| Home Page | Overview | Site Map | Index | Appendix | Illustration | About | Contact | Update | FAQ |
![]() |
![]() |
source of distribution of wave; in other words, if we know the value of the wave function on a given wave front, then we can express its value elsewhere as the sum of contributions from different elements of the wave front in the form of propagating spherical wave, e(2 i r/ )/r, where r is the distance from the point in question to the element of surface on the wave front, and is the wavelength. Assuming that the slit is very narrow, the two waves from slit 1 and 2 can be represented as: 1 = Ae(2 i r1/ )/r1 ---------- Eq.(01a) 2 = Ae(2 i r2/ )/r2 ---------- Eq.(01b) where A is the normalization constant, r1, and r2 are the distance from the slits to the screen as shown in Figure 01, which lays out the x-y plane only, while the z direction is perpendicular to the computer screen. |
Figure 01 Double-slit Exp. |
Figure 02 Wave Magnitude |
= 0.001 cm, d = 0.005 cm, and D = 10 cm. The "separate terms" together is plotted in green, the "interference terms" in blue, and the total magnitude is in red. The only running variable in the numerical computation is sin
, which varies from -0.8 to +0.8 in steps of 0.001. Since cos2
= 1 - sin2
, tan
= sin
/cos
, from which we can compute r = D/cos
, x = D tan
. It is impossible to produce a graph with realistic data for light wave using home computer and Basic programming.
r2 and they are lumped together as r (see Figure 01). However the tiny difference d sin
(in the interference term) is crucial in producing the interference pattern (see Figure 01 again). Thus, the various contributions to the wave magnitude can be expressed as :
![]() |
1* 1 2* 2 (A2/r2) ---------- Eq.(02a) 1* 2 + 2* 1 (2A2/r2) cos[2 (dsin / )] ---------- Eq.(02b)The combined magnitude is : P12( ) = 1* 1 + 2* 2 + 1* 2 + 2* 1 (4A2/r2) cos2[ (dsin / )] ---------- Eq.(03)The normalization constant A can be evaluated by integrating Eq.(03) numerically over the angle from - /2 to + /2 :
|
Figure 03 Slit Experiments |
1 = (8A2/D2) cos2 cos2[ (dsin / )] d ---------- Eq.(04) |
) =
1*
1 +
2*
2 ---------- Eq.(05),
![]() |
For the values of d and quoted below, the integral is equal to about 0.390, which gives A = 0.566D. For rapid oscillation of the interference term, i.e., when d >> , the integral approaches a value of /8, giving A2 = D2/ or A = D/ 1/2 = 0.564D. Then it shows clearly that P12( ) can be interpreted as the magnitude per unit radian. The experiment was first performed with light by Thomas Young in 1801; thus it is sometimes referred to as Young's experiment.It is rather obvious from Eq.(03) that maxima occur at : d sin = n , where n = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... ---------- Eq.(06a)while the minima are at : d sin = (n/2) , where n = 1, 2, 3, ... ---------- Eq.(06b)By early 20th century technology had been advanced enough to provide low intensity light and its detection. Observation then revealed that the interference pattern is produced in random specks |
Figure 04 Double-Slit Experiment [view large image] |
(in the detecting film). The pattern emerges only after long exposure (see Figure 04 for a modern version of the sequence of increasing number of photons). The discovery is now understood in the framework of quantum theory as explained below : |
![]() |
|
Figure 05 Superposition & Entanglement |
BTW, superposition is an "OR" operation involving addition, while entanglement is "AND" operation via multiplication (see "Probability and Information"). |
---------- Eq.(07).
of the matter wave. This equation implies a reciporal relationship between the energy(E) and length(L) scales, i.e., E ~ hc/L or E(Gev) ~ 10-13/L(cm).
![]() |
(dsin / ) = 0 to , which yields :d(sin )/ = 1 or d(psin ) = h ---------- Eq.(08a)by applying the de Broglie relation in Eq.(07). The uncertainty in the position along x is the distance between the slits, i.e., x = d. The movement of the particle is along the r direction as shown in Figure 01, therefore, the uncertainty of momentum along the x direction is px = p(sin ) from which Eq.(08a) turns into the uncertainty relation : x px = h ---------- Eq.(08b). |
Figure 06 Uncertainty Principle [view large image] |
It can be shown that the uncertainty relation is equivalent to the commutative relation [x(px) - (px)x] i ---------- Eq.(08c),where the "i" is inserted for realizing an oscillating wave and h is replaced by = h/2 . |
E
t = h ---------- Eq.(08d).![]() |
![]() It shows that starting from a non-linear equation for r, i.e., E = (m/2)d2r/dt2 + V(r), quantization has it linearized into the Schrodinger equation for the wave function which
|
Figure 07 1st Quantization |
admits superposition of its solutions (as another form of solution). Thus, it is the theoretical design and experimental evidences that bring about the weird world of superpostion. |
*
(with the up and down of the probability wave represented by colors, see Figure 07).![]() |
![]() is also a solution (Figure 08a). |
Figure 08a Superposition |
Measurement of the wave packet would collapse the superposition into just one of the solutions with probability c*(k)c(k). |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Figure 08b |
Figure 08c Coherence |
See "Harmonic Oscillator" and "Infinite Square Well". |
1, and |0
1; while the states of photon 2 |1
2, |0
2 are determined by the order it runs through gate A or B. The superposition can be expressed as :![]() |
|f k = a|1 k + b|0 k ---------- Eq.(09a),where k = 1, 2 for photon 1 and 2, a and b are the probability amplitude satisfying the normalization condition |a|2 + |b|2 = 1. Entanglement mixes the states of the two photons in the form similar to Eq.(02b) : |m 1|n 2 = |mn ---------- Eq.(09b) |
Figure 09 [view large image] Superposition/Entanglement |
and its linear combination, where m, and n represent the state of the 1st and 2nd photon respectively. In particular, the maximally entangled Bell states are listed in Figure 09,d in which S and T stand for singlet and triplet states. Entanglement is obtained by "Down Conversion". |
10|10
+
01|01
)/2 ----------- Eq.(10).
to its basis states of |0
1 and |1
2. Both the measured results would show up simultaneously no matter how far apart are the members of this pair, measuring one will flip the opposite at precisely the same moment. This non-local influence (objects can influence each other only locally, i.e., distance d
ct, according to classical physics) occurs instantaneously, as if some form of communication, which Einstein called a "spooky action at a distance", operates not just faster than the speed of light, but infinitely fast. This phenomena of non-locality has been validated by the "Bell's Theorem" tests. Furthermore, the experiment reveals that it is not possible to predict whether photon 2 goes from A to B or from B to A (because both occur only 50% of the time). ![]() |
Similar experiment was carried out in 2017 with state |1 2 and |0 2 represents the "cause-effect" and "common cause" relationship respectively (Figure 10). It shows that these relationships can be mixed in the quantum environment contrary to classical concept.
Future experiment is trying to reverse the order of "cause-effect" so that effect comes before cause. It is said that this is one way to move forward to "new physics", to solve the "quantum-gravity" impassse, and to advance the development of quantum computing.
|
Figure 10 Causality [view large image] |
BTW, the "cause-effect" relationship is similar to an "OR" operation, i.e., A or B (A precedes B in Figure 10,a). While the "common-cause" is related to the "AND" operation, both A and B occur in parallel. It requires a priori "cause" such as the rain in Figure 10,b to establish the correlation (none otherwise). |
![]() |
Figure 10 also reveals that the correlation between 2 events in "cause-effect" relationship requires certain amount of time to establish (as shown in diagram a). Therefore, their separation is limited by the velocity of light which propagates the signal (see Figure 11, the Minkowski space-time diagram shows that events are related only in the time-like region). On the other hand, the 2 events in "common-cause" are linked already, i.e., no need to send signal to relate. In the context of superposition/entanglement, superposition is similar to the "cause-effect" relationship, while entanglement is related to the 2 parallel events in the "common-cause" relationship. It implies that invoking one event automatically connects the other with no time delay (see Figure 10,b). Einstein decried such happening as "spooky action at a distance" which distressed him so much as it violates his cherished idea of "no signal that can move faster than the velocity of light". |
Figure 11 Minkowski Space-time |
Similar to the un-observability of superposition, entanglement is also un-observable. Any attempt to measure these entities would break it up to its basic components, i.e., it never shows up as a whole. There is no hidden variables as verified by numerous tests on "Bell's Theorem". |