To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Does Light Red And Blue Shift?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2

4Dguy


Does the detector change absorption frequency along with the atomic clock red and blue shifting in a gravity well?
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jun 25 2009, 09:57 AM)
Does the detector change absorption frequency along with the atomic clock red and blue shifting in a gravity well?

What kind of detector?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jun 25 2009, 09:57 AM)
Does the detector change absorption frequency along with the atomic clock red and blue shifting in a gravity well?

I think you are trying to ask whether we account for the Earth's gravitational field when we check distant objects for em spectrum red-shifts. Yes. Also, the effect of the Earth's gravitational field are negligable. Any more questions?
Confused2
I think we're really asking whether (or not) the laws of physics are the same in every frame (AND/OR gravitational potential).
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 25 2009, 05:45 PM)
I think we're really asking whether (or not) the laws of physics are the same in every frame (AND/OR gravitational potential).

Our knowledge of the laws of physics come in a large part from bodies in outer space. Gravity may affect the direction of light, but it does not affect the frequency of light. See: Doppler Effect and Electromagnetic Spectroscopy.
Trout
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 25 2009, 11:11 PM)
Gravity .... does not affect the frequency of light.

It sure does. See "gravitational redshift"
4Dguy
Mjolnirpants



QUOTE

What kind of detector?


Spectroscopic measurements of course.


flyingbuttressman

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What kind of detector?


Spectroscopic measurements of course.


flyingbuttressman

History

The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796, using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun, arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern understanding of light waves.

Once it became accepted that light is an electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. The only way around this conclusion would be if time itself was altered—if clocks at different points had different rates.


Also from Wiki on the History. Apparently if I read this correctly Gravity redshift is not caused by light changing frequency but the clock changing its tick rate. This is the part I would like to see proved or disproved.

here

Does light shift frequency or does the clock rate change the detection parameters of the detector as far as timing for the absorption?
buttershug
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jun 26 2009, 05:20 AM)
Also from Wiki on the History. Apparently if I read this correctly Gravity redshift is not caused by light changing frequency but the clock changing its tick rate.

If you don't go by the clock's tick rate then what do you go by?

And as for does the clock really change it's tick rate, first what do you mean?
The question is meaningless without context. (or should I say reference).

And as to the answer I have only three letters to say, "GPS".

Confused2
Unfortunately it seems that them what says don't know and them what knows don't say.

(I think) One of the rules of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere -
If correct then questions like:-
"If it affects the (local) receiver does it also affect the (local) transmitter?"
become somewhat redundant.
If we go with Einstein then it does not affect:-
the speed of light
clocks
the fine structure constant
the height of giraffes
etc.

What is the it ?
Shall we try ‘Gravitational potential’?

The ‘constant laws’ then become:-
The laws of physics in one place may not seem to be the same when viewed from another place at a different gravitational potential - (but in reality they are).

-C2.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jun 26 2009, 12:20 AM)
Spectroscopic measurements of course.

That's not a type of detector, that's the activity performed by all relevant detectors. That's like me asking what kind of gun you own and you responding "Chemical propulsion of a bullet, of course."

I'm looking for you to say something like "a CCD detectors," "a photographic film detectors," or "a CMOS detector."
Confused2
QUOTE (MollyPants+)
That's like me asking what kind of gun you own a..


It might be better to head straight for the point you originally wanted to make.

-C2.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 26 2009, 08:13 AM)
It might be better to head straight for the point you originally wanted to make.

So you want this thread to degenerate into an argument over whether it's preferable to be rude or stupid?
Confused2
QUOTE (MollyPants+)
So you want this thread to degenerate into an argument over whether it's preferable to be rude or stupid?


It still might be better to head straight for the point you originally wanted to make.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 26 2009, 08:42 AM)
It still might be better to head straight for the point you originally wanted to make.

Are you trying to insinuate that I was making a sexual innuendo with the gun comment, or are you really to stupid to understand that the sentence preceding that one you quoted contained the point?
Confused2
I'm hoping you will add something like:-

"If the detector is a CCD array then.."

Edit .. choose the type of detector you feel with best make the point (forget guns etc)
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 26 2009, 10:08 AM)
I'm hoping you will add something like:-

"If the detector is a CCD array then.."

Edit .. choose the type of detector you feel with best make the point (forget guns etc)

My original point in this respect was made in my first post, here.

Are you curious about whether or not the detectors I listed change their frequency absorption based on the strength of a gravitational field they're in? If so, you can always ask.

I'll just go ahead and assume you did and provide you with an answer:
It depends on several other factors. wink.gif


Now, if you ask nicely, I will be more specific. You know, just say "Could you expound upon that? Give an example of when it would not change, and an example of when it would?"
Confused2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_vector_field
'..every conservative vector field has the path independence property."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/...res/node59.html
"What are typical examples of conservative and non-conservative fields? Well, a gravitational field is probably the most well-known example of a conservative field (see later)."

Such considerations lead me to the conclusion that, for example:-

If the detector in Pound-Rebka experiment were moved next to the source and the radiation bounced back by a (gamma ray!) mirror - there would be no net frequency shift over the (closed) path.

-C2.
buttershug
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 26 2009, 01:42 PM)
QUOTE (MollyPants+)
So you want this thread to degenerate into an argument over whether it's preferable to be rude or stupid?


It still might be better to head straight for the point you originally wanted to make.

Maybe his point was that 4D doesn't know what he's talking about?
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 26 2009, 12:37 PM)
Maybe his point was that 4D doesn't know what he's talking about?

No... That was a basic assumption (and an implication) of my posts, not the point. wink.gif
4Dguy
C2

It does not matter if the reflected light returns the same because in either case it would return the same. It would not matter if the light shifted and then shifted back. It can not be used to prove that light changes frequency or not. There may be using SR equivalency with split beam with one beam reflected.

