Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Meditation oN exPeriments

  • Edited 2022-01-30 - Experiment notes incorporated, Addendum reduced
  • Edited 2022-01-29 - Found notes added as Addendum

From Denis Diderot, circa 1760:

There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge available to us: observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination. Our observation of nature must be diligent, our reflection profound, and our experiments exact. We rarely see these three means combined; and for this reason, creative geniuses are not common.

From J Bellinger, circa 2015-04-01:

A lot of people are good at going to places they’ve been before but few are good at figuring out how to go some place no one has been.

Part of transition from undergrad to grad student is applying. Part of applying is making oneself an attractive candidate. Part of being an attractive candidate is showing promise of good work and talks and papers in support of a principal investigator. Most (all?) doctoral programs expect to support their students for five to seven years, to get good work and talks and papers out of them. Graduate students are expected to graduate without embarrassing the program. Graduates are then expected to be a credit to the program.

Experiment as an Adventure

It is clear the author is not smart enough to be a physics theorist; witness this blog and the main mnp Manual document. Here, I attempt to establish a reason to be an experimentalist by listing experiments I’d like to do or see done. Since professional experimentalists report report irritation with theorists who come up with a new experiment every week, my output of a countable number of experiments is not THAT impressive. Asking questions is certainly easier than answering them!

The author has been identifying interesting experiments for many years. Not doing them. Those experiments fall, unfortunately, in many branches of physics. They fit conveniently neither into any branch of physics nor any one principal investigator’s interests. Instead of a one page summary, this goes on for 1100 lines of markdown, 8 pages of dense typing, 10 pages of pdf. Enjoy. Or ignore.

Table of Contents

The experiments are listed by area of physics.

Some experiments overlap fields. The experiments can be also be categorized by difficulty and cost:

  • new experiments that might cost a fair amount ($$$),
  • new experiments that can be done from a garage ($),
  • review of existing data looking for other phenomena (t) or (+),
  • very expensive experiments ($$$$$),
  • dangerous experiments (*#x̂!) (!^!̂).

The last, of which the author has a few, will not be discussed in public. You’re welcome.

The ($$$$$) experiments are unlikely to be done at the authors request, so will get short shrift here. They can go on a wish list. The experiments ($) that can be done in a garage should perhaps be done in a garage if interested researchers cannot be found. The review experiments, except perhaps for neutrino review, are probably not a basis for a grad school application. Though those experiments would certainly benefit from guidance and review.

So the most relevant experiments for an application (** or ***) are the not very expensive new ones. In addition, the best experiments do not threaten current interpretations. Oh well, blew that one.

Some experiments and areas have an additional judgment in parentheses; the likelihood of success. (-) is unlikely, (x) impossible.

Experimental Attitudes

While it is attractive to see an anomolous result as, given n explanations, plus a pet explanation, the author will be the first to admit that interesting results in an experiment falling outside expectations would NOT prove any particular pet Models even if the experiment were motivated by those Models. In science, I can bet the farm but there is no double or nothing, only clawing back from losses.

Choosing instead the nth: the most interesting, challenging, new, or revolutionary explanation is not a good idea. Though the author has seen that done frequently. More likely is the simplest explanation possible, which may be error, bias, or random variation. Even in low temperature solid state physics, I see that and benefit from a PI who likes the simplest explanations. Attitude picked up over year(s) or group meetings and reviews of papers. Not that I can cite specific dates and examples.

Undergrad physics experience supplies many examples of homework problems in math proofs and developments; when I expected something to cancel I worked extra hard to make sure it did, with an occasional wave of the hands. Many questions asked for proofs of a specific answer, which allows one to look at the expected answer and figure out how to get there. For designing experiments, this can be a useful exercise in asking “what would prove x result” if used with care and honesty about what proves. For performing experiments, having an expected result is a huge mistake. Done all the time, at all levels, but a bad idea.

Experiments in Particles

Left Hand Preference (***)

The author would like to confirm that the left-handed preference seen in the Beta decay of Cobalt-60 experiments by Constance Wu’s team in the 1957 and confirmed with many other experiments since is truly a universal phenomenon. If not already done carefully, making one or preferably more of those experiments compact and traveling to the North Pole, Equator, and Southern Hemisphere sound like a good time to the author.

Why do this? Null hypothesis answer: To confirm that the Standard Model LaGrangian needs the doubling of term count that results from the left-handed preference shown in the 1950’s experiments. Certainly not to disprove the mnp Model’s conjecture that all movement involves internal change and all angular movement or matter involves subtle internal rotation.

Maybe Not Personal

Even if the result IS interesting, that proves nothing in favor of the mnp Model. A universe of other explanations is available if experiment does happen to show that left-hand preference is a local phenomenon. Should explanation be needed, the author suggests that portion of the conceptual universe that sees moving labs as truly undergoing Lorentz transformation will better explain local left-hand preference.

