The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?  (Read 10189 times)

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« on: 28/09/2010 19:07:31 »
Does this observation disprove the quantum theory explanation for photon interferometry?

If you have two 0.50mm wide slits diverging from an apex at 28 degrees from each other and you focus a laser just below the apex, just below where the two inside edges converge, two double slit interference patterns emerge with each one perpendicular to one of the slits.   Covering one of the slits will cause the pattern from the remaining slit to revert to a single slit pattern.

How can a theory that generates the pattern at the screen rather than at the slits possibly explain a double slit pattern in two different planes?   One nice think about simple experiments is that it is hard to refute the results.   Okay, defenders of the orthodox, have at it.



                                                                                       
« Last Edit: 28/09/2010 19:09:44 by sciconoclast »


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #1 on: 28/09/2010 23:33:24 »
What you are describing looks perfectly normal to me and just what I would expect from the standard theories of the subject.  What you may be forgetting is that there are two wave effect processes in operation here interference and diffraction.  The diffraction produces the single slit patterns and interference and diffraction the double slit pattern
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #2 on: 29/09/2010 13:06:26 »
Thanks for the response.

I am glad to see that you recognize the pattern.   Everything you say would be correct if the slits were parallel.   The light radiates parallel to the slit edges so the light from the two separate slits is not in contact with each other.

Your answer utilizes classical wave theory.   However, the results are the same as, both classical waves and the quantum field expand perpendicular to the slit.   Both rely on a convergence to take place at the viewing screen of crest to crest waves or probable paths.

Excepting the mid point, the two patterns do not overlap at the screen.   One of the sacred principles of quantum theory is that there can be no interference pattern if the photon path is known.   It is very obvious as to which slit the light passed through for each pattern.

                             Thanks for your interest but I believe if there is an answer it is more complicated.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #3 on: 29/09/2010 15:36:14 »
Good one sciconoclast. I didn't appreciate the point, but it really is so very simple.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #4 on: 29/09/2010 16:18:37 »
The single slit patterns are angled diffraction patterns dependant on the angle of the two slits individually  the fringes are dependant on the width of the slits  the narrower the slits the wider the fringes.  The two slit pattern is both of the diffraction patterns overlaid by a complex narrower two slit interference pattern associated with the sections of the angled slits that most of the light is going through.  (as you say the bit closet to the vertex of the angle)  This is perfectly in accordance with both classical wave and quantum theory.
« Last Edit: 30/09/2010 11:43:13 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2010 00:27:26 »
You have described the interference pattern correctly but you still haven't explained how it can occur across the  different planes that the light radiates in.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #6 on: 05/10/2010 06:34:44 »
You have described the interference pattern correctly but you still haven't explained how it can occur across the  different planes that the light radiates in.

The minimum intensity of light you can get at a spot according to diffraction theory is the light intensity from one slight minus the light intensity from the other slit.  You've drawn those values to be zero.  That means that either your experiment has an error, your plots aren't accurate, or you've disproved diffraction theory.  Since diffraction theory has been tested rigorously for ~100 years, most readers are going to question your experimental setup and results very closely.  Of course, if you're confident in your results, why not refine and publish them?
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #7 on: 05/10/2010 11:27:09 »
JP - With fraunhofer single slit diffraction you get zero intensity don't you, as long as your slit isn't too wide or too narrow?  I am yet to look for the equations of intensity - but one thing is for certain, every diagram showing one slit diffraction shows zero light areas.  Even if this is a just a matter of approximation - it is a fairly universal approximation.
 
Sciconoclast On your experiment - surely the two slits at the extreme apex (ie where they are close enough to constructively/destructively interfere with each other) are acting as if they are two pairs of holes/slits at 28 degrees to each other.  It might help if you posted some photos;   JP is correct that the intensities are a matter of utmost importance - and your diagrams show them as uniform. And please make sure they are in focus!  Its really hard to accept experimental proof that relies on a high degree of accuracy in handling light sources when the photographs are not even in focus.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #8 on: 05/10/2010 12:14:56 »
Matthew:  You're absolutely right about a single slit.  My concern is with double slits.  The bottom two plots show the diffraction patterns, including zeros, from each slit independently.  These look entirely plausible to me.

