atoms no longer land randomly within the usual diffraction pattern. Instead they fall only within the specific "allowed' regions where the light bands of the interference pattern appear and never in the dark band regions. Seems reasonable doesn't it?

But wait! This cannot be. A single atom was fired at a time. There is no other atom, be it wave or particle with which to interfere and cancel each other. Yet the interference pattern occurs and the dark bands appear. A single particle can only go through one of the slits. Already noted that atoms going through the single slit falls everywhere with the diffraction pattern with none of the alternating light and dark bands that result from the interference of waves at the emulsion screen. Although both slits are open, and still firing only one atom at a time,it must travel to only one of the two slits and go through that slit. If the other slit is closed it lands anywhere within the diffraction pattern. If the other slit is open, it never lands in the dark (forbidden) regions originally seen in the interference pattern which developed when there were two slits open.

The atom is a single entity, with a fixed locality. In its passage through one slit, why should opening or closing the other slit have any effect upon its passage? How can it "know' if the second slit is open or closed? But it does know!!!! Somehow the atom is aware of its environment.

The identical results are obtained with firing single photons. Photon particles of light that travel at the speed of light, the now considered maximum speed attainable in our universe. Even if the photon is infinitely extended, in the time it travels from the photon gun to the open slit it cannot have 'felt' the second slit, check to see if that second slit was open or closed, communicated that information to the portion passing through the first slit and then decided where on the screen it was permitted to land and where it was forbidden. There was no time for the feeler to make the round trip.

This is bizarre.

Attribution: Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. physics department MIT.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
653
0
this has nothing to do with string theory.
 
  • #3
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
I agree.

And onycho, do you have a point?

- Warren
 
  • #4
onycho
Originally Posted by Chroot

"I agree. (this has nothing to do with string theory) And onycho, do you have a point?"

Point? The implications of the results of this experiment are so significant that it leaves the string THEORY in a category of one celled organisms.

When the basic particles of this universe are more than just an inanimate sub-atomic piece of flotsam, the concept of 'why' particles arrange themselves in such a manner that creates life, thought and intellect must be reconsidered.
 
  • #5
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
Hmm...

No offense onycho, but it sounds to me like you really know next to nothing about quantum mechanics. Sorry, string theory is not "in a category of one celled organisms," whatever that means. Off to Theory Development you go.

- Warren
 
  • #6
onycho
Originally posted by chroot
Hmm... No offense onycho, but it sounds to me like you really know next to nothing about quantum mechanics. Sorry, string theory is not "in a category of one celled organisms," whatever that means. Off to Theory Development you go.
- Warren
Isn't a case where the theory in question is the means to the ends. A paradox exists within the theory... being the unidimensional gateways that must exist for the quantum string to have the correct vibration frequecy to define any particular sub atomic particle. And that takes the simplicity to an added complication. And therefor this paradox I'm talking about. As stated the space time dimensional warp can't be defined by the string itself... because it's the dimensional warp that defines the properties of the quantum string. The dimensional warp can't be defined by the area of space the quantum string resides in... because if it's the area of space than a hydrogen atom would turn to another form just by moving to another area. Indeed predictions of theory do come true in time... However... it's usually trash due to the scientific community protection years of their work for going up in smoke. This is not the case. For years this theory didn't add up. Until... The main constant... the dimensional gateways... were added to make it work.

I don't know about you... but the black hole theory always always had a solid basis. The string theory just don't.
 
  • #7
144
0
The identical results are obtained with firing single photons.
I wasn't aware of the control for the firing of single photons. If the is such a machine? - I'll take a dozen.
 
  • #8
onycho
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I wasn't aware of the control for the firing of single photons. If the is such a machine? - I'll take a dozen.
Okay you might want to take a look at the following Nature site but you will need to register for free.

