Electromagnetic radiation -

Confused2

11th February 2006 - 11:26 AM

The 'conventional view' of em radiation is that the E and the M are out of phase .. the one causing the other.. leading to the popular 'fortune teller' picture of the standard Aether..

As at 11/02/06 Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation is presenting a quite different view of EM radiation .. the E and the M are clearly in phase.. did the author mean this .. he surely did..

QUOTE

Not only are the electric and magnetic field waves traveling at the speed of light, but they have a special restricted orientation and proportional magnitudes, E0 = c B0. The electric field, magnetic field, and direction of wave propagation are all orthogonal and the wave propagates in the same direction as E x B .

The discussion is interesting too. The interesting point is that E x B propagates by itself
- it can have any time varying shape whatsoever .. it doesn't have to be a sinewave

Has Wiki got it wrong?

C2

I'd like to assure anyone suspecting foul play - I have absolutely no connection with the person responsible for the page.

Moseley

11th February 2006 - 11:43 AM

Hi C2, as I understand it, Wikipedia is just a collection of views of a subject that can be collated over time to produce a more complete explanation. This is fine if all the contributors know what they are talking about. With subjects which are not necessarily fully understood, Wiki gathers interpretations and presents them as fact.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...wavecon.html#c1

is where I would go.

Confused2

11th February 2006 - 11:54 AM

Hi Moseley,

Yep, looking at the diagram (thanks) it's the same story there too... E and M definitely in phase.

Looking at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...es/emwv.html#c2 .. they seem pretty sure about it too ..

QUOTE

The magnetic field B is perpendicular to the electric field E in the orientation where the vector product E x B is in the direction of the propagation of the wave.

-C2

.

Nice applet here..
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/viewtopic.php?t=52

swansont

11th February 2006 - 01:22 PM

QUOTE (Confused2+Feb 11 2006, 11:26 AM)

The 'conventional view' of em radiation is that the E and the M are out of phase .. the one causing the other..

Where have you seen it represented as being out of phase?

Confused2

11th February 2006 - 03:16 PM

Hi Swansont,

'conventional view' .. has done its job, consider the comment withdrawn.

Every drawing I've found depicts a sinewave - as though this is the only possibility - yet we know this is not the case - all communications rely on the fact that this is not the case.

My general drift is that the Poynting vector shows the direction and magnitude of energy propagating in free space..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector and that is all you need to know. So far everyone seems to have been happy that a coax cable isn't full of sinewaves .. or at least they haven't posted any alternative views.. I'm just feeling my way forward to see how far I can get with this.. maybe space isn't full of sinewaves either...

-C2.

Good Elf

11th February 2006 - 03:58 PM

Hi Confused2 et al,

You are right about the phase. That is definitely a "screw up" there.

The bit about communication using "modulated waves"... depends on how you are looking at this phenomenon... single photons have "simple" narrow bandwidth centered on a frequency defined by E = hf. Collections of these photons "sum" to give "waves" from the antenna. The gross number of these photons at any moment deliver an "amplitude" to the energy and so you have your modulated radiation pattern. Individual photons have both a group and a phase wave nature. The group velocity centers around the "f" in the equation and the phase aspect are a collection of sinusoids and co-sinusoids that can sum to a stationary pattern which uniquely for light does not exhibit a different speed for the wave. Thus for light in a vacuum the group velocity and the phase velocity are the same and equal C. The truncation of this "ensemble" actually is now a summation of component waves that when summed do provide an "envelope" to the soliton. These do not appear as separate wavelets but are summed and indeed has variation in interior wavelength and amplitude. It is easier for me to think of this as a summation of perfect sinusoids and co-sinusoids of different wavelengths and amplitudes.

For de Broglie particles a similar event is proceeding except the group velocity will be sub-luminal (velocity of the particle) and the phase velocity will be super-luminal within the evanescent zone of the particle. In this there will be relative different velocities in these two aspects.... Simultaneously a wave and a particle. Big difference... Particles do not spread but waves of light do.

One other point is the particle is propagating at the speed of light way beyond the physical size of where we actually think it is and this is because it is composed of a large number of space filling wave functions. Thus it is interacting with the rest of the Universe as well. So are all other particles and waves which are in space mutually interacting as well. These waves come from its past and from its "future" to result in "building it" where it is currently being found.