What's odd about this pattern is what's shown when the light from both slits interferes.  The claim is that opening both slits at once leads to fringes within these single slit fringes that go completely dark.  The problem, I think, is that when you interfere two light fields at a point, they produce fringes, but the maximal intensity of the bright fringes will be the sum of the intensities of each field, while the minimal intensity of the fringes will be the difference in intensity of the two fields.  What's shown in the drawing is that the rapid fringes (which are associated with interference between the two slits) go to zero.  This isn't possible, since one slit's intensity is much smaller than the other's in most of those regions, so the minimum intensity isn't zero.

Put mathematically, if the intensity of  the field from slit 1 at point P is I1(P).  The intensity from slit 2 at point P is I2(P).  The total amplitude at point P can vary from I1(P)+I2(P) if the fields interfere constructively to |I1(P)-I2(P)| if the fields interfere destructively.  The variation between these values cause the fringes, but they only go to zero if I1(P)-I2(P)=0.  Clearly, the single slit patterns aren't equal in intensity, except right near the center of the plots, so you shouldn't get completely dark fringes out on the wings of each pattern, unless I'm missing something obvious here...

By the way, I did the calculation (Fresnel diffraction) out of curiosity--this case isn't that hard to do.  You get rapid oscillating fringes within your larger patterns, but these fringes have low contrast that gets lower as you go further out along each pattern.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2010 13:10:04 by JP »
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #9 on: 06/10/2010 03:59:09 »
Unfortunately I did not get pictures of this one.  And you are right I should have pictures in addition to pattern tracings.   I will set it up again and see if I can get some good pictures.   My post number 322437 demonstrates what is probably the same principle with a triangular center post pattern.   That post has some pictures which are similar.  I will get back as soon as I have new pictures for this experiment.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #10 on: 06/10/2010 04:02:57 »
By the way, I went to edit my post for clarity, but TNS was acting up last night.  To be clear, Soul Surfer's explanation is right, and I agree with it.  My concern is with the visibility of the fringes being much higher in the drawing than they should be in reality.
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #11 on: 08/10/2010 03:02:26 »
back with pictures.

     The 28 degree triangle was two difficult for me to photograph.   There is only one spot on the triangle that produces a clean pattern (I found this true for all of these types) and the bands are too fine at that point to show up in a photograph.  There was a lot of luck involved in seeing the pattern the first time.

     I found that 0.70mm slits at 5 degrees with the laser focused where the center spacer is 1.80mm wide is much more easier to photograph.   I focused the camera on the left side rather than the center to prevent wash out by back splash from the brighter center pattern.

Both Slits Open


Right Slit Closed


Left Slit Closed
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #12 on: 08/10/2010 04:52:10 »
The photographs are quite different from the drawings included above.  Seeing the photographs, I'd have to say that Soul Surfer's explanation covers it--this looks like just diffraction and interference.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #13 on: 08/10/2010 21:42:32 »
Sciconoclast - I am afraid that the evidence is pretty clear and it looks like both quantum theory and classical descriptions are safe for the moment.  Your diagrams and photos don't really match up.   Presuming (and I think this is a false presumption) that you are on to something; you are going to need really good photos.  The photos above look inconsistent (ie not from same place or in same direction), have no idea of scale or reference points, and are still seemingly pretty low-fi. I think you realise what a big challenge you have taken on, and to make physicist even think twice about the validity of qm you are going to need some really good proof.  Good luck in your endeavour even though I think it is misguided.   
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #14 on: 09/10/2010 03:11:33 »
Yea, my experiments are tertiary and low tec.

The pictures I sent are of the far left side where there is the greatest separation between the two planes.

Here is a picture focused on the center of the skewed slit pattern.


Here is a picture of the same double slit configuration but with the slits parallel.


Do you see any difference in the patterns other than that one is displaying in two different planes?

It is obvious that when both slits are open the patterns in both planes are changed.   It is also obvious which slit is the path for light in the extremities of those patterns.   This is a direct contradiction to quantum theory!

It really dose not matter what the pattern is called, interference, diffraction, or whatever.   The only thing that matters is that there is a pattern with banning.   The idea of an actual interference pattern is not current.   The term is only used out of deference to historical notation.   According to the principle of non-locality no photon or wave actually passes through the slits.

