TILT! Please remember that we are dealing with the same lab setup whether
we are studying light (where the anomoly was discovered) or electrons,
atoms, molecules and perhaps according to Fred) Bricks. So the detection
mechanism MUST be detecting radiation. (Unless you want to slide down the
slippery slope of saying that light passing through a slit changes into
particles. I'll be waiting at the bottow with the ambulance!)

Agin, please recall that this works with radiation or with particles. You
don't get to pick one vs the other.

Yes, the electron will likely impact the detector. But as it passed through
the slit, some of its energy was lost as it induced Transition Radiation.
That Primary radiation does two things.

First, it radiates energy onto the plate.

Second, it interacts with the second slit/slot causing the second slot to
re-radiate energy.

Both of these radiation sources impact/interact at the plate.

No that's not what is happening. The electron's trajectory is not severely
influenced. The primary pattern is radiation caused. The secondary pattern
is the electron(s) splatting into the plate.

I agree. I am ASSUMING that in all these experiments, the slit was in metal.
(After all, at least the vacuum and atom/molecule tests must be done in
vacuum. And outgassing from plastics would destroy the integrity.)

Yes. But the experiments I have read about seem to be quite physically
symmetrical. Also, what I have seen from the somewhat fuzzy blob-patterns
that have been published seems to suggest that the patterns are not
IDENTICAL -- just very similar.

Yes. This is a good point. WRT light waves/photons, there is a huge amount
of lore associated with what happens when light waves graze an edge --
whether the edge is metal or dielectric -- and go off at an odd angle. We
even see this happening at UHF/VHF frequencies when radio waves graze the
top of a mountain. Re-radiation is the key there-- even though the mountain
is not a conducter.

WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help but
wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of charge???

YEAH! I used slot antennas and arrays as a model because these items
generate patterns that are a LOT like the patterns associated with double
slits. I'll be perfectly happy with an alternate coupling method between the
slots. But it seems very logical that the slits are coupling to each other.
I like that idea a LOT better than sentient particles and intelligent
seeing-eye waves!

Actually, it's already been done. Consult any comprehensive book on antenna
design. Look at radiation patterns for stacked vertical dipoles. Also look
at radiation patterns for long wire antennas. You'll see radiation patterns
remarkably similar to those seen in the double slit experiment. It is that
similarity that caused me to wonder if the double slit pattern wasn't a
result of radiation from a long (multiples of wavelength) antenna.

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek at (no spam) wp.pl> wrote in message
news:g11jbj$vcs$1 at (no spam) node1.news.atman.pl...


There MUST be " a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle."
But I see more chances in reflection from the atoms in the slit.
Electrons reflect not only from external atoms but also from deep ones.
Such can travel only in the directions between the external atoms. So a
pattern must appear.

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning, but would be interested in
hearing more about your idea.

I can quote Fred again: "With light you see the two slit interference
immediately.
With electrons you don't see the two slit interference until enough
electrons have passed and been detected."
It seams that electrons and another particles do not interfere but they only
prefer some directions after multiply reflections inside solid body. ("Such
can
travel only in the directions between the external atoms")
S*

I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not seem to
SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think of) in EM today.
That puzzle is: How can a single photon/electron/atom/molecule "know" about
the presence or absence of the second slit?

the electron leaves it's slit and proceeds toward the detector. The
its, shitwit hýpergrafic!

Finally we have the problem of the experiment working not only with
electrons (which are traditionally used to drive antennas) but also
the experiment also works with molecules, neutrons and photons which
are electrically neutral.  So this means one has to explain how
neutral currents can drive an aperture antenna.

OK then why are diffuse patterns from the LIGHT double slit experiment
identical with those for electrons?

I'm kinda repeating myself, but we are seeing identical results with waves
and particles. So we need to identify why two items with different
properties are acting exactly the same way. One solution is that they ARE
exactly the same. But that doesn't explain the double slit anomaly. Another
solution is that their interaction with one slit couples to the other slit.
And THAT idea does explain the anomaly.