Such an experiment also calls for extraordinary care, almost forensic in detail, to assure that the results are reliable.

I have a strong interest in an unexpected result. Further reason for care. From (2018/11/09 21:55):

I would do Southern hemisphere carefully A) to develop or prove chops with experiment B) to make sure my personal interest, hidden as I may try to keep it, did not interfere with the results. Someone content to validate the left hand preference would run the risk of missing an interesting result but might take shortcuts with verification of direction. We would probably never know, since the experiment is not worth doing THAT many times if left hand preference IS universal. The motivation to be careful should be there, even for an experimenter expecting to confirm the expected left hand preference, since an interesting result would be, well, interesting.

The scientific method does have a definite advantage - surprising results are remembered and valued, if and only if they hold up. If. Retracting articles is not just embarrassing, it is ugly.

Minor Notes on Process

Test spin measurement separately from other experimental setup, with known spins. Have more than one measuring device. Test in areas with materials for which the answer is known. Test the whole setup to verify known results. This is a standard precaution, skipped at peril to the experiment.

Work on measuring everything possible blindly, either by automated equipment or by not knowing the inputs when recording the outputs, with inputs recorded elsewhere or automatically. Calibration might require knowing inputs and okutputs, but then let the randomizations be driven automatically. Best when the inputs be randomly presented, in this case perhaps by not knowing which way the spins are aligned in the sample. Or by not knowing how the testing apparatus is oriented. From (2018/10/15 21:48) make sure sensor can in fact measure both ways, consider putting it upside down or backwards sometimes

Standardize tests for the equipment; we may not need ISO 9001 certification, but want reproducibility. Strive to test the equipment blindly too: have something else produce spins of a random direction and run it through the detectors. Only look later at the magnetic fields that produced or chose the spin after the test data are gathered.

A principle of software design has been that one can strive for “idiot proof” but one may not be able to protect against Machiavelli. Operating systems and networks are finding that many programs need protection against Machiavelli as well. Check software with external tools to make sure changes have not been made. Check materials or inputs with external tools to make sure changes have not been made.

Pay attention to the chain of custody and the handling of materials, devices, software, and data.

Minor Notes on Preparation

Check literature and friends of friends in the southern hemisphere to see if spin preference experiments have actually been done there. Understand the classic experiments, including confirmations. This list may get very long. Start with initial confirmations (from 2018/10/29 17:05) [http://www.fas.org/rlg/021557 Garwin-Lederman-Weinrich.pdf] and [http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~kirkmcd/examples/EP/ambler_pr_106_1361_57.pdf]

Review and understand the classical dynamics techniques for finding reference frames for rotating labs. Look again at The Ambidextrous Universe by Martin Gardiner for its long lucid discussion of parity and the Wu experiment.

(2015-01-29) Background research: Table the velocities and angular velocities of the galaxy, the solar system relative to the galaxy, the earth’s rotation around the sun, the earth’s spinning, and Coriolis effects at various latitudes. Compare diurnal, seasonal, and arm rotation effects for magnitude. Yesterday.

Particle Deceleration ($$$$$ or (!^!̂))

(2015-02-25 1757) Investigating particle deceleration is offered as one of the highly unlikely-to-be-done experiments. The Model suggests that ultra high speed particles may already be a plasma. Can we slow the .9999c particles back to lab frame and find the same particles? If the original particles/protons/lead nuclei still exist, then the suggestion that a plasma has already been achieved at high speeds before a collision can be ruled unlikely.

It is probably very hard and maybe hazardous to slow at the end of a run; just dumping the particles is probably easier than slowing the protons/Pb nuclei.

Smashing those particles with a transverse bolus of energy or electrons or muons has probably already been tried, thought about, or rejected. The Model predicts that at very high speeds and ninety degree orientation, the interaction would be surprisingly small. Though subtleties of widening of the particles may allow for a somewhat extended interaction time.

Neutrino Review (+)

Review whether mass traversal is a major contributor to neutrino   (energy and type) change. If experiments measuring solar neutrinos are not comparing to solar neutrinos that have passed through the earth, that’s a major (*** or $$$$) opportunity.

Review whether traversing stronger gravitational fields leads to energy change. This one will be harder and more subtle, since multiple cosmological sources will probably be needed. Finding a standard neutrino source or a star or galaxy type that produces predictable neutrino types and amounts is probably harder than finding astronomy’s standard candles.

Neutrino Experiments ($$ to $$$$)

What is a neutrino? The reports of charge, magnetic moment, handedness, even Majorana effects seem all over the map. Majorana seems to boost blood pressure and increase heart rates in other branches of physics, so I’m skeptical pending experimental verification.