  The wave function in quantum theory is only a mathematical tool to calculated the probability of a photon coming into existence at a particular point if it is tested for at that point ( " The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that any wave function is anything more than an abstraction " from wikipedia ).   The point where the photon is tested for in this experiment is the target screen and it is obvious that, excepting the mid point, there is no convergence of probable paths from the two separate slits to change the probabilities in the patterns. 

   The anomaly involved, that a double slit pattern can occur even when the path is known, is extremely apparent even in this poorly executed experiment.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2010 03:20:38 by sciconoclast »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #15 on: 09/10/2010 04:02:15 »
Knowing which path the light went through is basically closing one slit.  As you demonstrated, this causes the pattern to disappear.  With both slits open, you don't know which path it went through and you see interference.  Discussing this as quantum mechanics is incorrect, however, as its not really a quantum phenomenon.  The mathematics behind the theory are extremely similar, however.  Essentially, with both slits open, some light from one slit reaches the pattern of the other slit and interferes.  It's less light and slightly different than with parallel slits, but it's still some light.  That's what I see in the above pattern.

I won't go into detail explaining diffraction theory here and how the mathematics work, but there's a good reference online.  Check out chapters 3 and 4: http://books.google.com/books?id=ow5xs_Rtt9AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Joseph+W.+Goodman%22&hl=en&ei=Y9qvTL6zA8zJca_JiMEH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you can work through the theory and predict what you should see on the basis of diffraction theory and then come back and find significant deviations in your experiment from those predictions, you may be on to something.  Qualitatively, however, the pictures don't seem to show that the theory is wrong.
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #16 on: 09/10/2010 18:10:41 »
Thanks for the reference links.

     Are you saying that if the light from one slit only illuminates one section of the screen and the light from another slit only illuminates a different portion of the screen, that I still cannot tell the path to one of those areas if both slits are open?

     Near the center where the planes are in close proximity there seems to be some pulling together of light paths (this is going to be the subject of another experiment and future post); but, at the far periphery the light is well separated.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2010 18:19:33 by sciconoclast »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #17 on: 10/10/2010 12:15:58 »
I'm saying the regions you claim are dark aren't actually dark.  There's a diffraction pattern going in both directions from the slit (as it would from any rectangular shape).  I can see the pattern in both directions in the picture, so its not surprising that you get interference outside of the main band of light, in one of the side fringes.
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #18 on: 14/10/2010 18:55:35 »
Cross slit diffraction experimentally ruled out.

I constructed a better version of the 5 degree slits ( the first was a rough razor cuts ).    At 1.15m from the slits I placed a shield with an edge sloping at 65 degrees off of vertical and crossing the pattern at 6.50mm from the center.   The shield was placed first blocking the lower left portion of the pattern and then reversed to block the upper left portion.

The angle of the shield is to direct any light diffracting from its edge ether upwards or downwards away from the continuing portion of the pattern.   In both cases the light from the right slit can pass father behind the shield than that from the left slit because of the angle from the slits to the shield edge.  So there is an area of the lower portion of the pattern from the right slit which extends farther to the left than light from the left slit, diffracted, refracted, deflected, bent, or otherwise, but still displays the double slit spacing.



This picture probably is not going to upload well as it is very faint.   I am going to get some photographic help and come back with better pictures.

This second phase of this experiment is really not needed.   Anyone can see that the pattern with both slits open is a double slit pattern especially when compared with the single slit pattern it sub-divides.   The bans in a  single edge diffraction pattern would be much more narrow and tight.

JP: In your post #306839, which was a reply to my topic, misspelled as " Does Experiment Cotradict Quantum theory ", you stated " If it"s a small amount of light, you expect to see a small amount of interference "; which is true.   If the light in the dark area for one closed slit that is diffracted from the open slit is too slight to observe than you would not expect it to produce a well defined double slit pattern when both slits are open.   Instead you should see the single slit pattern with only a faint hint of double slit bans superimposed, if at all.

With the 28 degree slits this does happen with the upper portion of the patterns.   For the sketch I posted to have been correct I should have placed a lighter red shading between the bans in the upper half.   When I first made the tracing I was just following the high lights.   Originally it was only for my record as I did not know what I had.

