Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Living
Outside
Play
Technology
Workshop
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
Step 2: Materials
Okay now get a laser pointer, tape, super glue, two staples, a rubber band, some cardboard, a string, a piece of paper, a pencil, a measuring tape, and a hair. If you have more than one color laser pointer then do this experiment with both colors! Any color will work. As for the hair color, black works best. If you dont have black hair it will still work, but when you find the width of the hair, it wont be quite as accurate.
Image Notes
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
works for forces too. For a force to work, such as magnetism, gravity, or anything else, there is a sort of "telephone call" that happens between the object that exerts the force and the receiving mass. The boundary on the propagation of information to the speed at which light propagates is called the information/event's "light cone ." The information that is transmitted and received between both masses manifests itself in what are known as "virtual particles ." Virtual particles are the messages that are sent and received that cause masses to respond to forces the way that they are supposed to. Now, if we know that nothing can effect anything else faster than the speed of light, then we have come across an apparent problem when we take quantum mechanics into account. For example, if two particles are in superposition with one another, and one particle is a light year away from the other particle, interacting with one instantly effects the other. This apparently allows for "faster than light communication " and Einstein labeled it "spooky action at a distance ," however this only illustrates an incomplete understanding of the scenario and can be explained by means of quantum field theories (apparently, many claim). 4.) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the Quantum Eraser One last concept that is interesting is Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle which measures exactly how uncertain a measurement is about the position or momentum of a particle. In a nutshell, the maximum difference between the measured position of a particle and its actual position (uncertainty in position) times the maximum difference between the measured momentum of a particle and its actual momentum must always be greater or equal to Plancks constant divided by two pi. The uncertainty principle is the reason that measurements of the hair become more inaccurate as we increase wavelength. Increasing wavelength (decreasing frequency) gives a larger inaccuracy of position, but decreasing wavelength (increasing frequency) gives a larger inaccuracy of velocity. If you want to do this additional part of the experiment and demonstrate the effect of the little photons when you try to see them in multiple places at once, having them suddenly acting like solid particles again instead of waves then lets continue on. What we are going to do is make information about which slit each photon went through available, thus collapsing the wavelike behavior of the photons and then making them behave like solid particles again, finally, erase that information so that the photons behave like waves again, demonstrating that where a photon or small particle is at any time is only decided at the moment it interacts with the universe (is observed or bumps into something). For this, you will need a piece of polarizing film and a clip. You can get the polarizing film from inside of a little LCD screen or 3D glasses from some theaters. Now cut the polarizing film into three equal-sized pieces. Turn one piece 90 degrees and put it behind one of the other pieces. It should make the back turn dark and block light. Clamp the two pieces of film right next to each other and tape the hair (or EXTREMELY small piece of string) right exactly where the seam between the two pieces of film are. We will use the third piece of film in a bit. How polarization works is that light oriented in only a certain way can pass through a polarizing film. The orientation that is allowed to pass through depends on the orientation of the film. That is the reason that we saw no light coming through two polarizing filters oriented perpendicular to one another. Light polarized once into one orientation cannot pass through the second filter because it is turned perpendicular and is thus not the correct orientation. Anyways so if we shine the laser at the hair again we see that the wavelike pattern isnt there anymore because by polarizing the light from each side of the hair, we make information available about which side the photons went through. Before, the photons were going through both at the same time, but now that they know you are watching them and polarizing them, thus tagging them and making it possible to find out which side they really went through, they only go through one and the pattern is gone. You can selectively block out photons coming from one side of the hair or the other by turning the third piece of polarization paper 90 degrees or 180 degrees. If we want to get this wavelike pattern back again, we have to somehow erase this tag on the photons. We have to erase the information about which photon is polarized in what orientation. The way that we do this is we take the third piece of polarizing film and turn it 45 degrees. This lets some of the light from both sides of the hair come through, and thus we can no longer find out which side any of the photons went through and the ability described previously to selectively block out photons from one side or the other is gone. So the wavelike pattern should reappear because the photons know that they are no longer being watched. The experiment that you have just performed is sometimes called the Quantum Eraser Experiment . 5.) What I will do with my laser cutter from the EPILOG ROCKS Contest As a mad scientist and engineer a laser cutter would be very useful! I always like to tinker around, but usually I am stuck using only household materials. The laser cutter will be a good precision tool to use in the design of future gadgets that I am working on such as an audio modulated tesla coil, displays, RC flying machines, robots, and more. I would like to begin a start-up company and use much of the proceeds to help others. The laser cutter would no doubt be a valuable asset. Anyways I hope you enjoyed my tutorial. Check out my youtube channel for more mad science tutorials you can do at home using only household materials!
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
Related Instructables
Comments
36 comments Add Comment
cjswerve says:
Aug 25, 2011. 9:42 AM REPLY Your instructable is a wonderful demonstration of Quantum theory for the laymen, everything that I have read concerning the double slit experiment says exactly what you stated concerning quantum mechanics and the explanation of its effect. It seems kelsymh doesn't get enough recognition where he supposedly teaches at and wants 15 minutes of instructable fame by schooling someone on a basic demonstration. I appreciate your post and think that people (ie kelsymh) who have the OCD necessity to criticize shouldn't waste everyone's bandwidth with their own insecurities because they can't get tenure. Thanks for the instructable.
Billsherenow says:
Aug 28, 2011. 6:07 PM REPLY About Light Speed being the ultimate speed limit that we assume at this time for now. Does not seem to be correct just like assuming one truck is stronger or faster than the other when you hook them together with a chain. And they both give it all they got and most of the time one will always be better or faster or stronger. After saying that, then imagine that you try the same experiment with Light and a Black Hole. As we know that the speed of Light does not overcome the suction or vacum speed of the Black Hole. So in my book the Black Hole is the winner of this contest of speed. Although I have never heard of any calculations of the speed that a Black Hole Travels while consuming everything in its path. But it's a bit faster than Light Speed. Just my opinion. But hopefully in the near future we will find a way around these speed limits and jump right to it.
Aug 25, 2011. 10:52 PM REPLY Need to correct you on that last sentence; the wavelength is a function of color, not intensity. I like your instructable. Bring us more of your ideas!
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 27, 2011. 12:07 AM REPLY Wavelength and color are related but all that I am saying is that with increased intensity, the signal is stronger and it is easier to measure accurately
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Very nice looks really neat
kenbo0422 says:
Aug 26, 2011. 6:54 AM REPLY Where I was working previously, we used 650nm lasers, diffused, reflecting off a moving mirror shard and back to a camera to measure distance traveled by our nano indentation devices. When an interference line moved across a reticule on the computer screen it was measured by pixel hue to determine the start of a line. It was very accurate and was used to calibrate the device for travel. The machines are used for indentation into materials to measure hardness, modulus, etc. using a calibrated diamond (three sided pyramid) tip which was really best seen under a microscope. Calibrating the tip involved indentations into a silica wafer and adjusting parameters until it read the silica properly. The machines are used in various places, especially in the microchip industry. We developed a way of using the device to scan the surface of a sample and make a 3D picture of the surface, such as a microchip circuit.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
rm7295 says:
Aug 25, 2011. 7:51 PM REPLY The experiment described here is a good demonstration of ordinary, classical diffraction. It involves ordinary, classical interference of light waves, and the effect can also be demonstrated with actual ripples in a tank of water. Some hands-on science museums contain exhibits which do just that (there's a good setup at the EcoTarium in central MA, for example). I think the best way to improve this instructible would be to remove the (incorrect) explanation based on quantum mechanics. The explanation here might really confuse someone who is trying to learn about the actual Young's double-slit experiment, or waveparticle duality, or the uncertainty principle, or the quantum eraser experiment. Wikipedia has good articles on each of those topics, none of which are relevant to the experiment described here.
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Please see the discussion I had earlier about this
Aug 25, 2011. 6:01 PM REPLY Your number 'n': is this the number of bright spots from the center of the laser 's wall point to the outer spot in one direction only, or is it the TOTAL number of bright spots in BOTH directions from where the laser is centered on the wall?
TheHomebrewGuru says:
N is NOT in both directions
hotheriontroll says:
Good read. Good science. Lots to way bright minds. Thanks guys
jeff-o says:
Aug 23, 2011. 10:16 AM REPLY Very cool experiment! Is there a chance you could add more photos of the test apparatus and setup? Perhaps a few examples of equations so people doing the experiment know they're on the right track?
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 23, 2011. 11:11 AM REPLY Yeah ill add more soon- if your calculated hair width falls within the range 0.00001m and 0.0002m you are most likely doing it right. From my experience, alot of cheapy red pointers don't work very well, mainly because they are dim, don't usually have an accurate wavelength, and don't produce many bands.
Xellers says:
Aug 22, 2011. 11:27 PM REPLY The "quantum eraser" experiment you describe makes for a pretty interesting demonstration (my chemistry teacher confuses students every year by showing them that the third polarizer can allow light to pass though), but the reason for this is purely classical: Malus' law gives the intensity of light transmitted through a polarizer based on the angle between the initial direction of polarization of a light wave and the direction of the polarizer. When the angle is 90 degrees, cos theta is zero, so no light is transmitted. However, if we add third polarizer and split the 90 degree angle into two 45 degree angles, then cos theta is nonzero, so some light is transmitted through each step. Think of it in terms of vector projections. If you try to project a vector in an orthogonal direction, then it becomes a zero vector. However, if you project it twice in non-orthogonal directions such that the final direction you project in is orthogonal to the original vector, then you won't end up with a zero vector. I'm not trying to be mean, just constructive! I think you could still mention this experiment in your instructable, so long as you explain it correctly. Xellers
TheHomebrewGuru says:
*particle* (typo)
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 23, 2011. 9:25 AM REPLY It's like this: Hawking Radiation can be understood to be a ramification of a number of theories, and many could claim "this isnt information theory, its possible physics" etc. It doesnt work like that, its a ramification of both. The universe is self-consistent so it can be understood to be a ramification of both. Aug 23, 2011. 8:58 AM REPLY It is true that this can be explained classically, but it can also be understood to be a ramification of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The universe is self-consistent, so thus both reasons are correct, otherwise either reasoning would be violated and both are true.
TheHomebrewGuru says:
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 23, 2011. 8:51 AM REPLY I think that a few are misunderstanding the premise and purpose here, so in light of what I have already said, I dont know that i'm really going to change some people's minds, especially since the atmosphere has quickly changed from a discussion to condescending and sarcastic commentary. I have provided a detailed description in the instructable as to how this relates directly to quantum mechanics, though classic mechanics is certainly also involved. Waves can be understood classically, but seeing a photon as a particle/wave is a conclusion based on quantum mechanics, and much of the phenomenon can be understood with greater accuracy with an understanding of the underlying quantum mechanical principles involved (explained clearly in the instructable). Again, remember I'm catering to everyone, not just people with an advanced background in physics or math, so I made it very basic and easy to follow (do you really think a breakdown of wave functions and trying to use advanced calculus would make for many views?). If you do not see the correlation between quantum mechanics and this demonstration, I really dont think I can help you any further.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
kelseymh says:
It's a lovely demonstration, but you don't need to throw around any of your quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo to explain it.
You're using an undimmed laser pointer. That means that the entire experiment can be analyzed purely classically, using simple wave optics. Huygen's did it, and got the right answer, more than 350 years ago. If you really want to do something quantum mechanical, then you need to reduce your laser power until you get one photon at a time going through your device. Then you need a way to accumulate hits from those photons in order to build up the interference pattern. As it is, you're just blowing smoke.