Do hotter detectors offer more variation and so yield higher detection? ($$$) or ($$) if existing detectors can be warmed. This from (2015-02-12) Is directional oscillation of the detector possible, particularly in line with neutrino travel? This might make directional sensing (over time) possible. Of course ($$$$|$) Restated: (2020/09/09) Would heavy atoms vibrating in line with the neutrino path yield even higher detection if 2-d vibrating crystals can be reasonably fabricated? ($$$$$)

Would a long imbalanced magnetic field followed by a long vacuum make neutrinos more detectable? ($$$ and up)

Neutrino/Cosmology/Astronomy Review (+ or $$$$$)

The author has seen physics writers claim neutrinos travel exactly at c, that neutrinos and light from supernovae arrive at the same time. The author has seen physics writers claim neutrinos travel close to c. The author has seen physics writers claim neutrinos, since they have mass, must travel close to c. The author is interested in seeing what experiment shows and understanding without assuming neutrinos behave like all other particles we’ve seen. If neutrinos have mass and travel at c, well, nature is real different.

Do neutrinos traverse black holes? This may be a question for neutrino astronomy, not a field for easy experiments. If astronomy has identified light (and presumably neutrino) producers traversing behind black holes, can a difference in neutrino arrival at Earth be seen? Can neutrino output from pulsars be measured? The author would expect finding supernovae traversing behind black holes while producing neutrinos to be exceedingly rare.

Collision Review (+)

The mnp Model posits strict conservation on charge material, so I suggest some decays and some cross sections will produce different results depending on the intensity of the experiment. Experiments producing more stuff will have higher success rates on those reactions requiring the recruitment of charge material. An example would be muon decay to two electrons and a positron. Not all reactions recruit charge material. For those interactions, the author would expect to see much better agreement between experiments run at different intensities.

If experiments keep track of data during the startup of runs, the author would expect to see interactions that do not need material occurring at the expected rate, but those requiring additional material to show lower cross sections than when the run is operating at full intensity. From (2020/11/08 09:38)

I cannot imagine getting support for this unless the Particle Data Group is concerned about variations between some experimental results but not all. If there IS concern, I would like to be blind to which reactions are problematic.

I propose to categorize reactions in terms of recruitment needed and results freed before looking at the variation in experimental results. Only then is checking different experiments appropriate.

  • Hypothesis: experiments where recruitment is needed have higher cross sections when they are run at higher intensities.
  • Null hypothesis: experiments show the same cross sections for all reactions no matter what intensity they are run at.

Further conjecture: (2022/01/21 14:29) There is an upper bound on effective density of recruitable material particles. Increasing cross section/yield may be asymptotic in intensity or may saturate, so experiments exceeding some intensity may see no increase in cross section. There may be curves we could fit, even from different experiments, based on calculating availability in those experiments.

Hunt for New Particles (+)

This hunt might amount to a PDG Review or might include a deeper dive into promising experiments. The hunt for versions of strange is not expected to receive support. The mnp Model sees down and strange as related, since 1/3 charge quarks are seen as offering 3 possible arrangements of charge while 2/3 charge quarks offer only one. Look for other versions of strange (higher energy but shorter lifetime), then look for other versions of bottom, or bottom + bigger version mesons.

The hunt for neutral particles/quarks larger than up and down but smaller than Z is also unlikely to gain support. The mnp Model sees three possible flavours of smallish neutral particles. A second family is not considered likely below Z (which might be a family as well), and a third family is expected to be larger than tau and top, so unattainable.

Examining the Higgs (from 2019/07.18 22:07) to see if its spin and products are consistent with a meson of bottom-like and anti-bottom-like quarks is not likely to be endearing to particle physicists. Best left unsaid.

Null hypothesis: there is nothing to be found

Particles - Room Temperature Annihilation or Interaction ($$ or (!?!))

Advances in quantum computing and particle storage and optical tweezers may allow single particle interaction experiments. Storing positrons is not any harder than storing electrons and not really much more dangerous. I hope. I suggest considering single electron/positron combination first. Might involve destroying the intersection part of the apparatus, but if enough knowledge can be gained or the apparatus is cheap enough, that may be OK.

Look at the resulting detritus direction. If enough experiments can be done and a preference is seen, controlling for time of day and time of year, that would be interesting. The Model posits that the (apparently) unorganized charge material from the reaction is a form of dark matter, so there may be some (but not a lot of) drag of results toward a rest frame. The Model can see partial coils interacting and being dragged some, so the effect of ceasing to move in the Earth’s rotating frame is not immediate.

Questions destined to irritate experimentalists: Do we keep track of time of day and day of year in high energy experiments? Latitude, Longitude, and orientation? Would an oblate testing chamber with tests at different times of the year make a difference?

