On 8/31/2021 11:09 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:44:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/30/2021 12:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>>>> the "striped pattern."
>>>> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
>>>> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
>>>
>>> Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
>>> on the screen shows that frequency.
>> So why do they match what is predicted for an interference pattern?
>
> When you create a mathematical model to explain what you see, you
> get a mathematical model that explains what you THINK you see. It
> may not actually explain what is happening.

You didn't answer the question. A wave model predicts a specific
pattern. Why does the two slit pattern match the wave model? (no math
needed)
>
>> Why is the pattern different if there is only one slit vs. two slits?
>> If the slits are the same, why doesn't it matter which slit is blocked
>> to get the one slit pattern?
>
> When you have two slits, the photons get separated into two paths.

What about when you shoot one photon at a time? Does each individual
photon go through one or both slits?

> When you have only one slit, all photons must go along one path.

Why is the two path pattern different from the one path pattern?
>
> (snip)
>> OK, so your claim would predict that slits which are identical except
>> for being in different materials will behave differently, because the
>> different atoms in the slit device affect the light differently? Be
>> careful...
>
> Different materials? You make no sense. The device is supposedly
> made from tungsten.

It can be any material, steel, glass painted black and scratched,
aluminum etc.
>
> (snip)
>>> You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
>>> fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device.
>> So if I have identical sized slits in different metals I will see
>> different results with photons of the same frequency?
>
> It might be a worthwhile experiment to try.

Already been done. The patterns depend on the dimensions of the slits
themselves, not the material.
>
>>> All photons oscillate at a specific frequency. How can you not know that???
>>> Radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the radio range. A typical radar gun
>>> emits photons that oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per second.

>> I can observe a certain star and find the Sodium D line pair but it
>> appears in the red portion of the spectrum. I can measure both their
>> frequencies and wavelengths and confirm this, both correspond to red
>> light, not the sodium yellow-orange. I can observe another star and
>> find the sodium D line pair but in the green region. Again, the
>> frequency and wavelengths correspond to green light, not yellow-orange.
>> So what are the frequencies of oscillation of the sodium light photons
>> I saw from the stars? A "red" frequency, a "green" frequency, the usual
>> sodium orange-yellow, or something else? An astronomer will us the
>> first star is receding and the second star is approaching which Doppler
>> shifts their light, affecting both frequency and wavelengths.
>
> Interesting. But it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

It most certainly does! I am asking what frequency does the photons from
sodium atoms from those stars oscillate at, if photons oscillate.

Green (~566 THz)?
Sodium Yellow (~590 THz)?
Red (~700 THz)?
Something else?

What if we send the sodium photons through the slits and (according to
your beliefs) the photons' oscillating frequency determines the pattern?
You state the pattern on the screen show the oscillation frequency.

If photons don't oscillate, as physicists will tell you, the answer is
irrelevant.
>
>>>
>>> The emitter inside a cesium atomic clock emits photons that oscillate at
>>> EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.
>> And if the clock is receding at 0.5c, what will I measure for its frequency?
>
> It will be lower, but there is no receding light in the double slit experiment.

Again, I am asking what frequency do the photons from the receding clock
oscillate at?
>
> (snip more of the same)
>>>> Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
>>>> pattern.
>>>
>>> I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but photons are not "blocked."
>> That may be what YOU believe, but by "blocked" the photons aren't
>> contributing to the pattern just like any light encountering an opaque
>> object. They are absorbed as heat or reflected away.
>>> They are either absorbed and converted to heat, or they are absorbed
>>> and RE-EMITTED.
>> Which is what I meant by blocked. They don't contribute to the pattern
>> because they are absorbed or reflected away from where the pattern is.
>
> There is no evidence of that.

There is no evidence that not all photons get through the slits?

> Some photons get absorbed and turned into
> heat inside the device, but most photons get through the slits to form
> the patterns.

You are dancing around quite a bit to avoid answering, but it appears
that you do believe some photons get through the slits to contribute to
the pattern and some don't get through the slits and don't contribute.
>
>>>
>>> And what about photons that just graze the sides of the slits?
>> SlitS as in plural? Does one photon go through both slits if it grazes
>> the sides? Explain?

No answer?

>>> How can you believe those photons will not have their paths altered?
>> The question isn't whether the paths are altered but why are they
>> altered in specific ways under specific conditions.
>
> Because photons and electrons orbiting atoms work in predictable ways.

So why don't the predictable ways depend on the material with the slits?
Why is it that a WAVE prediction is the one that correctly predicts the
two slit pattern?

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Photons interfering with each other does not involve transfer of energy
> from one photon to another.

then it's NOT interference.

> Interference is a phenomenon you have to learn about in first-year
> physics.

I see you skipped all the others.

CERN (2011): Photons can effectively interact via fluctuating electron-positron pairs.

https://indico.cern.ch/event/129952/contributions/1350011/attachments/90189/129085/RAL_Scattering_Meeting_110305.pdf

Light-by-light scattering in a photon–photon collider (CERN 2018)
T. Takahashi, G. An, Y. Chen, W. Chou, Y. Huang, W. Liu, W. Lu, J. Lv, G. Pei, S. Pei, C. P. Shen, B. Sun, C. Zhang & C. Zhang

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6364-1

Photon-Photon Collisions – Past and Future∗
Stanley J. Brodsky
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University (2005)

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11500/slac-pub-11581.pdf

Light can scatter from light, CERN physicists confirm
14 Aug 2019

https://physicsworld.com/a/light-can-scatter-from-light-cern-physicists-confirm/

On 8/31/21 1:26 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [... much nonsense and misinformation omitted]

Yes, Planck introduced the notion that light was quantized in 1900.
Einstein greatly enhanced the concept in 1905, and Compton observed "the
corpuscular nature of X-rays" in 1923. "The term 'photon' [...] was not
used until 1926."
[quotes from https://www.britannica.com/science/photon ]

But physicists are not historians, and all that is irrelevant. TODAY the
term "photon" is defined by QED (or the standard model, which is
equivalent). Like the evolution of most terms in physics, this is more a
refinement and improvement in precision, rather than any real change in
meaning.

Tom Roberts

Richard Hertz wrote:

> CERN (2011): Photons can effectively interact via fluctuating
> electron-positron pairs.
> https://indico.cern.ch/event/129952/contributions/1350011/attachments/
90189/129085/RAL_Scattering_Meeting_110305.pdf
> Light-by-light scattering in a photon–photon collider (CERN 2018)
> T. Takahashi, G. An, Y. Chen, W. Chou, Y. Huang, W. Liu, W. Lu, J. Lv,
> G. Pei, S. Pei, C. P. Shen, B. Sun, C. Zhang & C. Zhang

thanks, you are a good soul. But I am merely a practical person, I make
myself a BlackBox with two inputs entering the 2 distinct photons. If the
same photons leave the box, and no excess or deficit of energy detected,
I may safely conclude no interaction of any kind took place in my
apparatus.

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 18:26:03 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/31/2021 2:26 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Photon was created IN his 1901 paper, which was based on Maxwell and Rayleigh (he "borrowed" his ideas about BBC).
>
> Don't forget it was Einstein who showed that Planck's quantized energy
> wasn't theoretical, it was real in the form of the photon.

Don't forget, stupid Mike, the energy of a photon is
(at least according to your Shit) different, depending
on an observer.

On 8/31/21 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 12:06:38 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> [about QED]
>
> So, the answer is that no one has come up with any NEW mathematical
> models for the double slit experiment.

Not since QED in the 1930s-40s. No need, as QED has proven to be the
most accurate theory we have, often agreeing with measurements and
experiments with 10-12 significant digits.

> So, it is as much of a MYSTERY today as it was when Feynman wrote
> about it.

This is YOUR problem, not a physics problem, because you are relying on
popular writings, not the theory itself. The MATH is clear, and the
PHYSICS is clear. It's just that the English is not so clear, and
Feynman was trying to explain in English. The basic problem is that
English has no word(s) that accurately reflect the math and physics. He
could say "quantum object", but that would not help non-physicists
understand, so he uses "particle" and "wave", even though the meanings
of those words do NOT reflect the math and physics -- so it seems like a
"mystery", even though there is no mystery at all about the math or physics.

> What I'm doing is looking at the "mystery" LOGICALLY.

No. You're attempting to "look at it" from the standpoint of ignorance
and made-up meanings of words that do not correspond to the meanings
used in the articles and books you attempt to read. Hopeless.

> When looking at it LOGICALLY, it doesn't seem to be much of a
> mystery. The only mystery is why more people aren't looking at the
> mystery logically. Are they AFRAID of solving the mystery without
> using mathematics?

You have to be very stupid to not see the inconsistency in that. Do you
seriously think you are smarter than EVERY ONE OF THE PHYSICISTS WHO
HAVE LIVED SINCE 1930???? -- It's clear to me that you are very stupid,
and very arrogant, and have no hope of understanding this.

Hint: physics is not math; logic is math. Moreover,
your "logic" is highly flawed.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 2:08:54 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, Planck introduced the notion that light was quantized in 1900.
> Einstein greatly enhanced the concept in 1905, and Compton observed "the
> corpuscular nature of X-rays" in 1923. "The term 'photon' [...] was not
> used until 1926."
> [quotes from https://www.britannica.com/science/photon ]

Actually, it was Bohr who greatly enhanced the concept of quanta of energy a.k.a. photon.
The 1905 first Einstein paper has Wien written all over, is anti-Planck and based on Lenard investigation.
The hand of Wien, who hated Planck for defeating him in 1900, is visible along the whole paper, as if
Einstein-Wien were trying to find something more fundamental than "h", and THEY BOTH FAILED.

Bohr applied Planck correctly in 1913, verifying most of spectral emissions of H atoms (Ballmer series).
And that it the FIRST experimental physics application for Planck's theory, either you like or not!

> But physicists are not historians, and all that is irrelevant.
> TODAY the term "photon" is defined by QED (or the standard model, which is
> equivalent). Like the evolution of most terms in physics, this is more a
> refinement and improvement in precision, rather than any real change in meaning.

That what you wrote is very sad for me. I'm sorry for you.
I think that your disregard of the history of physics is a mistake, because it could allow
you to go back and forth in such timeline, understanding how it did go from one point to another.

Some people can work without dogmas, which causes loss of mental flexibility.
Also, some people can manage conflicting information without losing their intellectual compass.
And, also, some people can manage much more information than others, without their heads exploding.

But this is me. You are different.

Yet, I insist: by a little more deep analysis of the work of Planck in 1901, the true meaning of a photon
is embedded clearly into his 1901 paper. More clarity is brought into the analysis if you replace
ϵ = hʋ by ϵ = h/τ (being c = λ.ʋ = λ/τ). The idea and picture of a photon delivering its energy in τ seconds,
exactly, has resisted 120 years and remains supreme, above all.

After all, the whole of cosmology depends on Planck (and Hubble), but newbies don't credit fathers or grandfathers.
It's how life work with humans as time pass by, isn't it?

Yet.........

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 7:18:23 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks
> that are separated"? Your [reply] doesn't answer my question.

My reply carefully answered your question, thoroughly and clearly. It explained in detail how the rates of separate clocks are compared by comparing their readings "at the same time". It then explained how the meaning of "at the same time" is physically established for each inertial system of reference, and why this results in reciprocal time dilation, and how experiments have substantiated this. If there is something about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.

> What CAUSES time to slow down for one atom has no bearing on what
> happens to any other atom.

Of course it doesn't, and that's consistent with what I explained. Again, we compare the rates of separate clocks (or elapsed proper times of separate atoms) by comparing their readings "at the same time", and the meaning of "at the same time" for inertial systems depends on the system of reference. Changing the state of motion of Clock A doesn't change the functioning of Clock B, but it means that Clock A has a different system of reference, which changes the meaning of "at the same time" for comparing its readings with Clock B, and therefore the results of the comparison are different. Again, this isn't changing how B is functioning, it's changing how the comparison with A in terms of A's reference system is made.

> No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
> emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT.

But each of your individuals "photons" does not spread out. You admit this when you say "Each travels it OWN path away from the emitter". You see? Each of your "photons" follows some specific path. When you say "the photons spread out" you mean some photons follow slightly different paths from the others; you don't mean that any individual "photon" spreads out... and this is why your beliefs cannot explain the observed interference pattern. To explain the interference pattern with individual photons, you need some kind of "spreading out" of individual photons, because the behavior of the individual photons that go through (say) the Left slit depends on whether or not the Right slit is open. Quantum electrodynamics explains this by the "sum over paths" (as described in detail in my message), whereas your concept of a "photon" cannot explain it at all.

> > Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.
>
> No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen.

Then you can't explain the interference pattern when both slits are open. This was the whole point of the experiment, going all the way back to 1800, and this is why your concept of a "photon", a la Newton's "oscillating" particles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain interference effects. The particle theory of light was only resurrected when quantum effects were discovered, leading to the "sum over paths" approach. That's why a photon is not a classical particle, whereas your conception of a "photon" is a classical particle, because each of your "photons" has an individual singular path.

> If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
> and blue light?

Each photon of blue light has more energy than those of red light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path does not change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the light.

> When photons can go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
> only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.

That's the classical image, but it doesn't account for the interference pattern. You see, with your concept of a "photon", each going through just one slit or the other, you would get a smooth (not striped) pattern with just the Left slit open, and you would get the same smooth pattern but shifted slightly to the right if just the Right slit is open, and if both slits are open you would get the sum of those two smooth patterns. You would not get any interference effects. That's why Young's experiment killed the Newton/Lake model of the "photon" 200 years ago.

Remember, when both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped" interference pattern of dark and light stripes, no photons ever land in the dark stripes. But if we close one of the slits, we find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons *can* land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open. That is why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.

On August 29, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
 > The photon is NOT affected by the presence of the other slit.
> You get a different pattern when you have two slits versus one
> slit, because IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. There are
> TWO ways for a photon to hit the wall when it can go through either
> one of TWO slits, but there is only ONE way for a photon to hit the
> wall if there is only a single slit.

Ed, I Iack your natural talent for belief, er I mean visualization.  Which
means, when both slits are open, I'm not sure which one the photon
traversed, without looking.  I'm sort of closed minded, stuck on the
idea that you only know something by MEASURING it.

So, let's imagine a double slit experiment, with a detector at each slit.  
The detector clicks each time a photon passes.  (if a photon is DUI, it
bounces off a guard rail, and neither device clicks)

Next, we repeat the experiment, except this time both detectors are
powered off.  No clicks.

I don't know if anyone has performed this experiment, but maybe you
have some insight, through your visualization: would they result in
identical patterns of the screen?  The photons aren't affected by the
presence of the other slit, but do they care if anyone is watching?

--
Rich

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 22:22:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> You have to be very stupid to not see the inconsistency in that. Do you
> seriously think you are smarter than EVERY ONE OF THE PHYSICISTS WHO
> HAVE LIVED SINCE 1930????

Well, poor idiot, since you allowed your Shit to persuade you
you're FORCED, and truly believe that...

Long time ago, a wise scientist said:

"If you can’t explain your physics to a barmaid, it is probably not very good physics."
Ernest Rutherford

and a plagiarist who laughed at the world with his doings said:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Albert Einstein
I bet he even plagiarized Rutherford.

For me, both sentences apply to QED apologists. To run into the realm of mathematics claiming
that you don't understand physics because you don't know enough mathematics is very lame,
specially if they say that physics is not mathematics or the other way around. Paradoxes?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Long time ago, a wise scientist said:
>
> "If you can’t explain your physics to a barmaid, it is probably not very good physics."
> Ernest Rutherford
>
> and a plagiarist who laughed at the world with his doings said:
>
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
> Albert Einstein
>
> I bet he even plagiarized Rutherford.
>
> For me, both sentences apply to QED apologists. To run into the realm of
> mathematics claiming
> that you don't understand physics because you don't know enough mathematics is very lame,
> specially if they say that physics is not mathematics or the other way around. Paradoxes?
>

Well, on the other hand, when Feynman was asked for a simple explanation of
QED by a news reporter, his reply was "Hell, if I could explain it to the
average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/31/21 9:44 PM, RichD wrote:
> So, let's imagine a double slit experiment, with a detector at each slit.
> The detector clicks each time a photon passes.

This is simply not possible. In interacting with the detector to make it
click, the photon is destroyed, so it cannot propagate to the screen to
contribute to the pattern there.

This is discussed in elementary textbooks on QM or QED, so the result is
well known.

> Next, we repeat the experiment, except this time both detectors are
> powered off.  No clicks.
>
> I don't know if anyone has performed this experiment,

Nobody has, because it is impossible.

One can use QED to calculate a related result: no detector, no
interaction at the slit, but simply just using paths through one slit or
the other. The screen shows the sum of two 1-slit patterns -- i.e. no
interference. This can be achieved experimentally by first blocking one
slit, then the other, for equal intensities from the source, and
including both in the result. It OUGHT to be obvious this gives the sum
of two 1-slit patterns on the screen.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:33:33 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/31/21 9:44 PM, RichD wrote:
> > So, let's imagine a double slit experiment, with a detector at each slit.
> > The detector clicks each time a photon passes.
>
> This is simply not possible. In interacting with the detector to make it
> click, the photon is destroyed, so it cannot propagate to the screen to
> contribute to the pattern there.

This kind of experiment can be (and has been) performed using electrons passing through the two slits (see, e.g., Feynman's description). They show similar diffraction and interference effects as do photons, but we can actually set up detectors at the slits by shining a light to "see" an electron passing through one slit or the other. The result is that if we shine a light at each slit that produces a flash if/when an electron passes through that slit, we find that the electron always goes through one slit or the other (not both), and there is no interference pattern. The distribution of landing sites is just the sum of the distributions of the individual slits with the other closed. But if we turn the lights off, so we don't know which way the electron went, we get the interference pattern. If we shine a low enough intensity light, so that sometimes no photon hits an electron, and hence we don't get a flash at either slit, then we get interference for those electrons, but no interference for the ones that produce a flash.

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 8:54:24 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 7:18:23 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks
> > that are separated"? Your [reply] doesn't answer my question.
>
> My reply carefully answered your question, thoroughly and clearly. It explained in detail how the rates of separate clocks are compared by comparing their readings "at the same time". It then explained how the meaning of "at the same time" is physically established for each inertial system of reference, and why this results in reciprocal time dilation, and how experiments have substantiated this. If there is something about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.
>
> > What CAUSES time to slow down for one atom has no bearing on what
> > happens to any other atom.
> Of course it doesn't, and that's consistent with what I explained. Again, we compare the rates of separate clocks (or elapsed proper times of separate atoms) by comparing their readings "at the same time", and the meaning of "at the same time" for inertial systems depends on the system of reference. Changing the state of motion of Clock A doesn't change the functioning of Clock B, but it means that Clock A has a different system of reference, which changes the meaning of "at the same time" for comparing its readings with Clock B, and therefore the results of the comparison are different. Again, this isn't changing how B is functioning, it's changing how the comparison with A in terms of A's reference system is made.
> > No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
> > emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT.
>
> But each of your individuals "photons" does not spread out. You admit this when you say "Each travels it OWN path away from the emitter". You see? Each of your "photons" follows some specific path. When you say "the photons spread out" you mean some photons follow slightly different paths from the others; you don't mean that any individual "photon" spreads out... and this is why your beliefs cannot explain the observed interference pattern. To explain the interference pattern with individual photons, you need some kind of "spreading out" of individual photons, because the behavior of the individual photons that go through (say) the Left slit depends on whether or not the Right slit is open. Quantum electrodynamics explains this by the "sum over paths" (as described in detail in my message), whereas your concept of a "photon" cannot explain it at all.
> > > Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.
> >
> > No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen..
> Then you can't explain the interference pattern when both slits are open. This was the whole point of the experiment, going all the way back to 1800, and this is why your concept of a "photon", a la Newton's "oscillating" particles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain interference effects. The particle theory of light was only resurrected when quantum effects were discovered, leading to the "sum over paths" approach. That's why a photon is not a classical particle, whereas your conception of a "photon" is a classical particle, because each of your "photons" has an individual singular path.
> > If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
> > and blue light?
> Each photon of blue light has more energy than those of red light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path does not change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the light.
> > When photons can go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
> > only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.
> That's the classical image, but it doesn't account for the interference pattern. You see, with your concept of a "photon", each going through just one slit or the other, you would get a smooth (not striped) pattern with just the Left slit open, and you would get the same smooth pattern but shifted slightly to the right if just the Right slit is open, and if both slits are open you would get the sum of those two smooth patterns. You would not get any interference effects. That's why Young's experiment killed the Newton/Lake model of the "photon" 200 years ago.
>
> Remember, when both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped" interference pattern of dark and light stripes, no photons ever land in the dark stripes. But if we close one of the slits, we find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons *can* land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open. That is why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.

Back in July of 2017, I started work on a paper titled "The Double-Slit
Experiment Demystified." I never finished the paper, but I kept revising
it as I did more and more research. The most recent version is dated
December 2018, and it is titled "What is a Photon?" even though it is
still mostly about the Double-Slit experiment. It is 37 pages long and is
filled with illustrations. It also quotes Thomas Young frequently, and
examines the experiments which he ACTUALLY performed, such as
the experiment where he puts a card edgewise into a light beam and
gets that pattern of parallel lines on the wall AND a rainbow effect.

What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
photons get POLARIZED.

And the card experiment clearly shows that the photons that move
closest to the card get their trajectory changed the most when they
pass the end of the card. They are affected by their proximity to
the card.

I'm going to try working on that paper again. It's just a jumble of
ideas right now. Working on the paper seems a much more
productive way to find answers to questions than to argue on
this forum where all answers are just memorized dogma. If I ever
finish the paper, then we can discuss it. Until then, I'm done here.

Bye bye.

Ed

Op 01-sep.-2021 om 18:05 schreef Ed Lake:

[snip]

>
> Back in July of 2017, I started work on a paper titled "The Double-Slit
> Experiment Demystified."

The only kind of paper a sub-idiot should work on, is toilet paper.

> I never finished the paper, but I kept revising
> it as I did more and more research. The most recent version is dated
> December 2018, and it is titled "What is a Photon?" even though it is
> still mostly about the Double-Slit experiment. It is 37 pages long and is
> filled with illustrations. It also quotes Thomas Young frequently, and
> examines the experiments which he ACTUALLY performed, such as
> the experiment where he puts a card edgewise into a light beam and
> gets that pattern of parallel lines on the wall AND a rainbow effect.
>
> What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> photons get POLARIZED.
>
> And the card experiment clearly shows that the photons that move
> closest to the card get their trajectory changed the most when they
> pass the end of the card. They are affected by their proximity to
> the card.
>
> I'm going to try working on that paper again. It's just a jumble of
> ideas right now. Working on the paper seems a much more
> productive way to find answers to questions than to argue on
> this forum where all answers are just memorized dogma. If I ever
> finish the paper, then we can discuss it. Until then, I'm done here.

No, you're not. You get way to much attention here.
You'll NEVER be done he.

>
> Bye bye.

Yeah, right.

Dirk Vdm

>
> Ed
>

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:05:40 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Back in July of 2017...

But you haven't even acknowledged, let alone addressed, the careful and detailed answers to your questions, either about reciprocal time dilation or about the interference in the two-slit experiment.

> What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> photons get POLARIZED.

Polarization (with or without caps) doesn't account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.

Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open.

This applies not just to photons, but also to any massive particles as well (which have wavelike properties).

> Working on the paper seems a much more productive way to find
> answers to questions...

But you've already been provided with the answers to all your questions - and more. If there was something in those answers that you think is wrong or unclear, you could ask follow-up questions. That would be the most productive approach. You're not going to re-discover quantum electrodynamics on your own - apparently not even after having read fairly detailed descriptions of it. And you're not going to come to an understanding of reciprocal time dilation in special relativity on your own. At some point, if you really want to understand these things, you're going to have to actually read the explanations, and ask follow-up questions if anything is unclear.

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> I'm going to try working on that paper again. It's just a jumble of
> ideas right now. Working on the paper seems a much more
> productive way to find answers to questions than to argue on
> this forum where all answers are just memorized dogma. If I ever
> finish the paper, then we can discuss it. Until then, I'm done here.
>
> Bye bye.
>
> Ed
>

Well, Ed, what I take from this last paragraph is that you believe it is
far more productive to try to organize your own guesses as to what’s going
on, than it is to actually pick up a book and learn something about the
subject (what you call “dogma”).

I completely get that your distaste for engaging with instructional
materials about physics is based on a dread of failure. Your comment that
taking a course penalizes a student for failing to just memorize everything
for the test was very illuminating about your past history with that. So
rather than getting frustrated with not understanding what textbooks say,
you’d rather just while away your time figuring things out on your own.

I can assure you though, Ed, that though just thinking things through might
be a lot less frustrating to you, it is NOT more productive to do things
that way. The reason is simple: You don’t know enough about the basics to
think things through correctly. You will end up with something that seems
to make sense to you internally (you can visualize it, it seems plausible),
but it will still be dead wrong, and you will have gained nothing from that
exercise.