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 22, 2011. 6:26 PM REPLY I think where your hangup is is that you do not feel that this demonstration falls under the realm of "quantum mechanics" because I am using photons as the quantum particles (though a quantum particle is a quantum particle no matter what it is), and that since historically they have been understood to be waves anyways that it should instead fall into the realm of "optics" or "classic physics" or whatever else. Historically, the properties of light could not be fully understood. It is only after the avent of quantum mechanics that it could really be *explained. It is a quantum-mechanical phenomenon that we observe in this demonstration, abd even though photons have no mass they are regarded as having a relativistic mass (see author's notes). Keep in mind that this demonstration is aimed towards everyone, not just physicists, so it is designed to be simple.
kelseymh says:
Aug 22, 2011. 6:39 PM REPLY No. My hangup is that you're trying to use a classical phenomenon to "demonstrate" quantum mechanics. That means that it doesn't actually demonstrate quantum mechanics, since an ostensibly "simpler" (i.e., classical) explanation can describe the phenomenon. This is a fundamental principle of scientific pedagogy. You need to understand that if you are going to design or create scientific demonstrations. If you are aming a demonstration at "everyone," then you need to use a process which is easily recognized as being non-classical, so that only a quantum mechanical explanation can describe what is being shown.
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 22, 2011. 11:29 AM REPLY The interference pattern is a direct result of the quantum behavior of photons, and while years ago the behavior of light could be modeled, it was not understood until the last 50 years. In fact, lasers themselves have not been around that long. The purpose behind this instructable is to demonstrate some of the ramifications of quantum mechanics, and how to use them creatively to do something new. In fact.
kelseymh says:
Aug 22, 2011. 11:41 AM REPLY I'm sorry. I am a professional experimetal particle physicist (B.S. UCLA 1988, Ph.D. Caltech 1996, currently on research staff at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory). I do this, and teach it, for a living. Your experiment does not directly demonstrate anything quantum mechanical, unless you assume quantum mechanics to begin with (which is a trivial logical fallacy). The interference pattern does not have to be the result of quantum behaviour. It can be calculated exactly using simple, classical wave mechanics. Christian Huygens did so in his 1678 work Treatise on Light. When you have a source which output large numbers of photons, the light behaves perfectly classically, and does not need any quantum mechanics to be analyzed. This is itself a mystery (the quantum-classicial transition), but it is irrelevant to the outcome of the experiment. You can do exactly the same experiment you have described without recourse to a laser, and get exactly the same result: use a simple white-light source (sunlight, a candle, an incandescent light bulb), put it through a prism, and then put that through a pinhole to pick off one specific color (wavelength). Using that as your light source, you can generate the same interference pattern. As I wrote above, if you really want to demonstrate something quantum mechanical, which cannot be explained classically, then you need to put one photon at a time through the experiment, record the individual hit positions, and show that the interference pattern develops over time from those individual hits. Please read the two I'bles I cited to see how you can set up such an experiment.
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 22, 2011. 6:11 PM REPLY The interference pattern arises whether or not you produce one photon at a time or not, and so do the effects. The "classical" wave behavior of light is a result of the particle/wave duality of photons. This experiment relies directly on quantum mechanical principles and is a good way to demonstrate them. For example, it is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that allows for greater accuracy of measurement with shorter wavelength (position). You can produce a beam of particles (photons) via a prism and through filtering but I really don't see the point of this? For the sake of simplicity a laser pointer can be used as a beam source to reproduce the Double Slit Experiment. Also, I understand that you went to Caltech and everything, and I am myself an engineer from UCB, but all I'm doing here is giving an instructable for beginners to understand and demonstrate some quantum-mechanical phenomenon. The wavelength of light, for example, determines the number of bands on the interference pattern, just like the de-broglie wavelength of electrons determines the interference pattern produced by an electron beam. Photons can be regarded as quantum particles and their wavelike behavior can be measured because they are, just like electrons or any other particle.