Fantasy: Isolate a kaon away from other events to see if decay results are different. From (2020/11/06 19:37)

Casimir Effect Experiments; Courting a Vacuum Catastrophe (+ to $$)

The Casimir Effect has received much work. Calculations and predictions are well developed. Repulsion, usually from fluids, has been found interesting. A chip has been developed to make experiments easier to do while reducing the needs for physically exact positioning. This from a quick reading of the Wikipedia Casimir Effect article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect.

As an independent focus of study, the Casimir Effect may offer only a low probability of success of finding new materials or levitation techniques or new physics or averting a vacuum catastrophe. As an adjunct, for example by adapting Casimir effect measurements to STM appartus either as an independent study or a way to study surfaces currently studied in (some) different ways, looking at effects of different temperatures or using STM techniques of different bias currents or magnetic fields or varying fields, interesting results may.be available.

If the optics investigation of diffraction in materials, temperatures, and fields yields interesting results, the Casimir effect might become more interesting and easier to add on to those experiments.

  • Model Hypothesis: (2017/11/02 22:22) The Casimir Effect is not vacuum energy but a surface effect of electron coils attracting and in some cases repelling.

  • Hypothesis: Different temperatures and bias fields yield interesting results, not in keeping with calculations.

  • Null hypothesis: No explanation will be found or is needed for the experimental results. No difference from (others) predictions and measurements. No new or exotic materials will be found. The Casimir Effect shows the vaccuum potential is very large.

AstroPhysics

Looking out at regions we cannot visit has been fruitful not just for what we can see for what we can learn from what we see. Cosmology and particle physics have benefited.

Shapiro Effect (+ to $$$$$) (?-)

The Shapiro Effect shows electromagnetism passing close to a massive body slowing. The Model hypothesis is that this slowing is the radiation is taking a longer path, further out from the body, rather than going deeper into a light well. This can be examined if the data on satellite antenna aiming has been collected. (+) If the data has not been gathered I suspect it will not be added to satellite programs just at my request ($$$$).

From (2014-04-04) a Shapiro light ranging test would involve keeping track of location and antennae direction if the antennae are automatically seeking signal optimization. Presumably the transmitters and receivers on satellites are sensitive to direction and auto correct to optimize transmission. (Better than amateur Yagi, anyway.) If the data exists, this experiment becomes a review (+) Easier is to keep track of antennae orientation on Earthbound stations if the antennae are capable of fine tuning. ($$) If VERY fine tuning is needed, highly directional antennae might increase the sensitivity. ($$$)

From (2018/10/15 21:29) the fantasy develops further. If a satellite can aim a collimated beam where it wants and advance or retard the angle, we could do the measurements from Earth with atmosphere and weather as confounding factors. Unless can choose a wavelength not much affected by the atmosphere. Measurement on the ground at various places might be an effort, but perhaps less expense than sending sensors up in a satellite too. If the satellite is on the ecliptic, needs only to aim along the ecliptic. And mis-aim to see what and when the best signal is received. If signal is time varying then timings can be calculated or deduced. The Null Hypothesis is that GR calculations are correct. The mnp Model hypothesis is that there is not as much slowing as expected, but the path is different, first tending in until the beam is tangent to a sphere around the sun and then diverges outward more toward parallel to going away from the sun. The author needs to determine actual factors of gravity for calculations. Experimenters with unlimited funds could also recalculate a lot of transits and compare to measurements and GR predictions. A collimated beam is even better if it cycles through an off or on off pattern. If a fixed period of output is easier, just vary the gaps between transmissions. Ojala.

This might be turned into a relevant topic of review if satellites have been lost when turning them off when the satellite is a long way away but at 90 degrees from earth with apex at sun? If only a few satellites have been lost, investigating the distribution of positions may not be a large statistically powerful sample.

Relativity (+ or $$$)

Since GPS satellites are moving faster than the surface of the Earth, Special Relativity would suggest they would see Earth clocks moving slower. From (2014-07-15), is there a “simple” experiment of asking the GPS satellites what they see of Earth clocks. Corrections are needed to Earth receivers and have been successfully implemented. Have the GPS satellites been asked the same question? If this has been done, only review is needed (+). If easy to implement, ($$). Since the muon storage experiment shows clocks undergoing angular acceleration do not show any slowing other than due to their speed, clocks in an elevator are NOT slowed by acceleration while those in gravitational fields are, this satellite question is a relevant test.

The author continues to look for experiments of fast reference frame looking back at a slower one. (+) (-)

Galactic Dynamics (+)

(+) (-!) From (2014-10-20 1745) do galaxy arms evolve in predictable manners? Does astronomy show a range of galaxy patterns that suggest evolution or change?