Indistinguished service

http://www.nature.com/Physics/Physi...eference=C0A804F54651D7D80C6A7E1FEFA63FD8C022

Schematic of the apparatus used to test the indistinguishability of consecutive photons emitting from a single-photon light source.
Devices that can generate just one photon at a time have potential applications in quantum information processing and in the study of the quantum nature of light. Not only do such 'single-photon devices' need to be controllable, producing their photons on demand, but the consecutive photons they generate often need to be identical. In this week's Nature, Charles Santori and his colleagues reveal a source that fulfils this brief.

One way to test the likeness — or indistinguishability — of photons from a single-photon source is to look for a peculiar two-photon quantum interference effect known as photon bunching. When two photons, travelling perpendicular to each other, arrive simultaneously either side of a 50–50 beam splitter, there should be four possible outcomes. Both photons could be reflected, both photons could be transmitted, or one photon could be transmitted and the other reflected to continue their journeys on either of two coincident paths. Classically, all of these results are equally probable. But because photons obey Bose–Einstein statistics, if the two photons are indistinguishable and in phase, they will coalesce to form a single two-photon state. This means that they can only leave the splitter along one or other of the coincident paths — the probability that both photons will be transmitted or both reflected is zero.

Such photon bunching effects were first observed in 1986 by Hong, Ou and Mandel (C. K. Hong et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044–2046; 1987), who used entangled photon pairs as a source of identical photons. In the latest study, Santori et al. used independently generated photons emitted consecutively from a semiconducting quantum dot single-photon source. As in the work by Hong et al., Santori's team saw a marked decrease in the probability of detecting photons at the outputs of a 50–50 beam splitter as the path length of one beam was varied to match the phase of the other (see figure). From their results, the authors estimate that the mean wave-packet overlap — a measure of photon indistinguishability — of the photons from their source was as high as 81%.

Although many technological difficulties must be overcome before practical quantum computing and cryptography devices become a reality, these results are a promising step towards the use of single-photon sources for optical quantum information processing applications.

Indistinguishable photons from a single-photon device
CHARLES SANTORI, DAVID FATTAL, JELENA VUCKOVIC, GLENN S. SOLOMON & YOSHIHISA YAMAMOTO

Single-photon sources have recently been demonstrated using a variety of devices, including molecules, mesoscopic quantum wells, colour centres, trapped ions and semiconductor quantum dots. Compared with a Poisson-distributed source of the same intensity, these sources rarely emit two or more photons in the same pulse. Numerous applications for single-photon sources have been proposed in the field of quantum information, but most—including linear-optical quantum computation—also require consecutive photons to have identical wave packets. For a source based on a single quantum emitter, the emitter must therefore be excited in a rapid or deterministic way, and interact little with its surrounding environment. Here we test the indistinguishability of photons emitted by a semiconductor quantum dot in a microcavity through a Hong–Ou–Mandel-type two-photon interference experiment. We find that consecutive photons are largely indistinguishable, with a mean wave- packet overlap as large as 0.81, making this source useful in a variety of experiments in quantum optics and quantum information.
Nature 419, 594–597 (10 October 2002)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
733
0
Originally posted by onycho
Originally Posted by Chroot

"I agree. (this has nothing to do with string theory) And onycho, do you have a point?"

The point is sort of obvious, this should not happen.

Point? The implications of the results of this experiment are so significant that it leaves the string THEORY in a category of one celled organisms.

The implications seem to indicate though experiment and observation that a SAS self aware structure exists on the atomic level. As we work our way up the evolutionary chain of events, more and more unkown events take place to organize complexity.

When the basic particles of this universe are more than just an inanimate sub-atomic piece of flotsam, the concept of 'why' particles arrange themselves in such a manner that creates life, thought and intellect must be reconsidered.
It will take a lot more experiments than this one to reach a new paradigm to do what you suggest. Though there is serious work in this direction.

Take a look at this site.
http://207.70.190.98/toe.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
792
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
848
Replies
7
Views
3K
Top