There may be other solutions, but it seems to me that some form of coupling
between slits holds the key to the enigma.

This is not necessarily a "deal killer." As I noted elsewhere, in Transition
Radiation, involves about 1 photon for about every 1,000 electrons. Thus the
energy loss will be on average about 0.1%. That's kinda below the threshold
of error for most experiments!

But the two patterns are essentially identical. That's one of the baffling
things about this whole issue!

But I really don't KNOW what material was used to support the slits. Does
anyone on list KNOW?

Well... the transforms may be EXACTLY the same, but the measured patterns
are never coing to be exactly the same. Also, my antenna experience tells me
that the patterns of REAL driven arrays vs "identical" parasitic arrays will
be similar but not identical.

Yes, they CAN be. [ions made neutral] But, in the experiments that were made, WERE they
neutralized? Why would they do that?

Thanks for taking an interest in this, Benj. This is fun!

"Benj"

Actually, S*, this is a bit misleading. In BOTH the case of electrons

AND light if the intensity is low enough

Are you sure that intensity is low?
For me electrons needs time to make steady conditions. The first electrons
are trapped inside a solid body.
S*

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:A4kZj.12959$we7.8976 at (no spam) bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek at (no spam) wp.pl> wrote in message
news:g11jbj$vcs$1 at (no spam) node1.news.atman.pl...

"Bill Miller"

It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it
will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit,
the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained
therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.

In the first experiment by Davison and Germer they used 75eV electrons.
There no Xray.

Thanks for the nudge. I re-read Kirk's paper and realized that the Xray
reference was an UPPER LIMIT for this phenomenon. I've sent him an Email
to see if he can explain the expected spectrum. Also, "typical" Xray
generation involves electrons smashing into stationary items. Transition
Radiation is a different mechanism, and that MAY allow Xray generation at
lower eV levels. (Or it May not!)

So I agree with FrediFizzx: "I believe the way an electron experiment is
done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate"
that is recorded. And not radiation."

Belief is a wonderful thing. It can substitute for facts in almost any
environment! But don't forget that the SAME RESULTS are found with light
radiation.

Not exactly. With light you see the two slit interference immediately.
With electrons you don't see the two slit interference until enough
electrons have passed and been detected. I have reviewed the electon
experiments in the past and know that it is in fact electrons being
detected.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

On May 22, 3:35 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt... at (no spam) worldnet.att.net
wrote:

TILT! Please remember that we are dealing with the same lab setup
whether
we are studying light (where the anomoly was discovered) or electrons,
atoms, molecules and perhaps according to Fred) Bricks. So the detection
mechanism MUST be detecting radiation. (Unless you want to slide down the
slippery slope of saying that light passing through a slit changes into
particles. I'll be waiting at the bottow with the ambulance!)

Actually Fred is correct about about the fact you are detecting
particles and not radiation, which is exactly what I've said as well.

As for "bricks" that's mostly physics bullshit.

as stupid statements about bowling balls having a finite chance of
"reflecting" back from a table edge. These people never actually
calculated the quantum mechanics for a bowling ball and table and if
they did (and did it correctly) they find the wave functions were
smooth curves with no reflections in sight.

So if you are hurling photons or electrons or neutrons or neutrinos at
a slit setup, I suggest that particles are going toward the slit and
then through them and finally on to the detectors where they make
little flashes (see the nice images in Wikipedia on this subject)
Sorry, there is NO diffuse "radiation" interacting with the detectors
here.

But you do have a point. Lets do another experiment! Let's beam
microwaves at the dual slot antenna. Here waves go to the antenna,
they interact with it (waves hit both at once and represent currents
in the apertures) and then proceed onto the detector (radio) which is
picking up waves. These "waves" it has been argued are ALSO
"photons"! Can that be true? Something here needs looked into!

Agin, please recall that this works with radiation or with particles. You
don't get to pick one vs the other.

I don't quite know what you mean. Electrons are particles radio waves
are waves. You certainly can pick which one to use.

As for electrons
you are detecting flashes as they land. No radiation is being
detected. And it gets still better. One can measure the ENERGY of the
landing electron. No significant amount is lost in the slit as you
suggest.

Yes, the electron will likely impact the detector. But as it passed
through
the slit, some of its energy was lost as it induced Transition Radiation.
That Primary radiation does two things.

First, it radiates energy onto the plate.

Second, it interacts with the second slit/slot causing the second slot to
re-radiate energy.

Both of these radiation sources impact/interact at the plate.

No they don't! UNLESS you are doing the radio wave version of this.

No that's not what is happening. The electron's trajectory is not
severely
influenced. The primary pattern is radiation caused. The secondary
pattern
is the electron(s) splatting into the plate.

You mean not happening according to your theory! Unfortunately for
your theory, the pattern produced is by ELECTRONS not waves!

refer you to the fine wikipedia electron build-up images.

I agree. I am ASSUMING that in all these experiments, the slit was in
metal.
(After all, at least the vacuum and atom/molecule tests must be done in
vacuum. And outgassing from plastics would destroy the integrity.)

Nice try! Sorry there ARE opaque insulators that do not outgas. Black
glass for example.

Yes. But the experiments I have read about seem to be quite physically
symmetrical. Also, what I have seen from the somewhat fuzzy blob-patterns
that have been published seems to suggest that the patterns are not
IDENTICAL -- just very similar.

Nope. It is even WORSE than you think! The patterns of aperture
antennas are EXACTLY those of slit diffraction. Antenna theory goes
like this. The pattern of an aperture antenna is formed by a 'source"
which is the current distribution in the aperture. That current can be
a 'real" current or and "equivalent" current which is formed by waves
incident upon the aperture. One can show that the antenna pattern in
the far field (for rectangular apertures in Cartesian coordinates) is
the Fourier transform of the current distribution. This is identical
with the diffraction case. And is advanced up a level from the
simplified dual slit mathematics assuming line sources and the like.
However, it can be shown that the SAME transforms also work for light
incident upon apertures. But as we know these transforms are built up
one photon at a time! Tough nut to crack, eh?

Yes. This is a good point. WRT light waves/photons, there is a huge
amount
of lore associated with what happens when light waves graze an edge --
whether the edge is metal or dielectric -- and go off at an odd angle. We
even see this happening at UHF/VHF frequencies when radio waves graze the
top of a mountain. Re-radiation is the key there-- even though the
mountain
is not a conducter.

Re-radiation is indeed the key to your theory which we all like.
Namely it offers some kind of mechanism to "explain" how an electron
or photon which obviously has tiny physical dimensions can "sense" a
second slit so far away! I think I might suggest on further
refinement. Namely that you give up on the idea that pattern is formed
by "radiation" [it is not] and consider that there just might be some
OTHER kind of radiation forming in the "slot antennas" and that this
very short wave radiation doesn't interact with anything except the
trajectory of the particle after leaving the slit.

WRT the other items, like atoms, molecules (and neutrons?) I can't help
but
wonder how those get accelerated without accumulating some kind of
charge???

Atoms and the like can be ionized for acceleration and then
neutralized before ejected into the neutral beam. Also neutrons are
often ejected from radioactive substances with some considerable
velocities.

YEAH! I used slot antennas and arrays as a model because these items
generate patterns that are a LOT like the patterns associated with double
slits. I'll be perfectly happy with an alternate coupling method between
the
slots. But it seems very logical that the slits are coupling to each
other.
I like that idea a LOT better than sentient particles and intelligent
seeing-eye waves!

So do I!

Actually, S*, this is a bit misleading. In BOTH the case of electrons
AND light if the intensity is low enough

Electrons whipping through a hole (slit) don't get trapped by anything!

On May 23, 2:02 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt... at (no spam) worldnet.att.net
wrote:

OK then why are diffuse patterns from the LIGHT double slit experiment
identical with those for electrons?

Not sure what you mean by "diffuse patterns".

you reduce the intensity of either electrons or light you get to the
point where only single flashes are detected. There aren't any lower
energy "diffuse" radiation (as far as I know). Now the reason that
light and electrons form the SAME patterns has to be an interesting
question! The only conclusion we can reach is that somehow the pattern
is related to the GEOMETRY of the slits rather than the properties of
the slit material or the properties of the particles.

I suspect that the slit material's properties will play a role in the

I'm kinda repeating myself, but we are seeing identical results with
waves
and particles. So we need to identify why two items with different
properties are acting exactly the same way. One solution is that they ARE
exactly the same. But that doesn't explain the double slit anomaly.
Another
solution is that their interaction with one slit couples to the other
slit.
And THAT idea does explain the anomaly.

Yes it does! Which is what makes your idea very interesting!

There may be other solutions, but it seems to me that some form of
coupling
between slits holds the key to the enigma.

It sure seems promising to me and it's going in a way that physics
hasn't seemed to have gone yet. IT sure beats just throwing up your
hands and saying "it can never be known"!

This is not necessarily a "deal killer." As I noted elsewhere, in
Transition
Radiation, involves about 1 photon for about every 1,000 electrons. Thus
the
energy loss will be on average about 0.1%. That's kinda below the
threshold
of error for most experiments!

Yeah. I was wondering about that one myself! If the energy loss is
small it would probably never be noticed unless one devised an
experiment specifically to look for that energy loss. I presume nobody
so far was really looking for it.

But the two patterns are essentially identical. That's one of the
baffling
things about this whole issue!

Yes it is. In fact even MORE baffling is that charged particles and
neutral particles all produce the same pattern

material the slit is made of." Are you sure about this?

interesting "fact" of EM which is that properties such as inductance,
capacitance and even to a degree resistance are determined ONLY by
geometry (and a couple of material factors). So it isn't so odd to
find diffraction to be determined only by geometry just as inductance
is.

Slightly OT, visit Ivor Catt's website. He developed models for both C and L

It's kind of "New Age" to note the similarity to the crankosity of
"healing" by sitting under a pyramid. In fact, one can say that EVERY
conductor form in space actually has inductance, capacitance and
resistance, and indeed is a "circuit" all by itself! This is very much
along the lines of the "New Age" dogma where geometry of objects is
said to give them "powers"!

But I really don't KNOW what material was used to support the slits. Does
anyone on list KNOW?

Depends on WHOSE experiment you are talking about! Lots of people
have done these things.

Well... the transforms may be EXACTLY the same, but the measured patterns
are never coing to be exactly the same. Also, my antenna experience tells
me
that the patterns of REAL driven arrays vs "identical" parasitic arrays
will
be similar but not identical.

Mine too. Which is why I made the point of which slit the electron
goes through makes a difference. Because going through the other slit
switches which element is driven and which one is parasitic!

Agrred.

Yes, they CAN be. [ions made neutral] But, in the experiments that were
made, WERE they
neutralized? Why would they do that?

Well I don't have any references right here at my fingertips, but I
presume the reason they were neutralized was to show that neutral
particles also exhibit these "quantum" effects. It's not just about
ONE experiment but MANY experiments as everyone sort of wanders in the
wilderness trying to get a handle on what is going on!

Thanks for taking an interest in this, Benj. This is fun!

Yes it is! I often yap a lot about people expounding a bunch of dogma
(like saying things can "never" be known) rather than asking "is there
any way that these weird results we are seeing MIGHT be explained by
things we know already?" Just ASKING the right question can often
lead to significant progress even if no full-blown correct theory is
seen to quickly emerge. Yeah, that's why I love this kind of
thinking!

Benj