(+) (-) Is there a way to see if loose particles or dark matter slows beyond the MOND limit, perhaps if cosmoligical evidence suggests less mass loss from galaxies than might otherwise be expected?

Dubious Propositions (+ or $$$$$)

Photon Count (+) (x): I need to review results from astronomy to make sure photons are never split, that measurements from different references show different energies only

Brehmstrahlung (+ or $$$$$) (-): Does brehmstrahlung slow particles? Is there a way to see if it even happens in deep space? Only if a Pioneer sees it or can be asked to look.

Solid State Experiments (+ to $$)

From (2021 and 2022): In STM, are we imaging nuclei or electrons? Nuclei. Regarding moving samples with the tip, was pushing things around with an STM tip better when aiming between high points? Would a poorer/broader/multi-point tip work better for pulling or pushing? Regarding tip adjustments, would having an area of lower or higher albedo make picking up or dropping off of a tip, for example, CO easier?

STM approaches and environments would be useful for free electron investigations (below). Casimir Effect investigations (below) and optical investigations (below) would also benefit from scanning tunneling microscopy.

From (2019/07/18 22:13) The vacuum and cold available in condensed matter labs may offer a low expense site for experiment. Or not. NB (2022-01-29) One needs to make sure nothing that will out-gas is introduced. Need to determine the dimensions of what can be introduced with the fiddle arm and how much freedom of location is available. Introducing new wires is hard, it seems. Dropping stuff to the bottom of the chamber is bad form. Having a tool or grasper or two might be interesting. Storage space for five or six 1.5cm square samples does not offer many options. Clearly, the author is not well enough immersed in the lab to have the background to be asking good questions in this Covid era. LoL

Electromagnetism Experiments (+ $ $$)

Many of the experiments listed here may be unnecessary if already done or the results can be predicted clearly enough. The null hypothesis is that all is known about photon/material/material wave function/edge effects. The mnp Model hypothesis is that matter and its wave function is necessary for all interesting redirection of photons. Yet in apparent contradiction, the mnp Model hypothesis suggests electrons can interact with photons.

Photon - Free Electron Interactions (+ to $$$)

In potential overlap with Solid State (cryogenic) or Room Temperature Particle categories, is it possible for a photon/laser beam to be absorbed by a free electron? The undergrad answer is no of course not. The author suggests this is a relativity confirmation test, since free electron absorption would indicate mass actually goes up with momentum increase. This question has been festering for years. The author suspects that in STM no electron would be seen as truly free even when tunneling from tip to sample.

Electrons on negatively charged conductors, on graphene, on semi conductor donor materials, glass, rubber (?) might be almost free, so might be candidates for trying. An electron shower in a laser beam might see the occasional errant electron. Sweeping the light through the shower or the shower across the light?

Measuring where the electron goes, noting what momentum and energy it has, is expected to be difficult. Perhaps almost as difficult as finding a free electron to zap it. The electron confinement techniques currently available may make that almost possible. Measuring momentum transfer to the confining field or worse, showing there is no transfer, might be difficult.

  • Null Hypothesis: Free electrons cannot absorb photons
  • Hypothesis: Free electrons can absorb photons
  • Null Result: We cannot even hit an electron with a photon to find out. No effects whatsoever are seen.

Diffraction and Diffusion - Materials and Methods (+ to $$)

The author would like to understand the parameters (and non-parameters) of diffusion and diffraction. As with all experiments, understanding the physics and literature review come first. Then finding an inexpensive big enough CCD. Old cameras with a 25mm CCD might be candidates, though a much bigger one allows larger experiments or larger fingers.

  • Null hypothesis: All is right with the world. Optics and (maybe) quantum mechanics understands optical phenomena perfectly. Enjoy the learning opportunity.
  • Hypothesis: By changing slit conditions and experimental procedures, interesting results will arise.
  • Model hypothesis: Matter under the influence of electromagentic fields away from radiation itself is necessary to produce the optical phenomena seen.

Review will involve (from 2016/07/11 18:44) categorizing experiments by distribution pattern, coherence, selection mechanism, author cooperation or belief that info is useless, and other criteria to be determined. A database, bibliography, almost an encyclopedia of experiments should result if I do this investigation.

Quantum mechanics and perhaps quantum field theory will be important for this investigation.

What Level of Coherence is Required

From (2016/07/11 18:45) understand coherence.

Delayed choice experiments: From (2013-11-07) review the John Wheeler experiment of shining light across the destination screen. Could we clear the “guide waves” by sending stuff across in between photons. Experimenters pick interval between photons or electrons, when within that interval the clearing can be done, perhaps at a randomized time.

