A polarizer's job is to cancel a single component of the electric wave by reflecting it. not change the direction of the wave.
It seems to be YouTube videos that my computer has trouble with, so, sadly, I was unable to watch the lectures. I noticed there were transcriptions of the lectures, but they are difficult to follow since he is making references to things I can't see.Polarization is fun! I think you would very much enjoy the following courses.
Evidence says that it can and does. That's part of the mystery of QM and one of the reasons it's "physics" is separated from the classical physics. What "can't" happen in one of these two branches of physics can happen in the other.Hoku and Lost Conjuate: When photons or electrons go through any slit ONE AT A TIME, there cannot be interference because a single particle can't interfere with itself[...]
What I'm trying to discover is what measurements are we performing to determine "which" slit is being used. "Forcing" a particle through one slit or the other doesn't make sense as an answer to this.Another "zinger" associated with the double slit experiment is that if we detect which slit a particle goes though, then we observe no interference pattern. and if measurements are performed to determine which slit is being used, the interference pattern magically disappears.
If only one slit is open the particle doesn't need to "know" anything. It just goes forward as a wave and, consequently, goes through whatever is available. Obviously it won't go through something that's blocked, right? This doesn't seem like any sort of paradox to me. It is a wave until it hits the screen, which means it would go through 8 open slits, if they were there, or just one open slit if that's all that's available. Right?[...]the particles seem to "know" if the adjacent slit is blocked or open;
You do need to be careful in these forums with stuff like this. If it seems like you're "creating theories" then you can be banned from the site. They're mostly just trying to keep the forums simplified and focused. Personal theories can get out of hand and confuse many people looking for answers. That's why the rule is in place and important. I think the best way to approach it is from a philosophical point of view and then begin a thread about it in the "philosophy" section of Physics Forums. As far as THIS thread goes, I'm really not looking for interpretations or ways to explain away oddities. I'm just trying to understand how things are measured or "observed".I would like a day to think about how to explain away these paradoxes, and then I would love to present my humble explanation. [...] I get mostly shrugs from physicists in my address book. I'm hoping PF will be different.
These points you're making are ones that I've already brought up in a couple different posts in this thread.If there is only one slit available, there will be no interference pattern, because there is not another wave present to interfere with. [...] If the particles are polarized in different directions, then yes that will effect the interference pattern to the point that at 90 degrees, the waves may not interact at all. But what does that accomplish? If the "wavicles are out of phase and don't interact,[...] Why? Simply because you have made the interference impossible. Not because the wave characteristics cease to exist, but because the interference is now physically impossible (or almost so since there is no such thing as perfect polarization.)
This quote is the biggest reason I think you've missed the point. This thread isn't based on a "thought problem". I'm just trying to obtain a few simple facts about the DSE.I don't really see the purpose of the thought problem[...]
I appreciate you're input, however, I'm inclined to think you're "missing the point". These points you're making are ones that I've already brought up in a couple different posts in this thread. This quote is the biggest reason I think you've missed the point. This thread isn't based on a "thought problem". I'm just trying to obtain a few simple facts about the DSE.
Even though I'm certain I've made my questions clear, I'll try presenting them one more time.
People say that when you try to see which slit the particle passes through, it interrupts the interference pattern. So, my questions are:
1) Does it interrupt the interference pattern simply because we've made it impossible for interference to occur? For example, making only one slit available thus having no waves to interfere with or altering one wave to be out of sync with the other.
If this is the case, then the big mystery of it "changing states" when we try to see which slit it goes through, seems to be a lot of hype for nothing particularly unusual.
2) If the interruption occurs but there is no logical reason why - in other words, it SHOULD still display interference - then I'm trying to find out exactly what the observational tool is that makes it change states.
I hope, I hope, I hope this makes my questions clear. And I hope even MORE that someone can help me answer them...
This experiment, as with many (all?) QM experiments, is about measuring probabilities of events, and what matters is the context of the experiment at the moment of detection.
I'm fairly certain he just means that electron's have mass, which makes them objects, or "particles", in a way that other things like photons are not. He seems to be having the same problem with a wave having mass as I did.I have to ask what you mean when you say "particle". Are you talking about a hard solid object such as a billiard ball? What is your "particle" made out of? Electron's are particle-waves, not bouncy balls.
I'm just curious to know by what means we are able to do this detection. Can we detect it with laser beams that particles can "trip" as they pass through either slit? Can we put on some sort of 3-D like glasses to detect the presence of the particles? Like maybe night goggles or something?If your experiment can detect "which path" information in any way, even with both slits always open, then the interference pattern will be destroyed.