This time, Bill walks to the wall, whisks out a cigarette (though he does
not smoke) lights it and grips it between his lips. He removes a bandanna
from his hip pocket and ties it around his eyes.

He takes a deep breath. "Ready! Aim! Fire!" he shouts.

He hears a multitude of CLICKS. Puzzled, he removes the blindfold and
watches as the firing squad begins dis-assembling their weapons, obviously
looking for some universal flaw.

He tosses the unsmoked cigarette on the ground and walks away.
*************************************************

A few weeks ago, I suggested that the Double Slit experiment may have been
misinterpreted.

(You know. This is the experiment done first by Young in the 19th Century.
It "proved" the wave nature of light. It also led the way to a puzzling
phenomenon wherein light as well as electrons, protons, neutrons and atoms
and maybe dumptrucks became waves AND developed sentience by apparently
"knowing" about the existence of a second slit even though they were passing
nowhere near it. It's the experiment from which the statistical nature of
light etc. led us to Quantum Mechanics.)

My suggested alternate explanation was that the slits were simply acting as
slot antennas and were coupling EM energy from one to the other.

Dumb idea. That was the opinion of many. (But not all.)

So... I hopped onto Google Scholar and started looking for construction
details of slits. That way, I could make some back-of-an-envelope
calculations to see if anything I suggested might vaguely fit

What I found exceeded all my expectations.

Here is the abstract from a January 2005 paper published in the Physical
Review Letters entitled "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's
Experiment Revisited"

Here is the abstract:

"We present an experimental and theoretical study of the optical
transmission of a thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength slits,
separated by many optical wavelengths. The total intensity of the far-field
double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of the
wavelength of the incident light beam. This modulation is attributed to an
interference phenomenon at each of the slits, instead of at the detector.
The interference arises as a consequence of the excitation of surface
plasmons propagating from one slit to the other."
In other words, something different is happening from what is suggested by
Quantum theory. And that difference appears to be much more consistent with
Classical EM than with playing dice with the universe. In the paper, the
performance of the experiment seems very similar to what I had suggested in
my earlier posting.

Here is a link to the paper:

http://download.antennex.com/listarc...it_Plasmon.pdf

You will have to register (FREE) in order to see it unless you are
previously registered.

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

Bill

On Jul 8, 1:32 pm, "Bill Miller"
wrote:

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

Plasmons, Polaritons, Phonons, Photons, Plasmonster Devices? "What
does this all mean?", is indeed the question! In fact, the real
question is how in the world can all of this fit some model that
actually isn't insane? That "classic" simple Young's experiment isn't
such a simple thing after all, is it? This is such a theoretical
disaster that I'd have serious reservations about even MENTIONING
Young's double slit experiment in a freshman text!

"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...
This time, Bill walks to the wall, whisks out a cigarette (though he does
not smoke) lights it and grips it between his lips. He removes a bandanna
from his hip pocket and ties it around his eyes.

He takes a deep breath. "Ready! Aim! Fire!" he shouts.

He hears a multitude of CLICKS. Puzzled, he removes the blindfold and
watches as the firing squad begins dis-assembling their weapons, obviously
looking for some universal flaw.

He tosses the unsmoked cigarette on the ground and walks away.
*************************************************

A few weeks ago, I suggested that the Double Slit experiment may have been
misinterpreted.

(You know. This is the experiment done first by Young in the 19th Century.
It "proved" the wave nature of light. It also led the way to a puzzling
phenomenon wherein light as well as electrons, protons, neutrons and
atoms
and maybe dumptrucks became waves AND developed sentience by apparently
"knowing" about the existence of a second slit even though they were
passing
nowhere near it. It's the experiment from which the statistical nature of
light etc. led us to Quantum Mechanics.)

My suggested alternate explanation was that the slits were simply acting
as
slot antennas and were coupling EM energy from one to the other.

Dumb idea. That was the opinion of many. (But not all.)

So... I hopped onto Google Scholar and started looking for construction
details of slits. That way, I could make some back-of-an-envelope
calculations to see if anything I suggested might vaguely fit

What I found exceeded all my expectations.

Here is the abstract from a January 2005 paper published in the Physical
Review Letters entitled "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's
Experiment Revisited"

Here is the abstract:

"We present an experimental and theoretical study of the optical
transmission of a thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength slits,
separated by many optical wavelengths. The total intensity of the
far-field
double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of
the
wavelength of the incident light beam. This modulation is attributed to an
interference phenomenon at each of the slits, instead of at the detector.
The interference arises as a consequence of the excitation of surface
plasmons propagating from one slit to the other."
In other words, something different is happening from what is suggested by
Quantum theory. And that difference appears to be much more consistent
with
Classical EM than with playing dice with the universe. In the paper, the
performance of the experiment seems very similar to what I had suggested
in
my earlier posting.

Here is a link to the paper:

http://download.antennex.com/listarc...it_Plasmon.pdf

You will have to register (FREE) in order to see it unless you are
previously registered.

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

Bill

Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
silence is deafening.
Should I be surprised at this silence? I truly don't know if that is the
correct responce. Undoubtedly a clear indication of lack of experience on
my part.
On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since then I
have read the following.
I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what else
may be lurking within other negative solutions.
Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is it
not?

I've never been able become comfortable with the interpretion of Young's
experiment. It's an interesting case (apparently) of where the
interpreation has been tailored to fit the result. A difficult thing to
critisize or question successfully. You are a brave man Bill!!
Thank you very much,
Highest regards,
Vince

On Jul 9, 11:25 pm, "Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
silence is deafening.

And even I had little to say. Hey, I've actually worked with photons
and phonons and the like and even though it's clear the effects are
real, I have NO idea what it all means.

On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since then I
have read the following.
snip
I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what else
may be lurking within other negative solutions.
Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is it
not?

I have brought up the subject of Maxwells equations and "non-physical"
solutions from time to time. E&M professionals and by that I mean
people who work in practical application of Maxwell's Equations like
antenna designers and radar developers and the like, are very familiar
with the fact that Maxwell's equations often produce solutions that
you simply summarily pitch out by asserting they are "non-physical".
Bill strikes me as an E&M pro and I'm sure he's familiar with this.
However, the question would be "are negative solutions non-physical?"
The answer of course depends totally on experiment. Namely does the
antenna design actually work or is it just another dream.

I would point out that the antenna in question has properties that are
not all that hard to achieve save ONE. The DDRR antenna and it's
clones easily do it all except for bandwidth. A small physical size
almost always implies a tradeoff and if that is not going to be gain,
then it's going to be bandwidth. But that is using the standard
"physical" solutions. Do do the "negative" solutions work? Only
experiment can answer that question. I used to have a CB antenna on
the roof of my van of a DDRR clone variety. It easily produced a gain
in both reception and transmitting equal to a full size dipole. [Yes
Virginia, personally measured by me in comparison to an actual full
size dipole] It had a maximum height of about 6 inches off the roof.
But you had to manually tune it to each channel used. No biggie,
though. Of course it depends on how you define "bandwidth". The
antenna could be TUNED over a very wide range of frequencies, but the
bandwidth at any given tuning was rather limited. But that was GOOD as
it much reduces EMI.

As I recall wasn't this antenna mentioned by Vince, the antenna
mentioned in a previous thread that was termed a hoax?

Bill Miller wrote:
PRL "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's Experiment Revisited"

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

OK, so I can couple the light at the slits in a Young's-like Experiment
using plasmons excited on a metal screen.

But this says little about the usual Young's Experiment which uses
(assumes) a non-metallic screen, with no plasmon coupling.

And it says even less about quantum mechanics -- I can still use QM to
describe either type of experiment.


--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

wrote in message
...
Bill Miller wrote:
PRL "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's Experiment
Revisited"

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean
to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

OK, so I can couple the light at the slits in a Young's-like Experiment
using plasmons excited on a metal screen.

But this says little about the usual Young's Experiment which uses
(assumes) a non-metallic screen, with no plasmon coupling.

And it says even less about quantum mechanics -- I can still use QM to
describe either type of experiment.

Yep. By all means.

I'm not looking to throw the baby out with the bath, and if QM descriptions
provide solutions that work, then go for it.

What I AM suggesting is that QM solutions are not the only ones that fit.
And that viewing a slit as a slot antenna seems to provide a reasonable
(logical) alternate solution. And you don't need statistics to make it work!

Bill

Bill
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote in message
u...
"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...
snip

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean
to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

Bill

Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
silence is deafening.
Should I be surprised at this silence?

Well, I was a little surprised also. But I suspect that it may be that
"they" are simply hoping I'll go away if they do nothing. Kinda like the
government's response to the energy problem over the last few decades.

I truly don't know if that is the
correct responce. Undoubtedly a clear indication of lack of experience on
my part.
On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since then
I
have read the following.

Quote:

Imagine an AM antenna one-fiftieth of a wavelength long, that needs no radial ground system, occupies a small parcel of land, produces little or no RFI (Radio Frequency Interference), has great bandwidth and performs better than a full-sized vertical radiator. Does this sound like a fantasy? Until recently, it would have been. Now working models of such an antenna exist in the Middle East and at NAB99 (National Association of Broadcasters' 1999 Convention in Las Vegas).

Quote:

The "reversed form" (negative solution) of Maxwell's Fourth Equation, states that a magnetic field can be produced without current flowing in a wire........ On April 19, 1999, at the Las Vegas Convention Center, Brian Steward from the Department of Engineering at Glasgow Caledonian University presented a paper on what has been patented as the Crossed-Field Antenna

I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what else
may be lurking within other negative solutions.
Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is it
not?

See my notes on Benj's reply below.

I've never been able become comfortable with the interpretion of Young's
experiment. It's an interesting case (apparently) of where the
interpreation has been tailored to fit the result. A difficult thing to
critisize or question successfully. You are a brave man Bill!!

I own my own business. I am not a part of academia. My business has nothing
to do with physics. My kids are all out of school and in non-academic
enterprises. My wife and I work together in our business.

My academic reputation cannot be destroyed by scorn or ad hominem criticism.
My business cannot be damaged in the same way. My kids won't get bad grades
because of who their father is. My wife won't get fired for the same reason.

Brave?

Naw! The truly brave are the ones that do not have my "immunity" and still
speak out when they see really dumb stuff going on.

Bill
Thank you very much,
Highest regards,
Vince

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jul 9, 11:25 pm, "Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
silence is deafening.

And even I had little to say. Hey, I've actually worked with photons
and phonons and the like and even though it's clear the effects are
real, I have NO idea what it all means.

On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since
then I
have read the following.
snip
I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what else
may be lurking within other negative solutions.
Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is it
not?

I have brought up the subject of Maxwells equations and "non-physical"
solutions from time to time. E&M professionals and by that I mean
people who work in practical application of Maxwell's Equations like
antenna designers and radar developers and the like, are very familiar
with the fact that Maxwell's equations often produce solutions that
you simply summarily pitch out by asserting they are "non-physical".
Bill strikes me as an E&M pro and I'm sure he's familiar with this.
However, the question would be "are negative solutions non-physical?"
The answer of course depends totally on experiment. Namely does the
antenna design actually work or is it just another dream.

I would point out that the antenna in question has properties that are
not all that hard to achieve save ONE. The DDRR antenna and it's
clones easily do it all except for bandwidth. A small physical size
almost always implies a tradeoff and if that is not going to be gain,
then it's going to be bandwidth. But that is using the standard
"physical" solutions. Do do the "negative" solutions work? Only
experiment can answer that question. I used to have a CB antenna on
the roof of my van of a DDRR clone variety. It easily produced a gain
in both reception and transmitting equal to a full size dipole. [Yes
Virginia, personally measured by me in comparison to an actual full
size dipole] It had a maximum height of about 6 inches off the roof.
But you had to manually tune it to each channel used. No biggie,
though. Of course it depends on how you define "bandwidth". The
antenna could be TUNED over a very wide range of frequencies, but the
bandwidth at any given tuning was rather limited. But that was GOOD as
it much reduces EMI.

As I recall wasn't this antenna mentioned by Vince, the antenna
mentioned in a previous thread that was termed a hoax?

Yep. This is the one that claimed to use the magnetic field "caused" by
Displacement Current to form radiation in a small space. And this is the one
that cost the Isle Of Man Radio enterprise megabucks when it didn't work.

BTW there's a "rule" in antenna design:

Small
Efficient
Wideband

Pick TWO

Bill

On Jul 10, 8:39*am, "Bill Miller"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

Bill Miller wrote:
PRL "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's Experiment
Revisited"

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean
to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

OK, so I can couple the light at the slits in a Young's-like Experiment
using plasmons excited on a metal screen.

But this says little about the usual Young's Experiment which uses
(assumes) a non-metallic screen, with no plasmon coupling.

And it says even less about quantum mechanics -- I can still use QM to
describe either type of experiment.

Yep. By all means.

I'm not looking to throw the baby out with the bath, and if QM descriptions
provide *solutions that work, then go for it.

What I AM suggesting is that QM solutions are not the only ones that fit.
And that viewing a slit as a slot antenna seems to provide a reasonable
(logical) alternate solution. And you don't need statistics to make it work!

Bill

Bill

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) * * * (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, * * * *
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. * * * * *http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

Great work, Bill.
I think the key point I am picking up from this discussion is: how
does the nature of the screen effect the observed results? Have you
found any recent experimental papers on the two-slit experiment using
non-conducting screens?
It seems plausible that the edges of metallic screens can set up micro
currents that are seen at a distance as antenna but insulators should
behave differently, especially under weak field conditions that cannot
induce polarization in the screen.
PS Glad to see your vision 'situation' is not holding you back.

"maxwell" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 8:39 am, "Bill Miller"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

Bill Miller wrote:
PRL "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's Experiment
Revisited"

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean
to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

OK, so I can couple the light at the slits in a Young's-like Experiment
using plasmons excited on a metal screen.

But this says little about the usual Young's Experiment which uses
(assumes) a non-metallic screen, with no plasmon coupling.

And it says even less about quantum mechanics -- I can still use QM to
describe either type of experiment.

Yep. By all means.

I'm not looking to throw the baby out with the bath, and if QM
descriptions
provide solutions that work, then go for it.

What I AM suggesting is that QM solutions are not the only ones that fit.
And that viewing a slit as a slot antenna seems to provide a reasonable
(logical) alternate solution. And you don't need statistics to make it
work!

Bill

Bill

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

Great work, Bill.
I think the key point I am picking up from this discussion is: how
does the nature of the screen effect the observed results? Have you
found any recent experimental papers on the two-slit experiment using
non-conducting screens?
It seems plausible that the edges of metallic screens can set up micro
currents that are seen at a distance as antenna but insulators should
behave differently, especially under weak field conditions that cannot
induce polarization in the screen.

An excellent question...

With one exception, the slit material seems to be either not stated or is
very thin gold.

I THOUGHT I had found one that would help this issue: "Single and
double-slit diffraction of neutrons" : Zeilinger et al, Reviews of Modern
Physics Vol 60 No. 4 October 1988. They use Borosilicate glass loaded with
10% Gd2O3 for the single slit and get a single-peak response. The Double
Slit shows the "expected" multiple peaks.

HOWEVER the double slit was formed by placing a piece of Boron WIRE in the
centre of the glass slit, so we seem to have a ready source of electrons
right where the neutrons fly by.

The experiment was done with "slow" neutrons, but it was not obvious (to me)
what "slow" means.

So... the "jury" still seems to be out.

And thanks for the kind thoughts. The "bubble" in my left eye is down to
about 25% occlusion. Still driving me "nuts" but better than the
alternative!

Bill


PS Glad to see your vision 'situation' is not holding you back.