Cheers

Confused2

11th February 2006 - 07:34 PM

Hi Good_Elf et al,

Flushed out at last!

As suggested by Moseley .. all references taken from
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

'Impedance' of free space generally taken to be 377 ohms -- resistive .. just like a transmission line

Beyond this point all is C2 hypothesis..

Rather than attempt to deal with all the point raised by Good_Elf.. this response alone is going to be so contentious that one point at a time is probably enough

We know (?)
E = hf
We find ..
p = E / c = h f / c = h / wavelength
we conclude
p * wavelength = h
.. In words.. the greater the momentum is the shorter the wavelength has to be.
.. or .. the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength becomes (kind of expected that but it shows all is ok so far)
we also find (Uncertainty principle)
delta p * delta x > hcross / 2
.. in words.. the greater the uncertainty in momentum the less the uncertainty in position
.. we conclude that a photon with a very low momentum (frequency) can have little uncertainty of momentum therefore can turn up almost anywhere.
.. and as we increase the momentum (frequency) the uncertainty of position decreases.
.. given that we know the relationship between momentum and wavelength
.. it seems a fair guess that the quantum mechanical uncertainty of position of a single photon could well be the same as the wavelength of the billions of photons that we deal with in EM theory.

With only QM uncertainty going into our EM 'wave', there are no sinewaves and the issue of gain and phase velocity does not arise. We just deal with 'particles' of energy E= h f which we know the position of, to a predictable degree of accuracy.

Please feel free (anyone) to point out the obvious flaws..

-C2.

Confused2

11th February 2006 - 09:24 PM

Hello Good_Elf et al,

More thoughts..

QUOTE

The bit about communication using "modulated waves"... depends on how you are looking at this phenomenon... single photons have "simple" narrow bandwidth <http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4894&st=0&> centered on a frequency defined by E = hf. Collections of these photons "sum" to give "waves" from the antenna. The gross number of these photons at any moment deliver an "amplitude" to the energy and so you have your modulated radiation pattern. Individual photons have both a group and a phase wave nature. The group velocity centers around the "f" in the equation and the phase aspect are a collection of sinusoids and co-sinusoids that can sum to a stationary pattern which uniquely for light does not exhibit a different speed for the wave. Thus for light in a vacuum <http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4894&st=0&> the group velocity and the phase velocity are the same and equal C. The truncation of this "ensemble" actually is now a summation of component waves that when summed do provide an "envelope" to the soliton. These do not appear as separate wavelets but are summed and indeed has variation in interior wavelength and amplitude. It is easier for me to think of this as a summation of perfect sinusoids and co-sinusoids of different wavelengths and amplitudes.

.. depends on how you are looking at this phenomenon? .. indeed so.. both my own and your photons seem to have to originate in the (say) crystal oscillator of the transmitter .. an rf amplifier with no subsequent tuned stages is entirely workable... the original photons are amplified (ie numbers increased) .. transistors as quantum amplifiers .. I like that - do you?

We are both happy with gross number of photons as 'amplitude'.

Your individual photons are getting dreadfully complicated.. keeping anything together is hard work.. to have group and phase nature.. these chaps are doing this at the speed of light .. they don't have much time for contemplation or communication with anything .. including themselves. Radio wavelengths can tend to infinity.. I get the impression your ensemble must tend towards infinite size too ..In fact these photons are looking like radio waves made out of radio waves (but with special properties) .. I think that's cheating

.

Best wishes, C2.

Good Elf

12th February 2006 - 02:47 AM

Hi Confused2,

I do not think anyone said that the details of quanta are supposed to be easy. Our "science" concentrates usually on one aspect at a time. If you want to know the wavelength you concentrate on that. If you want to know the radiation resistance you work on that if you want to know what frequencies are in the side-lobes you concentrate on that. Most "test books" are idealizations of a much more complicated emergent phenomena.