I can tell you understand the main objective while others have their own agenda. Their agenda is of little importance. They do not have the depth to tackle the problem so they go for the problem maker.
Confused2
QUOTE (4Dguy+)
It does not matter if the reflected light returns the same because in either case it would return the same.


Can you clarify "either case" please.

QUOTE (4Dguy+)
It would not matter if the light shifted and then shifted back.


I'm trying to establish that the 'shift' is the result of viewing a region at one gravitational from another region at another potential. Since the viewing is (in this case) literally 'light' the difference manifests itself as a change in frequency when seen from the 'other' region but seen from the same region (whether never leaving the region or reflected back into it) there is no change in frequency. This is an inevitable (to me) consequence of the laws of physics being the same everywhere.

-C2.

The aim of my posts is to be substantially correct - even if over-simplified. Science motivated comments are most welcome.
4Dguy
C2

Is it a change in the frequency of light or a change in the energy level that create the conditions for red and blue shift that is observed. This is a fundamental question with consequences beyond the results. Trout is adamant that the change is in the frequency of light and not a gravitational energy change. There is no way I know of that they would not act the same except that the very difference in energy level is not taken into account when you claim the wavelength changes.

QUOTE
Can you clarify "either case" please


Does the wavelength of the photon change or is it an effect of the gravitational potential where the wave is detected?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Can you clarify "either case" please


Does the wavelength of the photon change or is it an effect of the gravitational potential where the wave is detected?

'm trying to establish that the 'shift' is the result of viewing a region at one gravitational from another region at another potential. Since the viewing is (in this case) literally 'light' the difference manifests itself as a change in frequency when seen from the 'other' region but seen from the same region (whether never leaving the region or reflected back into it) there is no change in frequency. This is an inevitable (to me) consequence of the laws of physics being the same everywhere.


I agree! Trout does not.
Confused2
QUOTE
Is it a change in the frequency of light or a change in the energy level that create the conditions for red and blue shift that is observed. This is a fundamental question with consequences beyond the results. Trout is adamant that the change is in the frequency of light and not a gravitational energy change.


If we have two points at different gravitational potentials then there is a (gravitational) field between the two points - I am (fairly) sure that the 'trick' is done in and by the field - the sampling point is just a point in a field - since the field is 'conservative' the cumulative effect of the field can be conveniently summarised by the potential difference - which is surprising but true - a bit of a mathematical trick in its own right.

More to come..
Confused2
I suspect Trout is trying to stop you thinking of photons as 'heavy objects' climbing out of a gravitational well - and losing energy in the process. The reality is much more subtle and elegant, even beautiful:- I suspect it is the same as I am trying to see in SR (and failing).
4Dguy
C2


I do not think of a photon as a heavy particle (only a wave). I see the same thing in SR and GR as far as light is concerned.
Confused2
QUOTE (4Dguy+)
I see the same thing in SR and GR as far as light is concerned.


One of the problems with maths orientated people is that they can actually do the required maths :- this leads to a situation where the maths is both necessary and sufficient for them - so they don't need to draw pretty pictures and wave their arms about.

The best we can hope for is a picture (in words) that is substantially correct.

Starting to paint (my) the picture:-

We have a laboratory A at the top of a hill and a lab B at the bottom.

The gravitational potential at B is lower than A ('cos it's closer to the Earth) so the clock at B runs slower relative to A.

The laws of physics are the same at A and B so there's nothing wrong with clocks at either A or B.

Since there is nothing else left the difference in times must be caused by the difference in potential and therefore the field between the two points.

Any disagreement so far?

-C2.



flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 27 2009, 04:09 AM)
Any disagreement so far?

Yes, how about the part where time does not run at different speeds at different altitudes. The only place where relativistic time differences occur are on satellites, which travel anywhere at 27,400 km/h in low-earth orbit. Potential gravitational energy has no effect on time, velocity does.
Trout
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 27 2009, 02:44 PM)
Potential gravitational energy has no effect on time

I corrected you once before.
Confused2
Hi Flyingbuttressman,

QUOTE (fbm+)
time does not run at different speeds at different altitudes


Thanks for the comment - at least someone is awake.

The experiment here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment seems to be the accepted accepted evidence for the 'different speeds'.

-C2.
AlexG
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 27 2009, 09:44 AM)
Yes, how about the part where time does not run at different speeds at different altitudes. The only place where relativistic time differences occur are on satellites, which travel anywhere at 27,400 km/h in low-earth orbit. Potential gravitational energy has no effect on time, velocity does.

Wrong.

flyingbuttressman
I stand corrected: Gravitational Time Dilation.

I apologize for sidetracking the conversation.
Confused2
As far as I am concerned - no apology required. If nobody made any progress then some or all of ['my' picture,this thread,this forum] would have no purpose. Discussion 'under fire' is a phase we're going through - maybe it will end - maybe it won't.
-C2.
4Dguy
C2

Neither math nor a picture is going to help us at this junction. What creates a field? What causes the time dilation? My idea is mass expands space and the electrons travel further to slow the cycle second. The field is the expanded space. The same with SR. The forward motion compresses space and the rear motion stretches space. There is the equivalence between SR and GR. Shoot light from behind and its created in red stretched area of space shoot it from the front and its created in blue shifted area of space.

So we need to see the field to understand the results. My idea may be wrong but we have to come up with what a field is and is not.


Everyone has something to learn especially me. The false pride of knowing everything is what brings out the guns. Give me another system that slows down cycle time of the electron and matches the photon in every frame. I will be glad to listen.
AlexG
QUOTE
My idea is mass expands space and the electrons travel further to slow the cycle second.


So you think that the Lorentz contraction of space is an optical illusion, but that space can be expanded. It can expand but not contract?

Do you see any contradiction in holding both of those views?
Confused2
Hi 4Dguy,

Trout has already shown * that the equivalence principle will get you from SR to GR. It doesn't help me (us?) to understand what gravitational fields are - but it certainly gives a lot of information about what they aren't.

-------------------

When I started he 'picture' I intended (later) to propose that some sort of rotation might explain the observed effects - since 'rotation' is the one thing that conservative fields don't do - up creek, no paddle sad.gif .

-C2.

* Trout invited to post a link.




4Dguy
aLEXg,


QUOTE
So you think that the Lorentz contraction of space is an optical illusion, but that space can be expanded. It can expand but not contract?

Do you see any contradiction in holding both of those views?


Mass expands space. The areas of space where there is no mass space is contracted. The Lorentz contraction is due to the limit of the speed of light not being able to reflect by the time mass has moved towards you.

When you are part of mass you are expanded along with any meter stick you want to use. Physics are the same but expanded. Light has to go further in expanded space and is given longer to cover the space. Its the exact amount that the electrons have to cycle extra that the photon has to travel extra. Light is measured to be the same in every frame. What do you think bent space is talking about. The bent space is a gradient to the center of mass. There is a threshold where the bent space caused by mass can be seen. Its the lensing effect we see in other galaxies. Its a gradient in galaxies also as seen by the lensing effect. Light is produced mostly in the center of galaxies where gravitational dilation is the greatest. That is why everything is red shifted by our perspective.

In the Lorentz contraction how does the light slow down to compensate for light to be the same in every frame?
4Dguy
C2

When light travels around the Earth it is on a parabolic curve. There is less of a curve as you go down a gravity well. A light path directly towards the Earth center should move in a straight line from the two poles. There would be no curving although the apparent red shift would be valid there also. Light should remain the same wavelength as it travels into expanded space. The expanded meter (appropriate detector) would read the lights wavelength as blue shifted. But there is really no way to prove that light is not shifting except for the reduced cycle time of the electron (due to the expansion of space).


It would be nice if someone could debate rather than just playing the neg-er game. I am only using what is theory and observations of relativity. Most of the names here do not have a good understanding of relativity and can only insult. Insults are the last resort of the ignorant.


TheDoc Posted: Jun 26 2009, 11:04 PM
Negative Sorry Eddy, -73. laugh.gif
Edward 3 Posted: Jun 26 2009, 09:24 AM
Positive sorry trout -72
Trout Posted: Jun 23 2009, 04:06 PM
Negative -73
flyingbuttressman Posted: Jun 22 2009, 11:22 PM
Negative Complete and utter contempt for logic, reason, and his own sanity.
TheDoc Posted: Jun 18 2009, 10:37 PM
Negative Deceitful, deluded, dense dumbotron.
Trout Posted: Jun 16 2009, 02:28 PM
Negative 4xDumb
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Jun 14 2009, 06:09 AM
Negative Ignorant crank
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Jun 13 2009, 04:33 PM
Negative Arrogant retard.
flyingbuttressman Posted: Jun 13 2009, 03:36 AM
Negative Arrogant retard, handle with care.
TheDoc Posted: Jun 10 2009, 05:13 AM
Negative http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=415825
Trout Posted: Jun 9 2009, 04:44 AM
Negative Ignorant crank
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Jun 6 2009, 02:09 AM
Negative 4Dumbotron - aka: *uckwit.
Trout
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jun 29 2009, 02:01 PM)
C2

When light travels around the Earth it is on a parabolic curve.

Wrong, it is a hyperbola. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Hence the negs. laugh.gif
Confused2
Trout,

We see that rpenner and others try to deliver an answer that will satisfy the questioner. Your responses often (though not always) seem to be addressed to the assembly of [chorus line,bottom-feeders] that have infested this forum partly (though not entirely) as a result of the encouragement you have given them and (in fairness) the encouragement they have given to you.

If you have a sensible response to 4Dguys post .. then it would be most welcome .. else .. with all due respect to the circumstances and your particular talents - I (again) invite you consider the FO option.

-C2.
Trout
QUOTE (Confused x 2+Jun 29 2009, 09:43 PM)


If you have a sensible response to 4Dguys post .. then it would be most welcome .. else .. with all due respect to the circumstances and your particular talents - I (again) invite you consider the FO option.

-C2.


Just in case you didn't understand, 4Dumbass was not asking, he was stating (an idiocy).
I explained to your sidekick why he's an idiot (a hyperbola is not a parabola and light follows the former in the presence of a gravitational mass).
Do you want me to explain to you why you are a weaseling idiot or is this one of the few things you can figure by yourself?
Confused2
Trout,

We all have different ways of expressing ourselves - some use multiple identities, some use expedient alliances with any fuckwit that will serve the purpose, some use .. need I go on?

4Dguy makes a statement and offers it up for criticism - on a scale of 0 to arsehole I rate that pretty low on the scale.

If you have a sensible response to 4Dguys post (beyond "wrong conic section") .. then it would be most welcome .. else .. with all due respect to the circumstances and your particular talents - I (again) invite you consider the FO option.

-C2.
Trout
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 29 2009, 10:07 PM)


4Dguy makes a statement and offers it up for criticism - on a scale of 0 to arsehole I rate that pretty low on the scale.


In a stark contrast, you rate at the top of the scale laugh.gif
Confused2
Hi 4Dguy,

Sorry about that deviation into flameworld.

The best I can find is here:-
http://www.chartwellyorke.com/sketchpad/do...ki_Overview.pdf

I admit my maths isn't good enough to follow it .. so I guess yours might not be either - but at least it gives a flavour of what (might) be going on 'in reality'.

-C2.
Trout
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 29 2009, 10:31 PM)
Hi 4Dguy,

Sorry about that deviation into flameworld.

The best I can find is here:-
http://www.chartwellyorke.com/sketchpad/do...ki_Overview.pdf

I admit my maths isn't good enough to follow it .. so I guess yours might not be either - but at least it gives a flavour of what (might) be going on 'in reality'.

-C2.

A nice paper. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with GR, nor does it have anything to do with the bending of light in the presence of a gravitational mass.
Confused2
Trout,

I normally respond to what I think a person has written rather that anything they may actually have written* (no time wasted reading posts)- by this means I maintain a 100% relevance rating in my responses. Besides, another internet user (Trout!) has convinced me that understanding of SR will take me/us to the baby slopes of GR (via the EP) so I'm a fan of understanding SR before attempting GR.

-C2.

*I note with pleasure that this is clearly not immediately obvious.
4Dguy
C2

Trout was correct I was sloppy. He looks for the insults without any ability to correct my as he says my statements. He has a very ugly mind with no ability to debate an issue. He really has no depth of understanding just like the rest of the insulter's.
jeffsaunders
I will attempt a reply to the original post here.

And would say yes.

In A gravity well time is affected or the maximum speed is affected. Since both are connected by being different sides of the same coin one cannot be affected without the other being affected.

Since gravity does alter the wavelength associated with a particular photon and since any observer in a gravity well would be able to detect that - given a sensitive enough instrument what more is there.

Gravity does affect light by red shift or blue shift depending on vector.

The only way we can measure this shift is to know in advance what the light would have looked like without the shift and extrapolate.


So from the position inside a gravity well such as the Earth all incoming light we observe will be blue shifted by a small amount. This will not be great enough to make much difference to any calculations already done because the shift would be very small indeed.
4Dguy
jeffsaunders,


QUOTE
Since gravity does alter the wavelength


This is the real question that needs to be answered. Does gravity alter the wavelength or does the wavelength stay the same while the the energy level at the position where its being detected changed to make it appear to change the wavelength?
jeffsaunders
does it matter?

If you measure it then it is so. One must keep it simple.

There is always the chance that you are just a computer programm running on a super computer in someones basement and they might turn you off at any second.

Perhaps the simulation that is you has been run a million times, so what? You cannot live with and decipher all possibilities of reality - only the most likely and most useful to explain observations ....

and that observation that is most simple and requires minimum other worries would be best.

If you measurements all agree and other peoples measurements all agree - does it matter if there is some magic involved or not?
4Dguy
jeffsaunders

QUOTE
If you measurements all agree and other peoples measurements all agree - does it matter if there is some magic involved or not?


Of course it matters. If light shifts frequency than the expansion is everything science says it is. If the frequency is based on the position of detection than expansion of the universe is less than what is believed it to be.

Science spends millions to confirm current theory. If the theory is wrong the money is wasted. Looking for gravitons is a waste of time in my estimation. They will never be found because they probably do not exist if light does not change frequency. This is because the energy level is probably the cause of gravity. Mass is attracted to a lower energy level.
AlexG
QUOTE
This is because the energy level is probably the cause of gravity. Mass is attracted to a lower energy level.


Why do lower energy levels attract mass?

How does the mass 'know' that the 'energy level' over there is lower than the 'energy level' over here? And 'energy level' means what? What is the energy, how is it transmitted?

You're using sciency sounding buzz words, but you don't have any meaning behind them.
4Dguy
AlexG,


QUOTE
You're using sciency sounding buzz words, but you don't have any meaning behind them.


That's because your more in tuned to insults than recognizing science trends. If you understand the red shift as atomic clocks decreasing their tick rate down a gravity well you would understand that a lower tick rate is lower energy potential.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You're using sciency sounding buzz words, but you don't have any meaning behind them.


That's because your more in tuned to insults than recognizing science trends. If you understand the red shift as atomic clocks decreasing their tick rate down a gravity well you would understand that a lower tick rate is lower energy potential.


How does the mass 'know' that the 'energy level' over there is lower than the 'energy level' over here? And 'energy level' means what? What is the energy, how is it transmitted?


While the energy issue is observable fact, the rest will be subjective. We also observe that the curved space is a gradient expansion of space to the center of a planet. The expanded space (which appears as curved) is observed and detected as reduced by the inverse square of the distance moving away from mass. So we have the mathematical formula for the energy increase as you move away from mass. It is transmitted by the expansion of space. The solar system is an accumulation of expansion and seen by another solar system as a single mass. The same with galaxies.

QUOTE
Why do lower energy levels attract mass?


You can see it as entropy or falling into expanded space. Until you are open to new ideas for old observations you will stay blind to possibilities (not good for a true scientist). If you can only regurgitate what others believe and not think for your self you will only attain teaching level. It takes more effort for thinking level.

Look at your adversarial level of response. At least you have taken the steps to question even if its from disbelief.


Trout


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Why do lower energy levels attract mass?


You can see it as entropy or falling into expanded space. Until you are open to new ideas for old observations you will stay blind to possibilities (not good for a true scientist). If you can only regurgitate what others believe and not think for your self you will only attain teaching level. It takes more effort for thinking level.

Look at your adversarial level of response. At least you have taken the steps to question even if its from disbelief.


Trout


Trout  Posted: Today at 1:15 AM
Negative  -75, there is no cure for your mental illness. What is worse, you have no shame. Peple explain to you that you are an idiot and an ignorant, yet you continue posting garbage.


Those like you who have no imagination think I am an idiot I am sure. You can not debate issues only bring up references for your limited understanding of the way physics work. Your references most of the time do not even cover what is being discussed. You do not understand the limits of experimentation. For you there are no limitations to experiments that tend towards your beliefs. For instance red and blue shifting to you is the photon is shifting and not the position where light is being detected. If you understood limits of experimentation you would understand you can not distinguish between the two. Math certainly can not distinguish the difference yet you think it can. I think you are ignorant but not an idiot. Which peple explain that I am an idiot and an ignorant. What exactly is an ignorant?
Trout
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 2 2009, 01:24 PM)



Trout




Those like you who have no imagination think I am an idiot I am sure.

You sure are. The question is, why do you need daily reassurance that you are?
4Dguy
Trout

QUOTE
You sure are. The question is, why do you need daily reassurance that you are?


I enjoy people of like minds that are interested in science. I have no interest in those of low moral character that find it necessary to insult others to feel better about themselves. You are the worst of the worst.
Trout
QUOTE (4DUMBguy+Jul 2 2009, 02:34 PM)
Trout



I enjoy people of like minds that are interested in science. I have no interest in those of low moral character that find it necessary to insult others to feel better about themselves. You are the worst of the worst.

Looked in the mirror lately? laugh.gif
Edward 3
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 2 2009, 02:34 PM)
Trout



I enjoy people of like minds that are interested in science. I have no interest in those of low moral character that find it necessary to insult others to feel better about themselves. You are the worst of the worst.

You´re wrong 4D - he´s way worse than that !!!
AlexG
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 2 2009, 08:24 AM)
AlexG,




That's because your more in tuned to insults than recognizing science trends. If you understand the red shift as atomic clocks decreasing their tick rate down a gravity well you would understand that a lower tick rate is lower energy potential.


While the energy issue is observable fact, the rest will be subjective. We also observe that the curved space is a gradient expansion of space to the center of a planet. The expanded space (which appears as curved) is observed and detected as reduced by the inverse square of the distance moving away from mass. So we have the mathematical formula for the energy increase as you move away from mass. It is transmitted by the expansion of space. The solar system is an accumulation of expansion and seen by another solar system as a single mass. The same with galaxies.



You can see it as entropy or falling into expanded space. Until you are open to new ideas for old observations you will stay blind to possibilities (not good for a true scientist). If you can only regurgitate what others believe and not think for your self you will only attain teaching level. It takes more effort for thinking level.

Look at your adversarial level of response. At least you have taken the steps to question even if its from disbelief.



Sorry, but all you've done here is to repeat yourself. Science buzz words and terms strung together into the forms of sentences.
Meem
Okay so blue shift is short wavelength/frequency and red shift is longer? A black-hole is a very very small point or singularity, and much mass and energy are attracted to it. How would one see it's shift if visible light cannot escape it? Does all electromagnetic energy a.k.a. light not escape it? How ould you go about trying to filter out the noise of all the matter around a black-hole and trying to find it's magnetic field, it must one. Maybe it's blue shift' and has a very very small wave-length or frequency?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 2 2009, 12:39 PM)
Okay so blue shift is short wavelength/frequency and red shift is longer? A black-hole is a very very small point or singularity, and much mass and energy are attracted to it. How would one see it's shift if visible light cannot escape it? Does all electromagnetic energy a.k.a. light not escape it? How ould you go about trying to filter out the noise of all the matter around a black-hole and trying to find it's magnetic field, it must one. Maybe it's blue shift' and has a very very small wave-length or frequency?

There is a blue shift, but it has shifted so much that it is no longer visible. This is why we use x-ray telescopes to look for black holes.
uaafanblog
4D,
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your assumption. But ... Why do you believe that a change in "energy level" (I'd prefer the word "amplitude") would result in a frequency change of any kind?

It seems like a flawed premise. I certainly think that some non-cosmological effects contribute to apparent redshift but amplitude changes don't affect frequency at the lower end of the spectrum so I don't see how they would at the highest frequencies.

Someone slap me if I'm wrong.
Confused2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 2 2009, 06:35 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

Maxwell is turning over in his grave.

So energy isn't amplitude when we're talking photons?
Meem
Has there been an effort made to look for blackholes with microwave detection?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 2 2009, 01:46 PM)
Has there been an effort made to look for blackholes with microwave detection?

Yeah, they didn't find any. They look for x-rays, not microwaves.
4Dguy
uaafanblog,


QUOTE
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your assumption. But ... Why do you believe that a change in "energy level" (I'd prefer the word "amplitude") would result in a frequency change of any kind?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your assumption. But ... Why do you believe that a change in "energy level" (I'd prefer the word "amplitude") would result in a frequency change of any kind?


[Gravitational redshift versus gravitational time dilation

When using special relativity's relativistic Doppler relationships to calculate the change in energy and frequency (assuming no complicating route-dependent effects such as those caused by the frame-dragging of rotating black holes), then the Gravitational redshift and blueshift frequency ratios are the inverse of each other, suggesting that the "seen" frequency-change corresponds to the actual difference in underlying clockrate. Route-dependence due to frame-dragging may come into play, which would invalidate this idea and complicate the process of determining globally-agreed differences in underlying clock rate.

While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.


Clock rate refers to energy level for the cycle of the electron.


QUOTE
It seems like a flawed premise. I certainly think that some non-cosmological effects contribute to apparent redshift but amplitude changes don't affect frequency at the lower end of the spectrum so I don't see how they would at the highest frequencies.


Every energy level we are in seems the same to us. All physics work the same regardless of the energy level. The detector changes calibration in different energy levels.

AlexG



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It seems like a flawed premise. I certainly think that some non-cosmological effects contribute to apparent redshift but amplitude changes don't affect frequency at the lower end of the spectrum so I don't see how they would at the highest frequencies.


Every energy level we are in seems the same to us. All physics work the same regardless of the energy level. The detector changes calibration in different energy levels.

AlexG





Sorry, but all you've done here is to repeat yourself. Science buzz words and terms strung together into the forms of sentences


When you went down the rabbit hole you forgot how to get back out. If you get out it might make sense to you. Until then I am afraid you will have to stay in the dark.
uaafanblog
C2,
I point out that amplitude changes do not affect frequency on the lower range of the spectrum (i.e. radio) and you point me to Planck's constant/relation. It's an inadequte answer ... which is why I replied that Maxwell is turning over in his grave. I have read and reread the relevant parts of the Wiki you linked to and while I note the importance/relevance of this mathematical relationship to physics, it is insufficient to refute my uninformed assumption.

4D,
In the real world, "Clock-rate" is a term referring to frequency since it is the part of the measurement made with respect to time. If QM really uses this term as you describe then it's a more queer discipline than I imagined (please ... nobody bother with the requisite Feynman quote).

Anyone else,
If I'm being completely asinine with respect to the fact that amplitude changes don't affect frequency then straighten me out. If it is as 4D describes then someone needs to take QM by the balls and make it use terms correctly. Clock-rate = energy? Nonsense.
Trout
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 3 2009, 05:45 AM)


Anyone else,
If I'm being completely asinine with respect to the fact that amplitude changes don't affect frequency then straighten me out.