  • Hypothesis: Superposition will not maintain the “guide waves” enough, so sweeping should clear diffraction patterns
  • Null Hypothesis: Sweeping will have no effect

Varied “clearing” spacing: From (2016/06/21 21:37), clearing photons or other field disturbers could be random or spaced - could have different spacing than fhotons going through, so could statistically measure how much effect a recent clearing has.

Varied photon energy: From (2016/06/21 21:39) could we have different wavelength photons go through a coherent field from a cascade of different photons?

Varied photon spacing: From (2016/06/21 21:35) can we get photons out of phase with the previous trapped/measured photons in an experiment? Rephrased (2016/07/11 18:45) can I introduce stutters?

Varied photon aiming: From (2016/07/11 18:36) if electron or photons are aimed at one slit, what is the yield pattern on the other side? How much deviation can be tolerated on the inbound side? Does de-focusing have an effect? What is the effect of the defocus covering both slits? Is there a lag between starting the experiment and collecting results?

Understanding Single Photon Experiments

Do all that see diffusion and diffraction have coherent fields already set up, or are some sending photons or bucky balls with no prior history?

  • Null hypothesis: No prior history is relevant in single photon experiments. Of course.
  • Hypothesis: Well, maybe some history matters.

2014-07-19 single photon experiments seem to occur in the presence of coherent fields from subtracted photons. Somebody (Clark) with clearing between photons finds no interference??

Materials in Diffraction and Diffusion Experiments

If experiment conditions can change the wave function of the electrons in the material making up the slits, so we get higher or lower diffraction? Does cold affect the effective width of the slits? Do electric or magnetic fields imposed on the grating (as a bias as in STM investigations) lead to interesting results?

Do different materials and conductors change the behavior of slits? Can materials be found that hide (or enhance) their presence in diffusion/diffraction experiments?

Changing conditions can include different materials or different material temperatures on each side of a slit, very hot or very cold materials forming the slit. Comparing materials with very active and available electrons on the surface against materials with very little electron availability on the surface. Do superconductors near or just above their temperature of activity act differently?

Momentum Transfer in Diffusion and Diffraction

Does very thin material retain its function as a diffuser? Can thin opaque materials be used to measure momentum transfer, perhaps by noticing increased variation in results if the diffuser is vibrating or moving?

Diffusion and Diffraction Without Presence of Matter (+ for now) (b46-no-matter)

Can a curtain of free-ish electrons in or near a slit lead to differences? Reflection? Random redirection of the photons? Redirection of the electrons? Increased velocity of the electrons? This touches on the free electron-photon interaction pursuit above.

Does diffraction, diffusion, creation or radiation require matter or can it be accomplished by pure electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic means? This may require looking at high energy particle collisions and perhaps high energy cosmological events. For now, this is an experiment review topic with low probabilities of success.

Antennae (+ to $$$)

Do antennae at different temperatures, materials, bias charges or magnetic bias fields, behave as described by the quantum mechanics of the surfaces or do they behave differently. Is material (metal) skin depth relevant to antenna behavior?

  • Null hypothesis: Between quantum mechanics and electromagnetics, nothing remains to be learned.
  • Hyper-null hypothesis: Investigating these issues will provide no interesting techniques for small scale radiation or STM experiments or small scale technology.

Evanescent Fields Left by Photon Passage (+ to $$$ or x)

Can we measure the evanescent fields created by a single photon?

  • Null Hypothesis: photons leave no trace. There is no such thing as evanescent fields.
  • Model Hypothesis: photons create evanescent electromagnetic fields that do not have a net effect on the random field potential that exists in the vicinity of matter and are not conventionally measurable and not conventionally seen as energy.

Can I invent a way to see those electromagnetic fields? Is subsequent passage of photons affected in subtle ways? Certainly, I do not expect support for this endeavor.

Vacuum Recruitment (+ to $$$)

From (2016/08/10 13:47) Can a varying magnetic or electromagnetic field without matter lead to diffraction and/or diffusion?

From (2016/09/26 13:14) Is the presence of matter necessary for photon generation?

  • Null hypothesis: Quantum field theory rules.

Relativistic Optical Experiments {+ and $$$$$$$)

No experiments are likely to be available between armchair musings and impossible measurements. Thought experiments, such as diffraction experiment in a high speed frame or a relativistic double slit experiment at varying angles, can only be tested by finding some cosmological phenomena. Unlikely!

Preparation Required for Optical Experiments

The author would need enough preparation in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory to start predicting results. The author would need to collect background literature and a bibliography. The author would need to continue getting exposure to materials. Show, not just say.

Optical Experiments Conclusion

These questions are not all separate. For example, they may combine in understanding the behavior of half silvered mirrors. from (2014-03-21) could the changing EM fields that go through the half silvered mirror conjure a photon at a different phase or sign and only dissipate or cancel another further down the line in the multi-stage experiments?