Just to emphasize one small aspect that may get past the Id and the Conscious Self... "free space" as I said has "space filling" waves that penetrate far away but are "unseen", you can call them electromagnetic or probability (I think the latter way is the hard way to think about it)... loosely termed "wave functions". This is the result of our "Universe" displaying a minimum energy "profile" to the relativistic background (I have discussed this elsewhere). The waves are there all right but they are hidden by the fact they "sum" to zero almost everywhere except where we have a particle or a photon (traveling at C). This is because all particles and photons... all the way to the edge of our Universe "interact" and only nett energy shows up as usable energy as the particles and photons. This interaction allows the 4-Momentum property of space-time to work, it is relativistically covariant so no matter your speed or direction as long as you are in an inertial frame these "sum" to zero. Acceleration in that frame results in a "back EMF"... you could put it that way that is attempting to restore the particle to its previous position... Faraday's Law. What it does not do is show what ensemble of waves are the contribution due to a particular particle at a particular point in space. These "particles" are "soliton fields" ... "propagating " from point to point in space... we call this "movement" of the particle. It is a conserved property that enable our standard laws of physics to be consistent.

QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Feb 11 2006+ 09:24 PM)

I get the impression your ensemble must tend towards infinite size too ..In fact these photons are looking like radio waves made out of radio waves (but with special properties) .. I think that's cheating

Mapping from the perspective of the D6 brane they do appear to be getting very large as "waves" (remember "everything are strings"). The particle aspect is quite localized and follows the path that "Bohmian Mechanics" dictates this is normally its simple dynamics corrected relativistically. What you actually see is not waves as a rule but particle interactions. If you are seeing waves the photons maintain wavelength but "spread according to an inverse square law and undergo "pancakeification" perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Purely a geometric thing. The wave and particle nature are not noticed "simultaneously" a particle interaction destroys this "phase" information which is the quanta. That "phase" information "entangles" it with other nearby and distant quanta. Measuring that "phase" destroys the quanta in an (particle) interaction.

Radio waves have the same properties as photons because they are composed of photons. They are one and the same just different wavelength and produced differently by different means. Some ELF Waves quanta are many kilometers in size... that is just how big they are. I have noticed the tendency of people to distinguish Radio Waves, Light, X-Rays, Gamma Rays and the emission and absorption of Photons as being different "beasts"... this is not the case. They are all one and the same entity and are part of the same "continuous" spectra of electromagnetism. It is not "radio waves made up of radio waves" since the "engines" that stimulate the emission of large numbers of photons for the purpose of radio is subtlety different from the "atomic engine" that emits and absorbs photons. Be it a radio mast or a laser it is a form of "stimulated emission". The end result is a coherent wave (in phase continuous wave).

QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Feb 11 2006+ 07:34 PM)

t seems a fair guess that the quantum mechanical uncertainty of position of a single photon could well be the same as the wavelength of the billions of photons that we deal with in EM theory.

A different sort of "transmitter" is a common light bulb... it is one of your random processes producing light in a wide spectral band but it is non-coherent stimulated emission. Notice it is usually in the optical region and the infra red region as heat. Individually the photons are the same but they are not of the same wavelength and they are not "in-phase". Of course the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship will hold for "all" photons but there is an underlying "determinism" about the carrying of that information of the latest TV show or radio program and this is not just simple "shot noise". The base of everything are perfect individual quantum states which can last forever if undisturbed but interacting through "entanglement". This is "mixing" and "beating" resulting in large nodes and anti-nodal spaces as dynamic processes "hanging in space".

QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Feb 11 2006+ 09:24 PM)

Your individual photons are getting dreadfully complicated.. keeping anything together is hard work.. to have group and phase nature.. these chaps are doing this at the speed of light .. they don't have much time for contemplation or communication with anything

Spreading waves of EM radiation do not have to keep together... they spread. They maintain phase and group velocity radially in the direction of propagation not transverse to it. Ultimately a photon is a simple "pulse" or "impulse" of energy. In the time domain it is a "spike". That has a frequency domain equivalent in a reciprocal space of an ensemble of "Fourier Waves"... the soliton. They are particle and wave aspects of the same phenomenon. A fermion does not spread because, crudely put, it is a "photon inside out" in a dimensional wrapper. They obey different rules in space and have different spin and topology (as discussed). They exhibit "mass" and this limits strongly the particle range through having a "source". The source is an expression of General Relativity and the Equivalence Principle and has a different symmetry to electromagnetism and is the ultimate reason for mass.