Foe electromagnetic waves

lambda*f=c

So, if the frequency (f) increases, the wavelength (lambda) will decrease since their product equals a constant , the speed of light in vacuum, c.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Trout+Jul 3 2009, 05:52 AM)
Foe electromagnetic waves

lambda*f=c

So, if the frequency (f) increases, the wavelength (lambda) will decrease since their product equals a constant , the speed of light in vacuum, c.

Great. But lamba and f aren't amplitude. Maybe I'm just being pig-headed? Or ignorant ... but I thought "wavelength" and "frequency" were two expressions of the same thing.

Does "energy" as used here = amplitude as defined in the radio spectrum? There is a discrete value for the energy of a photon ... no? If gravity affects that "energy" then the photon is red/blue- shifted proportionally?

And yes ... I think I understand that observing this from the same "frame" makes this all the more complicated.
AlexG
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 2 2009, 10:29 PM)

AlexG

When you went down the rabbit hole you forgot how to get back out. If you get out it might make sense to you. Until then I am afraid you will have to stay in the dark.

Exactly the kind of answer I expect from someone who has no answers.
Confused2
Waves generally have a certain amount of power - they transfer energy from one point to another at a given rate.

The power of a wave is proportional to (amplitude)^2

Knowing the power .. to get the number of photons per second you divide the power by the energy of each photon.

Even if we start playing with time we can't receive more energy power than was transmitted so nature has to mess about with the energy of each photon as well as the rate they are received at.

-C2

** I need more time to think about this myself **

Think for yourself!
Confused2
Imagine a region ( B ) where 2 seconds here ( A )takes only one second there.
We send a 2 second burst of radio waves made up of N photons
The photons arrive at B in a total of 1 second with double the frequency they had in region A
Since E = h f ..
Each photon has twice the energy in region B
The total number of photons is unchanged
So region B receives twice as much energy as was sent from region A.

Can't see the flaw myself.

4Dguy
C2

Yes, conservation of energy. The energy is in the clock rate. Greater gravity less energy.



AlexG

QUOTE
Exactly the kind of answer I expect from someone who has no answers.


I give you the answers and you say you can not understand them.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Exactly the kind of answer I expect from someone who has no answers.


I give you the answers and you say you can not understand them.

Sorry, but all you've done here is to repeat yourself. Science buzz words and terms strung together into the forms of sentences.


Maybe you do not understand but that does not mean others do not understand. You are either not trying or you do not have the capacity to understand.
Trout
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 3 2009, 06:00 AM)
I thought "wavelength" and "frequency" were two expressions of the same thing.


No.
Trout
QUOTE (Confused^2+Jul 3 2009, 11:24 AM)
Imagine a region ( B ) where 2 seconds here ( A )takes only one second there.
We send a 2 second burst of radio waves made up of N photons
The photons arrive at B in a total of 1 second with double the frequency they had in region A
Since E = h f ..
Each photon has twice the energy in region B
The total number of photons is unchanged
So region B receives twice as much energy as was sent from region A.

Can't see the flaw myself.

So, you doubled the energy out of nothing laugh.gif
Just send it from "here" to "there" and you just created energy out of nothing. Congratulations laugh.gif

Let me make it interesting for you, Confused x 2. Let's say that you are travelling at .6c away from the photon front. Then , you would be measuring the photon energy to be E/2. So, the energy has just halved instead of your claimed doubling. What happened? laugh.gif
4Dguy
Trout,

QUOTE
So, you doubled the energy out of nothing laugh.gif
Just send it from "here" to "there" and you just created energy out of nothing. Congratulations


When the Pound-Rebka experiment was brought up you were the one who said light blue shifted down a gravity well and red shifted up a gravity well. You would get the wrong conclusions thinking light changes wavelength. It is after all the tick rate where it is detected that determines whether light came from a lower energy source or a higher energy source. I made the same mistake as C2 and you trout. For an instant I thought the wave length changed. But it doesn't. of course that is why we see all galaxies red shifted from our position in the Milky Way. If the Universe is rotating we see more red shift with distance also.
Trout
QUOTE (4DUMBguy+Jul 3 2009, 02:26 PM)
For an instant I thought the wave length changed. But it doesn't. of course that is why we see all galaxies red shifted from our position in the Milky Way. If the Universe is rotating we see more red shift with distance also.

You can't get that dunce cap off, is it glued to your head? biggrin.gif
Confused2
QUOTE (Trout+)
Let me make it interesting for you, Confused x 2.


I'm having plenty of fun already, thank you.

QUOTE (Trout+)
Let's say that you are travelling at .6c away from the photon front.

Do you want to check that? - I think you might have a loose connection somewhere.

QUOTE (Trout+)
Then , you would be measuring the photon energy to be E/2. So, the energy has just halved instead of your claimed doubling. What happened?


What happenned is that your 'here' and 'there' are the other way round from mine.

-C2.
Trout
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 3 2009, 04:35 PM)
Do you want to check that? - I think you might have a loose connection somewhere.


You know I checked it already. You also know that you don't know why it is so. laugh.gif
Confused2
You're right - I don't know.
Could be a design fault, sloppy manufacturing combined with poor quality control or simply 'pilot error'.
Are we heading towards the point where you add something sensible?
AlexG
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 3 2009, 08:07 AM)
AlexG


QUOTE
 
Exactly the kind of answer I expect from someone who has no answers.




I give you the answers and you say you can not understand them.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
 
Exactly the kind of answer I expect from someone who has no answers.




I give you the answers and you say you can not understand them.


 
Sorry, but all you've done here is to repeat yourself. Science buzz words and terms strung together into the forms of sentences.



Maybe you do not understand but that does not mean others do not understand. You are either not trying or you do not have the capacity to understand.
.

4D, are you really so deluded that you actually think what you're posting makes any kind of physical sense?

If you wanted to be a physicist that badly, why didn't you study it?
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Trout+Jul 3 2009, 01:49 PM)
No.

Physics really needs more IEEE'rs ...

No offense intended.
Confused2
Hi uaafanblog,

I've just checked my posts to see if they bear any relevance to any others in the thread - as a result - are you happy with the meaning/significance of frequency, wavelength, amplitude and photon energy?

-C2.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 3 2009, 10:52 PM)
Hi uaafanblog,

I've just checked my posts to see if they bear any relevance to any others in the thread - as a result - are you happy with the meaning/significance of frequency, wavelength, amplitude and photon energy?

-C2.

Yes and no. The mathematical relationships of the physics definitions of those terms are undeniably so (yeah Wiki). I'm not exactly sure of their real significance and my assumption that whatever (if any) factor that gravity has with regard to redshift/blueshift (the OP of this thread) is probably negligible.

Frequency is a quantification to describe how many cycles of a wave occur during a second (i.e... Wavelength). I'm an old analog modem comms geek. Trout says no. But unless and until someone comes forward with and describes it in terms an ignoramus like me needs ... then I'll continue to believe that.

None of which affects in any way my belief that science's current understanding of redshift has a basic undiscovered flaw. But that's a pointless discussion really ... so ...

I'll go back to the creation/religion threads.
4Dguy
uaafanblog


QUOTE
I'll go back to the creation/religion threads.


Please stay!

Frequency-width
Wavelength-length

Photon may not be a particle. It may be particles. A wave of particles.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'll go back to the creation/religion threads.


Please stay!

Frequency-width
Wavelength-length

Photon may not be a particle. It may be particles. A wave of particles.

None of which affects in any way my belief that science's current understanding of redshift has a basic undiscovered flaw. But that's a pointless discussion really ... so ...


It may have allot to do with expansion of the universe mathematics.

QUOTE
Frequency is a quantification to describe how many cycles of a wave occur during a second


Slinky stretched in a gravity well less stretched in space.

AlexG

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Frequency is a quantification to describe how many cycles of a wave occur during a second


Slinky stretched in a gravity well less stretched in space.

AlexG

4D, are you really so deluded that you actually think what you're posting makes any kind of physical sense?

If you wanted to be a physicist that badly, why didn't you study it?


I might be brainwashed into believing in the big bang. And current physics are based on a theory without needing a cause. I am interested in the cause. I believe I know enough now to understand cause. Cause is something you are just not interested to think about. Its time for you to teach for you have reached your limit.
Trout
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 4 2009, 01:34 AM)

Frequency-width
Wavelength-length

Photon may not be a particle. It may be particles. A wave of particles.


...it is this type of idiocies that garnish you the negs laugh.gif
AlexG
QUOTE
I believe I know enough now to understand cause.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
4Dguy
AlexG


QUOTE
QUOTE
I believe I know enough now to understand cause.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Its fairly simple. You can not go beyond what you were taught. What did you say?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE
I believe I know enough now to understand cause.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Its fairly simple. You can not go beyond what you were taught. What did you say?

are you really so deluded that you actually think what you're posting makes any kind of physical sense?


Why yes I do. What you were taught stops you from knowing what you need to progress.

Its as simple as recognizing fundamental energy. Its in space time (energy). You can insult me all you want but you can not debate the issue. You are weak minded as all the insulter's generally are.

Prove me wrong and debate the issue! You have nothing because you were not taught to debate science only absorb what you were being told. So anything that sounds different than what you were taught makes no sense to you.
AlexG
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 3 2009, 09:19 PM)
AlexG




Its fairly simple. You can not go beyond what you were taught. What did you say?



Why yes I do. What you were taught stops you from knowing what you need to progress.

Its as simple as recognizing fundamental energy. Its in space time (energy). You can insult me all you want but you can not debate the issue. You are weak minded as all the insulter's generally are.

Prove me wrong and debate the issue! You have nothing because you were not taught to debate science only absorb what you were being told. So anything that sounds different than what you were taught makes no sense to you.

What you post is drivel. Do you actually think that your imaginings have some relationship to physical reality?



magpies
4Dguy

I personaly don't buy into the idea that you cant go beyound what you were taught.
As far as understanding cause... you say you understand cause now??? Can you tell me what role does choice play in cause and how does it play this role?
4Dguy
AlexG,

QUOTE
What you post is drivel. Do you actually think that your imaginings have some relationship to physical reality?


Do you see what I mean? You only know insults> You can not think for your self. I say debate. You insult. You have nothing to offer. Weak minds insult. Know yourself in your insults. Insults stem from insecurity. You are insecure in a debate so you insult.

And the answer to your question is yes.

Magpies,


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What you post is drivel. Do you actually think that your imaginings have some relationship to physical reality?


Do you see what I mean? You only know insults> You can not think for your self. I say debate. You insult. You have nothing to offer. Weak minds insult. Know yourself in your insults. Insults stem from insecurity. You are insecure in a debate so you insult.

And the answer to your question is yes.

Magpies,




I personaly don't buy into the idea that you cant go beyound what you were taught


That was an answer to AlexG's insults.

QUOTE
As far as understanding cause... you say you understand cause now???


I believe I do have a understanding of the cause of gravity , red/blue shift and magnetism.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As far as understanding cause... you say you understand cause now???


I believe I do have a understanding of the cause of gravity , red/blue shift and magnetism.

Can you tell me what role does choice play in cause and how does it play this role?


When you have an observation and the math that fits the observation you sometimes have a choice as to what is really happening. Your choice will either further your understanding or stop you dead in the water. The shifting of light is one of those choices. Either light shifts its wavelength or the position you detect light shifts energy to make it appear light is shifting wavelength. If you think light is shifting wavelength you are dead in the water and never understand cause.
AlexG
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 3 2009, 10:12 PM)
AlexG,



Do you see what I mean? You only know insults> You can not think for your self. I say debate. You insult. You have nothing to offer. Weak minds insult. Know yourself in your insults. Insults stem from insecurity. You are insecure in a debate so you insult.

And the answer to your question is yes.

You're the very model of a crackpot.

There just isn't anything to debate in your posts. You're so far removed from physical reality that in the words of Wolfgang Pauli , "You're not right, you're not even wrong". You string together buzz words and think you've said something.

And when presented with real information, you can't understand it and so won't accept it.

4D, you're a wannabe, who doesn't wanna put the effort into actually be.
4Dguy
AlexG,


QUOTE

You're the very model of a crackpot


Insult no information.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

You're the very model of a crackpot


Insult no information.

There just isn't anything to debate in your posts. You're so far removed from physical reality that in the words of Wolfgang Pauli , "You're not right, you're not even wrong". You string together buzz words and think you've said something.


Insult still no information. You probably can not read Chinese either.

QUOTE
And when presented with real information, you can't understand it and so won't accept it


I agree with relativity totally.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And when presented with real information, you can't understand it and so won't accept it


I agree with relativity totally.


4D, you're a wannabe, who doesn't wanna put the effort into actually be.


I do not wannabe anything like you in any way shape or form. Nothing I am saying is new. Others have expressed my opinions before me. I just place them in a uncomfortable light for you. One you do not understand.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 3 2009, 08:34 PM)
Frequency-width
Wavelength-length

WRONG!
Jesus H Christ, this actually is middle school level stuff! Come on!

Wavelength is the distance between two peaks (or troughs) in a wave. Frequency is the frequency (whodathunkit?) with which peaks (or troughs) pass a certain point. For instance, a wave with a wavelength of 1 meter which travels at 10 m/s will have a frequency of 10hz. This is so elementary that it truly bothers me that you don't get it.

In your retarded analogy, width would not be frequency, but amplitude.

QUOTE
Photon may not be a particle. It may be particles. A wave of particles.

It may also just be a wave. (A wave of particles doesn't resolve wave-particle duality in a manner that agrees with experimentation).
Confused2
Mollypants,

I think you meant height - the amplitude of a wave is its height.
4Dguy
MjolnirPants


QUOTE
It may also just be a wave. (A wave of particles doesn't resolve wave-particle duality in a manner that agrees with experimentation).


In what way does it not resolve the Wave-particle duality?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 6 2009, 05:44 PM)
In what way does it not resolve the Wave-particle duality?

You obviously don't understand WHY there is a wave/particle duality.
Double Slit Experiment
4Dguy
flyingbuttressman


QUOTE
QUOTE (4Dguy @ Jul 6 2009, 05:44 PM)
In what way does it not resolve the Wave-particle duality?

You obviously don't understand WHY there is a wave/particle duality.


The only thing I see is your tendency to be insulting.

The reason for the wave particle duality is because it transfers energy like a particle. There is no need for duality if the wave is a wave of particles. A wave of particles can be a wave and transfer energy just being a wave. The double slit experiment is the wave portion they can not get around without saying duality. There is probably no duality its probably all wave. You made a mistake before and I did not kick your butt about it did I? You do not have any idea what a photon looks like yet you tell me I obviously do not understand.

Lets look at something more simple, the Lorentz contraction. Is it physical as AlexG claims or is it an optical effect? How deep is your understanding?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 6 2009, 07:35 PM)
The reason for the wave particle duality is because it transfers energy like a particle. There is no need for duality if the wave is a wave of particles. A wave of particles can be a wave and transfer energy just being a wave. The double slit experiment is the wave portion they can not get around without saying duality. There is probably no duality its probably all wave. You made a mistake before and I did not kick your butt about it did I? You do not have any idea what a photon looks like yet you tell me I obviously do not understand.

Lets look at something more simple, the Lorentz contraction. Is it physical as AlexG claims or is it an optical effect? How deep is your understanding?

You didn't even read the article, or did you just ignore it?

The double slit experiment proves the duality (not a wave of particles) because the effect still occurs when particles are fired one photon at a time. How does 1 photon comprise a 'wave of particles'? It doesn't, therefore, lights is a particles AND a wave AT THE SAME TIME.

My tone may seem condescending and/or rude to you, but that's because we have to continually explain these things to you, and you are so confident in your own opinion that you won't listen to FACT.
4Dguy
flyingbuttressman,

QUOTE
You didn't even read the article, or did you just ignore it?


I have read it more times then you know.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You didn't even read the article, or did you just ignore it?


I have read it more times then you know.

The double slit experiment proves the duality (not a wave of particles) because the effect still occurs when particles are fired one photon at a time. How does 1 photon comprise a 'wave of particles'? It doesn't, therefore, lights is a particles AND a wave AT THE SAME TIME.


How unfortunate you limit yourself to think you know what particles I am discussing. A photon may not be translated across the room. The effect of movement may create a wave of existing particles (as a wave on the ocean but not exactly). The particles in motion may be exchanging motion with other particles to be the wave. The wave of particles interfere with each other in the two slits with just one photon, one electron or one proton. You have chosen to limit yourself into confusion with no path forward. What does this particle wave look like?

QUOTE
My tone may seem condescending and/or rude to you, but that's because we have to continually explain these things to you, and you are so confident in your own opinion that you won't listen to FACT.


Its interesting that what you consider as fact is something you can not even describe.
We have to continually explain?

As I requested : the Lorentz contraction physical or an optical effect? Show me your depth of understanding? Or confer with the we you are talking about.
AlexG
QUOTE
How unfortunate you limit yourself to think you know what particles I am discussing. A photon may not be translated across the room. The effect of movement may create a wave of existing particles (as a wave on the ocean but not exactly). The particles in motion may be exchanging motion with other particles to be the wave. The wave of particles interfere with each other in the two slits with just one photon, one electron or one proton. You have chosen to limit yourself into confusion with no path forward. What does this particle wave look like?



4D, single photons, and single electrons, have produced the interference pattern.

You no more understand the most basic experiments in QM than you understand Relativity.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.