I view this difference in the upper and lower patterns as an indication that the proximity of the paths exiting the slits is a factor rather than interference at the screen.   This is discussed in more detail with pictures in my post, misspelled as "How can light intefer accross diffenet planes ".

If there is a quantum theory friendly explanation I think it is going to be more complicated.   
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 01:49:29 by sciconoclast »
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #19 on: 18/10/2010 01:41:45 »
Back with better picture.

This picture is a long 30 second exposure focused with good contrast on the far left of the pattern.   You can see the lower pattern from the right slit extending well past the upper pattern from the left slit and a lot of intensity to the right of the sloping shield.   The light from the right slit passing behind the shield still maintains the double slit banning pattern even though light from the left slit is blocked from this area.



The earlier thread that I started with the post, "Why does the double slit pattern disappear in this experiment", showed that when light is separated vertically when passing through a double slit there is no double slit pattern even if the light is converged later.   It stands to reason that the opposite would be true, that if light is in the same plane when passing through the double slit but vertically separated later at the screen there should be a double slit pattern.   This post proves this second condition.

Both of these results are the opposite of what quantum theory would predict. 
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 01:43:58 by sciconoclast »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #20 on: 18/10/2010 18:19:26 »
Both of these results are the opposite of what quantum theory would predict. 

Wouldn't the opposite be getting 2-slit fringes with only one slit open, and getting one-slit fringes with both slits open?

At any rate, without measured intensity values, its hard to comment further on your claims.  You seem convinced you're on to something, so why not work on your experimental setup so that you can measure light intensity rather than just taking pictures of the pattern?
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #21 on: 25/10/2010 02:47:28 »
Back with modified experiment.

I modified the experiment to glean further information.   I focused a small laser beam on only the left slit and then introduced a shield with a 45 degree edge close to the laser to block any direct path to the right slit.   Light diffracted off of the shield edge, if any, would be directed away from the slit pattern ( there was no change in the pattern with the introduction of the shield ).

With the new slit sizes used a single asymmetrical pattern appears, perpendicular to the left slit, with single slit  spacing on the left side and double slit spacing on the right.   If there were enough photon paths through the right slit to be responsible for the partial double slit spacing then there should also be a noticeable pattern perpendicular to the right slit.   This is what happens when light is focused on both slits; creating an "X" pattern with the upper portions of the both patterns at single slit spacing and the lower portions with double slit spacing.

This seems to be indicate that the photon has a core and a larger field that must pass through both slits to create a double slit pattern.  This is a conformation of the results of the experiments posted as " Does Experiment Contradict Quantum Theory? ", and " Is this second experiment a contradiction to quantum theory? ".

With 0.20mm slits at 5 degrees in opposite directions off of vertical and the laser focused at a spacer width of 2.00mm, the double slit spacing begins in the center of the center single ban and continues to the right.   With 0.50mm slits and the laser focused at a spacer of 6.20mm, the double slit spacing begins with the second peripheral ban to the right and continues on to the right.

This is commensurate with the pattern being generated as light exits the slit or shortly there after.   The paths through the left slit, described as to the right, or down ward, or initially towards the center, are in the closest proximity to a field, or, although unlikely, other light passing through the left slit.   However, at the target screen they have less exposure than the light in the center ban and the closer peripheral bans on ether side of the center.   

This indication that the interference pattern is not a screen phenomena but a slit phenomena is a contradiction to quantum theory and the concept of the quantum filed collapse occurring at the screen.   However, it is a conformation of the indications of the experiments posted as " Why does the double slit pattern disappear in this experiment?" and " What is happening in this experiment? ".

The fine ban spacing is correct in the attached sketch but the ban width has been narrowed and the dark spaces widened to facilitate viewing.



I am grateful for the scientific skepticism.   What I think is obvious often is not to others.   In an attempt to make the experiment more convincing it has become more complicated but much improved.
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #22 on: 10/11/2010 01:40:14 »
Back again.

I have modified the experiment to rule out interference from aberrant diffraction.   The experiment has been modified to the point that it is really a new experiment.   Therefore, I have placed a description and diagram in a new thread, "Does modified experiment confirm "disproof of quantum theory"?".
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Disproof of Quantum Theory or Not?
« Reply #22 on: 10/11/2010 01:40:14 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums