The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. detection induced field collapse, real or not?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

detection induced field collapse, real or not?

  • 0 Replies
  • 3232 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sciconoclast (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 149
  • Activity:
    0%
detection induced field collapse, real or not?
« on: 22/01/2012 16:35:18 »
Greetings inquisitive minds.

I have made some additional observations with a modified Fresnel experiment which may or may not challenge the Bohr concept of detection induced  quantum field collapse.

In this modified experiment laser light is split by a beam splitter and then brought back by front centered silver mirrors to two center mirrors which act as Fresnel mirrors to direct the paths into an interference field.  Next  vertical single slits are placed in each of the paths before reaching the center mirrors or optionally one single slit is placed before them beam splitter.

The light leaving the Fresnel mirrors is brought into convergence at the target screen. If the light exits the mirrors in the same horizontal plain there is a double slit pattern with the nodal line spacing commensurate with the separation between the paths leaving the mirrors.   If the mirrors are adjusted so that one path exits the Fresnel mirrors low on an upward path and the other exits high on a downward path, then there are only single slit anti-nodal bands even when the paths are brought into convergence.   

If the light exits the mirrors in the same horizontal plain but exits at a divergent horizontal angle ( for example 1.58977482 degrees for an exit separation of 6.00mm ) there will be two separate center maxima with numerous overlapping single slit anti-nodal bands between them but an absence of any double slit nodal spacing.  If the light exits at a convergence angle ( 1.65229206 degrees ) a portion of the anti-nodal bands will be divided by double slit nodal line ( the center eleven of the twenty five bands between the maxima when using 0.75mm slits )  This is true even if  the screen is positioned to where the two different angles intersect the target screen with the same maxima separation ( 0.350m at a distance of 12.370m ). 

This seems to indicate that the interference pattern is formed early and only when the light paths are in close proximity and not separated in either the vertical or horizontal plains.  This seems to confirm the results of two different experiments that I posted earlier that utilized light passing through an actual double slit rather than being reflected of of a Fresnel mirror.  It may be that for the Bohr interpretation of quantum theory to meet this condition the theoretical point of quantum field collapse may need to be modified.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.985 seconds with 32 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.