THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT PART 2, PROVE OR DISPROVE

 

My first paper looking at the double slit experiment hypothesizes that the wave function could be the result of quantum entanglement. This conclusion was reached through an evaluation of the information from the original double slit experiment involving individual particles. In other words, I simply carried the original experiment one step further. Given that the hypothesis is based on information from the first experiment, it is a valid experimentally based hypothesis. The next step would be to try and experimentally validate the hypothesis. This paper outlines steps that can be added to the original double slit experiment that can be used as an initial evaluation toward proving, or disproving, my quantum entanglement hypothesis for the wave function of a particle as established in the original double slit experiment. My first paper is also posted on this blog.

The original double slit experiment is such that a single particle is independently sent toward double slits. The slits are monitored to see which one the particle goes through. The particle continues on hitting a screen leaving a dispersed particle pattern on the screen. The act of measuring the particle for the slit it travels through determines it position and in essence removes the wave function of the particle. This results in a particle only dispersion pattern on the screen. My experiment simply builds on this.

On the screen where the particle pattern has been determined, cut another double slit. This way after traveling through the first double slit and determining which slit the particle goes through, which removes the wave function, we can see if the particle still acts like a particle after traveling through the second double slit and hitting a screen behind the second double slit. The pattern on the screen after the second double slit will show us if the particle is still a particle after traveling through both double slits, or if at some point the particle obtained another wave function. If the particle obtains a second wave function the questions would be where did the wave function come from, and is it the “same” as the initial coherent particle from the original source?

It should be noted that there are multiple versions or variations that could be done with this experimental set up. For example, there could be two sets of double slits set up on the second screen after the initial set, one at each particle dispersal pattern to see if one or both of the particle dispersal patterns have the same pattern on the final screen. One additional parameter that I would add to the experiment at some point, a complete account, tracking and total count of all particles released from the source.

My initial hypothesis is that the measurement at the first set of double slits removes the wave function of the particle and that from this measurement point forward the only thing left is a particle. In my experimental setup we know that when the particle reaches the second set of double slits it is acting as a particle. This was established in the original double slit experiment. This means that there is only a particle reaching the second double slits, which is the exact same process for the first double slits. The difference is that there is no longer a guarantee of particle coherence that was established in the initial particle source. From this point forward there are only two basic things that can return a wave function to the particle, the second set of double slits, or the virtual field. But, not just any wave function can be returned, it has to be the wave function corresponding to the original coherence of the source. A return of the wave function would by necessity have to be associated with quantum mechanics. The question would be what quantum process could return a distinct or specific wave function to what is in essence a free particle. Furthermore, returning the particle to its original state established at the particle source would require energy. At this point the most likely source of this energy is the virtual field. However, removing this energy from the field would result in an energy drain from the field which in turn results in a number of other issues.

My hypothesis for this experiment is that it will show that the measurement done at the first set of double slits removes the wave function and creates a “wave-free” particle. Furthermore, the establishment of wave-free particles does not result in a significant change to current quantum physics. Rather, it simply adds another characteristic to be used and evaluated as physics moves forward. The wave function is still a part of many aspects of particle interactions thus keeping relevant parts of quantum physics intact. Having a wave-free particle is not that much different many other aspects associated with the standard model of particles.

THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

 

My position on what we know about physics is that the information we have discovered clearly shows us that there is so much more for us to learn. For me the evidence starts with UFOs/ETs and Beings/Ghosts. We have thousands of years of history telling us all about these things that do not correspond with the physics we think we know. However, rather than telling ourselves that there has to be more for us to learn from these things, scientists will continue to tell us that they cannot be real because the physics we know will not allow for them. In other words, since science and physics cannot explain these things, these things cannot be real.

Well, from everything I read and research, the physics we know is telling us that there is more for us to learn. But for one reason or another today’s scientists simply want to try and built further on what we know rather than looking hard at what is known and asking questions. One of the crowning glories of quantum physics is the Standard Model of Particles. I have already written about what is one of the most glaring questions of many questions associated with the Standard Model and will post that in this blog. The questions I have are real, and they represent areas that we need to dig into rather than just ignoring them for convenience sake.

The standard model is not the only thing that points to more physics for us to learn about, there is experiment that is so ingrained in today’s quantum physics, the Double Slit Experiment that presents a huge question that needs to be answered. The Double Slit Experiment is the experiment that is responsible for giving us one of the most confusing and complicated aspects of quantum physics, Wave-Particle Duality. This is the quantum property of atoms and particles where they act like both a particle and a wave at the same time.

In 1801 physicist and physician Thomas Young performed the double slit experiment. He sent the light from the sun through a single slit, which made the sunlight somewhat in phase. After passing through the single slit the sunlight continued through to two closely spaced narrow slits. From the two slits the light went onto a screen where it showed wave interference patterns. Young’s experiment settled the debate on the nature of light and from this point on light was accepted as traveling as a wave.

Fast forward to 1961 when the first double slit experiment was done with electrons as individual particles and the wave interference pattern first observed by Young was observed with the individual electrons/particles. Further experiments done by sending single particles one at a time through the double slits still showed the wave interference pattern on the final screen. So, the wave nature of individual particles in quantum physics was verified and this is where we stand today.

However, there is a second part to the double slit experiment that I do not believe has been completely evaluation for further interpretations and conclusions. This second part is when the individual particles are measured after going through one of the slits so that it can be determined which slit the particle went through. That is it, a simple measurement telling us which slit the particle used. Well it turns out that this determination changes the whole dynamic of the experiment. There is no longer a wave interference pattern on the final screen. Rather there are just two piles or particles behind each slit. The wave is gone and the particle is acting like a particle when it hits the final screen. In other words, the simple act of measuring which slit the particle went through removes the wave nature of the particle.

So here is the question, I have a particle go through one of the slits and I measure that particle to see which slit it went through. Because of this measurement the particle is no longer a wave, it is now moving as a particle toward the final screen as clearly shown on the screen. What if right before the particle hits the screen and is brought to a stop, I move the screen an infinite distance away, or I move the screen at a speed just above that of the particle so that it cannot reach the screen? In other words, the particle is now moving through space as a particle with no wave form.

This completely upsets the wave-particle duality as now there is a particle moving through space as a only a particle with no “wave function.” The duality is gone. However, the standard answer maybe that a particle has to move through space as a wave so there must be something in quantum physics that gives the wave function back. In other words, unknown quantum magic that cannot be explained occurs and the particle regains a wave function. Or maybe there is another possible explanation, and nature is trying to tell us to dig deeper.

The double slit experiment gives us a particle without an associated wave, which is clear in the experiment itself. Additionally, without going into a lot of detail, the measurement of the slit that the particle uses corresponds with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Specifically, we measured position through the slit determination so the momentum (velocity) of the particle is still present. This accounts for the particle striking the final screen. So, if the wave is removed from the particle, and the particle still exists there are two basic questions;

Where did the wave form come from in the first place?

If there is still a wave form with the particle as it moves through space where did it come from?

Regarding the first question, how about another form of quantum entanglement? As for the second question, the answer is simple, nobody knows.

Regarding quantum entanglement, let’s recall that for this experiment there has to be a particle source, and this source has to in essence make the particles sent through the slits coherent. In other words, the source gives all of the particles a common characteristic. This common characteristic is pretty much what quantum entanglement is all about. Once you give a particle a common characteristic, it is related to other particle(s) by this consistent characteristic. In the case of the individual coherent particles, the common characteristic is the wave form embedded into the particles by the source of the particles. So, as long as you do not measure the particle position, which slit it goes through, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is intact and the particles will form the wave pattern on the final screen. This can also show in the measurement portion of the double slit experiment. Measuring the slit used removes the wave and gives a particle pattern on the final screen. Stop the measuring and the wave form returns for the individual particles on the final screen.

The wave particle duality associated with quantum physics is ingrained in so many things that are part of the physics of life. In particular atomic and molecular structures of the atoms we need and work with every day. But we really need to look at what this wave form does for us that cannot be handled in some other manner. Looking specifically at atomic structure, the wave form gives us the probability of finding an electron in a certain place. Since it is a probability, the electron may or may not be where the wave form says it is most likely to be. It could actually be in the area of the least probability. Furthermore, this wave is not static it is dynamic in that it oscillates. In other words, the position of the electron moves within its orbital, which means the most probable place the electron is supposed to be also moves which is also as expected. When we look at all of the other restrictions on electron placement in an atom, it just seems logical that the whole wave-particle duality and probability function is not the only way to find an electron.

The overriding question is why we have accepted things to be so complicated without even looking at other possible solution, especially when nature itself seems to be telling us there is more for us to find?

STANDARD MODEL AND NEXT GENERATION OF MATTER

 NOTE: This piece is posted to go along with piece above, THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

The Standard Model of Particles (Standard Model) is the building blocks and basis of the matter of our universe. However, this model is not without questions and issues. Despite the fact that the Standard Model is presented as the crowning glory of quantum physics, in my humble opinion there are so many questions with the Standard Model that at best it only represents a rough sketch for the matter in our universe. It is not possible to talk about the Standard Model without first giving some information about it. One of the easiest ways to do this is through one of the many charts that give a pictorial view of what the standard model is. However, these charts can be confusing with all of the numbers and symbols on them. So for the discussion I am about to have a brief description will be better. 

There are 16 different “elementary particles” that make up the Standard Model. However, there could be up to 18 “elementary particles” if you choose to include a couple of other elementary particles that are new or theorized. However, for the first part of our discussion I only want to focus on 4 of the elementary particles in the Standard Model. The 4 particles have different classification but their names are most likely familiar to you, they are;

1. Electron
2. Neutrino (more precisely the Electron Neutrino)
3. Two Quarks, the Up (u) quark and the Down (d) quark.

These 4 particles are commonly referred to as the “first generation” or “first family” of the Standard Model. And, these 4 particles make up all of the matter known and seen in our universe. Therefore, they can be considered the basic particles of our universe. And yes, there is the question of Dark Matter, but for now we will talk about what we can see. The reality of this situation is that it is the Electron and the two Quarks are really the elementary particles that make up all of the matter of our universe. The Neutrino is actually kind of an odd man out. It is formed in high energy events and it is the most abundant particle in our universe. Other than being a “placeholder” to help balance energy and momentum collisions it simply runs around our universe doing its own thing, whatever that may be.

Working with the two quarks, these elementary particles are the building blocks of the proton and neutron. The proton is made up of two up quarks and one down quark, common notation I will use is (uud = P), while the neutron is made up of two down quarks and one up quark, (udd = N). Recall, the Proton and Neutron make up the nucleus of the atom and the electron hangs out just outside of the nucleus. The atom is part of every piece of matter in our universe, and the two quarks and the electron make the atom. Three easy pieces to everything we see.

This really is all there is to the makeup of all of the stars, galaxies and particles everywhere in our universe. It is that straight forward, quarks and electrons represent all there is to putting the matter in our universe together, and there is nothing more than that. I do have to say that there are a lot of “issues and questions” associated with respect to how the quarks build the Proton and Neutron, but they do and that is the bottom line for now. And, not to worry as there will be a lot more forthcoming discussion on the Standard Model.

Before moving forward I have to tell you about a very important concept in physics, symmetry. Symmetry is all about making sure that things look the same no matter where they may be or where they may be moved to or how they may be moved. Violations of symmetry are a big deal that need special circumstances and conditions in order to cover for them in physics. If solutions for symmetry violations cannot be found, then there is a major problem.

Keeping symmetry in mind, it turns out that there is a second generation or family of elementary particles, these particles are;

1. Muon
2. Muon Neutrino
3. Two Quarks, the Charm Quark (c) and the Strange Quark (s).

Notice the comparison symmetry of the second generation with respect to the first. But, for clarity,

The Muon is exactly the same as the Electron except that the Muon is bigger.

The Muon Neutrino is the same as the Electron Neutrino except that the Muon Neutrino is bigger

The Charm Quark is the same as the Up Quark, except the Charm Quark is bigger and the Strange Quark is the same as the Down Quark, except the Strange Quark is bigger.

And next, there is a third generation or family of elementary particles, these particles are;

1. Tau
2. Tau Neutrino
3. Two Quarks, the Top quark (t) and the Bottom quark (b)

For clarity once again,

The Tau is the same as the Muon and Electron, only it is bigger than they are

The Tau Neutrino is the same as the Muon Neutrino and Electron Neutrino, only it is bigger than they are

The Top Quark is the same as the Charm and Up Quarks only it is bigger than they are, and the Bottom Quark is the same as the Strange Quark and the Down Quark, only it is bigger than they are.

Nice clean natural symmetry between the three generations except for the increase in weight moving from the first to second generation and then the second to third generation. The change in mass between the generations means the third generation of particles is much, much larger than the first generation.

So, since the first generation of particles gives us the Proton and Neutron, where are the second and third generation of Protons and Neutrons? Well, they do not exist in our world. It turns out that the second and third generations of the Standard Model that I covered above do not naturally exist in our world as they are too heavy. They really only show up in high energy experiments. It turns out that there are a whole lot of particles that are found in high energy experiments that simply do not exist in our world.

Notice how I stated “do not exist in our world” and did not say anything about existence in our universe. I did this because I believe that when we look at the standard model with respect to symmetry, it is telling us that second and third generations of Protons and Neutrons must exist.  Since we do not see them they must exist in a part of our universe where we have not looked. For example, an infinite 4th dimension above our three dimensions. In other words, our own discoveries are telling us that we are not seeing all there is to see in our universe.

Here is the question that has to be asked, why would nature make up two whole generations of particles without there being some purpose to the particles? In fact, it is not possible to say that there are not a fourth, fifth and beyond generation of particles that are simply too heavy to ever exist in our world.

There really is so much more to our universe, we just have to start asking questions rather than accepting the status quo.