kelseymh says:
Aug 22, 2011. 6:43 PM REPLY Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. If you're a Berkeley engineer, then presumably you know something about teaching, and about explaining complicated issues. If you want to demonstrate QM, then you need to choose a phenomenon which cannot be explained with simple classical physics. The photoelectric effect (the frequency threshold is independent of intensity) is a good example. Self-interfererence with single particles is another. The double-slit experiment, on its own, is not a demonstration of quantum mechanics. I can build and demonstrate the double-slit experiment with water waves or with sound waves. The same setup with light shows the same effect. This proves that light is a wave phenomenon (that is, good old Maxwell's EM). It doesn't say anything about the particulate nature of light. If you want to claim (which is all you're doing in this I'ble) that light is quantum mechanical, then you have to assume the conclusion in order to interpret the double-slit experiment that way. That is a logical fallacy, and a pedagogical failure.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
TheHomebrewGuru says:
My grandmother is dead
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 23, 2011. 9:31 AM REPLY You seem to agree that photons are particulate and quantum particles, yet are refuting any treatment of them as such. This experiment/demonstration can be understood classically and in qm. The universe is self-consistent. For example, is Hawking Radiation a ramification of information theory or particle physics? It's both because the universe is self-consistent. Aug 23, 2011. 9:17 AM REPLY Photons can be interpreted as quantum particles and more readily available than electrons or other particles to the household hobbyist, so thus I used them, relying on quantum mechanical principles to explain the classical behavior. Its all self-consistent. Physically, this experiment makes sense classically and in qm. I dont see how using photons is any less "legit" than electrons or whatever else. Also, firing one quantum at a time is sort of entertaining, but unnecessary and more difficult, as three pattern will be the same, all it does is show that photons also fall under the wave/particle relationship, but we already know that because we are using them as quantum particles (as explained in the instructable). There is no fallacy, everything is self-consistent. Photons are quantum particles, we dont need to demonstrate it for it to be true (unless you feel that we need to also break down the laser pointer into its components and also demonstrate that a battery produces volts before allowing the assumption that it powers the laser). Personally, it seems sort of unnecessary
TheHomebrewGuru says:
ganglion says:
Aug 23, 2011. 3:58 PM REPLY I think you and kelseymh have different things in mind. You've posted a neat instructable about how to measure a human hair using laser light, and thrown in some stuff about quantum mechanics as part of your description. I.e. you're starting from what we know now and using it to do something (measure a hair). He's talking about a more philosophical point around what you have to do to demonstrate that a new theory is worth adopting. Aug 23, 2011. 12:46 PM REPLY Here is where you make the assumption that kelsymh was talking about: "Photons are quantum particles, we dont need to demonstrate it for it to be true" No doubt it is true, but this experiment would work whether it were true or not. Nor does it prove that photons are quantum particles. Or maybe I should just go back to making wooden desklamps...
jeff-o says:
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 23, 2011. 1:34 PM REPLY If photons were not quantum particles a coherent beam would not display wavelike behavior. The purpose is not to show explicitly that photons are quantum particles, but rather that since they are they behave this way, and thus can be creatively used in the way detailed in the instructable.
mJusticz says:
I think I'm going to trust the high-engergy physicist on this one, bud.
ganglion says:
Aug 23, 2011. 4:17 PM REPLY The thing is that 'photon' is a loaded word in this context. The idea that light is made up of photons is part of the quantum mechanical theory of light, so if you were trying to demonstrate or prove quantum mechanics, you can't start by assuming people agree that light is made up of photons. The philosophical question is how did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light then this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens#Wave_theory turn into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics I.e. what happened in the 1920s to convince people that they needed a new theory to explain how light behaved.
TheHomebrewGuru says:
Aug 23, 2011. 9:13 PM REPLY This is a misunderstood premise. The purpose of this instructable is not to convince people that photons are quantum particles.
ganglion says:
Aug 24, 2011. 12:54 AM REPLY Fair enough - I was just thinking about how you and kelseymh ended up talking at cross purposes. Like I said in my other reply, you're starting from what we know now and saying 'look isn't it cool what we can do with this', whereas he's talking about how scientific theories evolve and how science is taught. I like all the philosophical stuff about how do we decide whether a theory is worth adopting, so I was just reflecting on that really.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Quantum-Laser-Micrometer-Nestors-Microm/