Null hypothesis: again, let me restate, we know everything we need about diffusion, diffraction, and spin. More is not to be discovered. The investigation should have lead to a lot of learning. Enjoy.

Experimental Design (+)

Studying experimental design is expected of an experimentalist. Some of the author’s proposed investigations require more than the usual level of care, making an almost forensic approach and understanding of experimental design appropriate.

Figuring out ways to measure while blind to the results. Automatic collection is of course the gold standard. Varying the inputs without the researcher’s knowledge, only to reveal the inputs during analysis.

For example, with the room temperature decay or single collision experiments, the measuring apparatus, if an opaque hemisphere and small enough, can be rotated by a random amount by the controller, then the results viewed to make sure the device is operating properly. Only when the random rotation is taken out can we look at the directional results over a large collection of measurements.

The posts and appendices in the mnp Manual proposing a Registry for Design and Data and a Journal of Negative Results have not yielded change in the field of physics, but show my ongoing interests in experimental and communication methods. This post/chapter can be seen as a personal Registry of Design.

Academic work can be divided into three or four areas: note taking, results gathering and analysis, and publishing. Investigation of the transfer of notes to publishing has been interesting but not earthshaking. The author’s program Scribe for formatting reports (from the teletype/hard copy days) has certainly not gone anywhere. The experiment (2022-01-24) transition to composing with Markdown which will be translated to Latex and HTML is ongoing. This post/chapter will be the first. Investigations of Electronic Lab Notebooks continues. None of this is a subject for graduate school. The tools are interesting and hopefully help foster the creation of new science.

Presentation: I was asked how to display results on a screen. On (2015-03-02) I wrote down an answer: color, pattern, change over time (careful to not be annoying), size length/area/volume, greater shading for depth?? shape (round line triangle square offers GH code for number [of -sides-] where round is 1 and a line segment is 2, a triangle 3, if we don’t go to infinity on polygons. Management by exception allows sound: tone,timbre,chord, and/or vowel. When is sound used? On an event, failure, when mouse over (games used to do that a lot!). Sound bite: there was a time when the University of Michigan computing center, if the last job completed successfully and there was not another waiting, would play Hail to the Victors. Time to check the next card deck.

Display of 3-d tensors on a 2-d screen will be revisited. I promise. Similar is the display of probability density functions in 2-d over time or over changing conditions such as temperature. For some changes, presenting a movie perhaps at different paces, with a slider bar whose color represents temperature. Of if the image of probabilities is a scalar, changing the color of the entire image with temperature may be telling. Color can be used to gain attention, sometimes to the detriment of the science. Shout out to PJ for that!

Choosing instrumentation, beyond small computers, analog digital converters, and thermocouples, is not something I have a lot of experience with yet. I do remember, back in the early 80’s, being asked how to computer square roots quickly on a high speed logic board. They were using MUCH faster calculators than I was with my Z-80 4MHz processor with software floating point, but needed even faster results. I heard myself ask “What are you doing with the square root. Comparing it?” The yes answer prompted “Then square what you are comparing to.” I never heard back from that large project, but the take home message is

Think about what you need to measure and what you need to calculate. Algorithms can offer faster or better results than more hard work.

Observation will be better, for example, if Machiavelli er the observer does not know when, for example, fields were supplied to the slit but is just measuring the level of diffusion, the results will be better. In quantum level experiments, we may need sample photons at times to check runs, even if that means reducing the number of successful runs. Observing and recording the results even for those “sampled” or “ruined” runs is a useful test of the observation if the observer does not know about the inputs. At an extreme, if thwarting Machiavelli is important, a known photon may need to be sent along in place of the unknown sampled out. Sending a false sample to a testing lab can be a useful technique; if the DNA lab always returns the desired match, they may not be following good testing procedures though business will be good for a while.

The difficulties measuring the speed of neutrinos back in 2011 inspired many thoughts on observation blinding. If a delay of 0 to 9 (nanoseconds?) is called for, start at the 56th digit of pi and use those numbers. Or send those numbers to a device AND have a collegue send (and record) numbers to be added to the first stream of numbers, so that neither sees the value submitted to the device.

Analysis itself can be somewhat blinded if taken in steps, without knowing where the input data came from or which experiment it refers to or which direction or orientation the suite of measurements was taken in. The computer science concept of unit testing or proof is useful. Again, algorithms and procedures can offer better or more reliable results.

Statistics are useful (from 2019/09/01 09:59) but biostatistician GM points out if a study does not have intra-ocular impact, it is not that significant. To translate to the vernacular, if it doesn’t hit you between the eyes it isn’t meaningful. Still, in some experiments, understanding the calculation and meaning of power will be useful, as will an understanding of Bayes inference and the role of false negative and positive. So the author is called to learn more statistics to augment that gathered from (mostly) experience with biostatistics.