You’re not alone in this foolishness. Other cranks here have had the same
strategy — with the same outcome.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:05:40 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
>> Back in July of 2017...
>
> But you haven't even acknowledged, let alone addressed, the careful and
> detailed answers to your questions,

And why would it be important to you that he acknowledge or address your
“careful and detailed answers”, now that you have “spoken the truth” as you
see it? Should that not be sufficient for you?

And why would you EXPECT him to acknowledge or address your “careful and
detailed answers”, since you used language that sailed clear over his head
by a couple fathoms, probably on purpose?

I mean seriously, what did you expect him to say?

> either about reciprocal time dilation or about the interference in the two-slit experiment.
>
>> What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
>> photons get POLARIZED.
>
> Polarization (with or without caps) doesn't account for the interference
> pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons)
> with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one
> is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also,
> please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles)
> gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
>
> Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact:
> There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is
> open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open.
>
> This applies not just to photons, but also to any massive particles as
> well (which have wavelike properties).
>
>> Working on the paper seems a much more productive way to find
>> answers to questions...
>
> But you've already been provided with the answers to all your questions -
> and more. If there was something in those answers that you think is
> wrong or unclear, you could ask follow-up questions. That would be the
> most productive approach. You're not going to re-discover quantum
> electrodynamics on your own - apparently not even after having read
> fairly detailed descriptions of it. And you're not going to come to an
> understanding of reciprocal time dilation in special relativity on your
> own. At some point, if you really want to understand these things,
> you're going to have to actually read the explanations, and ask follow-up
> questions if anything is unclear.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 9/1/2021 1:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm going to try working on that paper again. It's just a jumble of
>> ideas right now. Working on the paper seems a much more
>> productive way to find answers to questions than to argue on
>> this forum where all answers are just memorized dogma. If I ever
>> finish the paper, then we can discuss it. Until then, I'm done here.
>>
>> Bye bye.
>>
>> Ed

How long are you staying away this time? Two weeks? A month?
>>
>
> Well, Ed, what I take from this last paragraph is that you believe it is
> far more productive to try to organize your own guesses as to what’s going
> on, than it is to actually pick up a book and learn something about the
> subject (what you call “dogma”).
>
Why is it that cranks feel it's better to WRITE about a topic they don't
understand rather than READ about the topic? It's what Ed is doing,
Plutonium with his "books" etc.

It would be one thing if only organizing thoughts, but no, they want
their "books" or manifestos to be read by others as factual.

On 9/1/21 10:21 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:33:33 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/31/21 9:44 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> So, let's imagine a double slit experiment, with a detector at
>>> each slit. The detector clicks each time a photon passes.
>>
>> This is simply not possible. In interacting with the detector to
>> make it click, the photon is destroyed, so it cannot propagate to
>> the screen to contribute to the pattern there.
>
> This kind of experiment can be (and has been) performed using
> electrons passing through the two slits (see, e.g., Feynman's
> description). They show similar diffraction and interference effects
> as do photons, but we can actually set up detectors at the slits by
> shining a light to "see" an electron passing through one slit or the
> other. The result is that if we shine a light at each slit that
> produces a flash if/when an electron passes through that slit, we
> find that the electron always goes through one slit or the other (not
> both), and there is no interference pattern. The distribution of
> landing sites is just the sum of the distributions of the individual
> slits with the other closed. But if we turn the lights off, so we
> don't know which way the electron went, we get the interference
> pattern. If we shine a low enough intensity light, so that sometimes
> no photon hits an electron, and hence we don't get a flash at either
> slit, then we get interference for those electrons, but no
> interference for the ones that produce a flash.

Yes.

Tom Roberts

On 9/1/21 11:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> photons get POLARIZED.

Nonsense. You CLEARLY do not know what the word means, or how light gets
polarized.

> Working on the paper seems a much more
> productive way to find answers to questions

Working from ignorance, as you do, is HOPELESS. Just making stuff up and
pretending it is true does not give any answers, only delusions....

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 1 September 2021 at 19:45:06 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/1/21 11:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> > photons get POLARIZED.
> Nonsense. You CLEARLY do not know what the word means, or how light gets
> polarized.
> > Working on the paper seems a much more
> > productive way to find answers to questions
> Working from ignorance, as you do, is HOPELESS. Just making stuff up and
> pretending it is true does not give any answers, only delusions....

Particularly when we all are FORCED to THE BEST WAY
of our beloved Giant Guru.

I would watch one but how could anything be counted?
Light moves outside the atom...