Beyond Physics

The sketch of “How to Create a Terrestrial Flying Disk” requires materials science, computer science, and aerodynamics, but not much new physics so is “Interesting. But weird.” Other than creating such a device for the sake of creation and bragging rights and perhaps using it as a reliable high altitude helicopter, there do not seem to be pressing reasons to press on.

End Words

(2018-11-14) Taking the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) to start a five year clock for preparing, taking the Physics GRE, and applying to graduate school has had a number of consequences. One of the questions raised by the "who do you want us to report these results to" is "what program are you applying to?"

Preparation Story

Humor: I imagine a munchkin asking "what kind of physics are you?" "You mean what kind of physicist?" "No, what kind of physics?" "Well, if you give me the ten choices, I’ll have to say "physics." "Oh, so you are physics physics." "Since I can’t say all of the above or most of the above, yes" "Can’t you make up your mind?"

And to that question, the answer will be/is useful to me, but perhaps not to a graduate program. What kind of physics am I? Maybe theoretical physics some day, perhaps even mathematical. Hah. After over two years of undergraduate physics courses, that looks far less likely. For graduate school, putting together an experiment seems a better path. But what would be best or available?

In the Beginning

Six experiments dominated my early preparation for grad school. Stated in null hypothesis mode:

  • Particle physics: Verify that the Wu experiment or similar spin experiments show left handed preference in the Southern Hemisphere and at the equator.

  • Particle physics: Verify that collision and decay experiments do not have small quarks bigger than strange and shorter lived.

  • Particle physics: Verify that there is no evidence from collision and decay experiments for neutral particles/quarks larger than up and down but smaller than Z and that there are not two more larger shorter lived flavours and there are not multiple families. (THAT was a hard hypothesis to put in null form!)

  • Optics: Show that the material of a diffusion screen and the quantum behavior of the material around the slit(s) have no effect. Verify temperature independence and if possible frame independence.

  • Condensed Matter: Verify the Casimir Effect results and fill in gaps.

  • Relativity: Verify that aiming parameters for satellite radar from the far side of the sun and from away from the sun are exactly as General Relativity would predict.

Not so many months later (2018/11/07 08:50) the priority list was five, again in null hypothesis mode: left hand preference is universal, general relativity predicts the path of aimed beams from satellites, there are no small neutral particles, there is not a third form of up slightly more massive than strange and shorter lived neutrinos cannot be captured with the help of asymmetrical magnetic fields.

Why This and Why Now?

I was advised that with my background I could not get into grad school, so I might as well post about interesting experiments. Seeing them done by others would certainly not diminish my vanishingly small chances of getting into graduate school. A few of years of classes and expanding understanding of physics have added to the experiment list. And to understand how some might be easy, but some exceedingly difficult. Long enough for my respect for experimentalists to go up.

I am more interested in being clear about my interests and the mnp Model than I am in persuading. The wags suggest that is a good idea, since I will NOT be persuasive.

Conclusion

How this school endeavor is going to finish is not clear.

One of the benefits of putting the compilation of experiments together is the opportunity to gather all the thoughts from the various electronic files (not really deserving the title electronic lab notebook, this) and to think about them, categorize them, and see what patterns they form. Major pruning to make the list useful remains.

Thanks to the Giants.

Return Addresses:

Addendum - Extra Experiment Thoughts Found (2022 01 28)

While writing post 46, Meditations oN exPeriment, I had the feeling I was missing something. I covered all the experimental topics desired, but often wrote extemporaneously about issues I had thought about previously. Yesterday, I found 5 pages, 114 entries individual, 70 entries when multiple contemporaneous thoughts on the same topic joined each other. These thoughts were in the original materials but not the extracted notes on experiment I had used to write post 46. The result is three dense pages of markdown display, approximately five pages of pdf.

A background note on methods: I collect thoughts while reading or writing at the computer using a command line script that adds date and time to the thoughts. Every few years or when resuming blogging, I save the original, sort the thoughts by topic, save that with a date range and use topics as needed. I have now created, for this correction, a script (called thoughtprocess abbreviated tp if you must know) for processing the thought file(s). After processing, using a spreadsheet to sort by topic or subtopic is much easier and producing markdown tables simpler. More important, the process should be more reliable. Doing that in public may not be such a good idea; if I choose what to write about and what ideas are worth writing about, a lot of pruning makes for less publishing work.

Not every idea is a good one. With this update to post 46, Meditations oN exPeriment, much of the temporary Addendum has been incorporated. Much has been relegated to comments that pandoc will not include in the html or tex translations. Some has been relegated to the trash. You ARE welcome.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)