Bit of a "gedanken experiment" here... lets say you were nudging the underside of the speed of light, what is the effect on external observers. Your time is "nearly" frozen (same as light the phase velocity and the group velocity are "static" fixed at C. Your "length is foreshortened" due to Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction (your de Broglie particle internal phase wavelength approaches your group particle size wavelength ... flattened apparently in the direction of propagation). For true particles this approaches 0 wavelength... true impulse. If you could see ahead everything is compressed to a single "bright" UV point in the "forward" direction (and everything is compressed to a infra-red point "aft") almost to 90 degrees away ("starboard" and "port" sides) from your direction of travel so you are effectively "covering" through "wave interaction" all that is ahead and to each side way out to infinity. You are "spreading" in the wave sense. As a guy in a rocket you still have a place and you will appear in time relative to external observes as a "frozen instant". Special Relativity and de Broglies Postulate for particles are the same concept used in two different ways.
$user posted image$
This is the relativistic form of de Broglies wavelength see what I mean. They are not different physics but one and the same dealing "apples with apples" but one emphasizing the particle aspect and the other the wave aspect.

QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Feb 11 2006+ 07:34 PM)

With only QM uncertainty going into our EM 'wave', there are no sine-waves and the issue of gain and phase velocity does not arise.

You may have been able to argue that years ago and "browbeaten" Einstein and Schrodinger into accepting this interpretation but "recently" proofs have emerged that demonstrate that quantum uncertainty is a "mask" for an underlying determinism...

I have been saying this all along but it requires rigorous proof and now that exists. Please read my new thread based on yesterdays new press release indicating the "error" of this older interpretation.
Quantum Unreality becomes Quantum Reality, Lies, Damn Lies and Quantum Statistics Good Elf

This extends a thread you also contributed to that most of this now appears called ... "Why people have a problem with Bohm". I felt that this was so important that it needed a new thread. Believe me this is the most important work done in 50 years of Quantum Research to indicate the true nature of the quantum. There is underlying determinism as I have been indicating all along.

Here we see such luminaries as Yakov Aharanov and a group of Researches including A. Winter at Rutgers and other at Cambridge and in Germany collaborating to "put down" a fundamental premise behind the quantum and showing through rigorous proof that there is a smooth function that underlies reality not quantum uncertainty that "guides" a particle to whare it should be and this correlates with the former classical dynamics of the particle. A quantum photon no longer "disappears" and does not exist until the wave function is collapsed ... the function always exists and it is simply read and where it is is no real surprise. It is not possible that the photon is going to be found on the far side of Jupiter from a simple quantum jump... it will be found just where you expect it to be through its individual dynamic properties. This establishes Bohmian Mechanics as the first cut of the nature of reality. The next question is what are these "hidden variables"... higher dimensions? The papers acknowledge Schrodinger's primacy from 1952... he was right all along and this elevates 50 lost years in Science to restart the nature of the quantum again.

It does not "invalidate" the work done but it indicates there is new physics and it reinterprets the very "essence" of the so called Copenhagen Interpretation and indicates it "must" be wrong in the final application. The Universe is filled with single "note" which connects and entangles everything. Bohm would be very pleased if he were alive and I am sure his "old collaborator" Yakov Aharanov has been happy to see this day and be a part of it...
Researchers 'rewrite the book' in quantum statistical physics

Please look at this other thread I have started for the whole story. You will not read anything more important this year... not for my content but due to what these other researchers have been doing "very quietly". I notice that the "significance" of this moment is almost lost to the press release because the meaning is "buried" in purposefully "abstract" doublespeak. I have cut through that layer and written the "essence" of it there (I "dodged" the maths rigor to plainspeak it out).

It is also all in the references and methodology and is independent of the underlying physics being described which in this case is important to be "rigorous" and complete first.

Cheers

swansont

12th February 2006 - 10:50 AM

QUOTE (Confused2+Feb 11 2006, 03:16 PM)

The sine wave assumes the oscillation is of infinite extent, so that's idealized. But any waveform can be made up of a sum of sine waves as its Fourier components.

Coax cables don't actually carry EM radiation, as such.

Confused2

12th February 2006 - 06:02 PM

Hi Good_Elf, Swansont et al,

Many many thanks to Good_Elf for meeting me on 'my' territory .. a brilliant response ..as usual.. exactly what I had hoped for.

I think Good_Elf's response is entirely clear in itself but it might help others if I explain that there is some 'history' here .. My 'view' is that relativity and quantum mechanics may appear incompatible simply because they haven't really tried to talk to each other properly.

One of the major problems with a sinewave is that, by definition, it can't start.. there must always be more sinewaves running on ahead (in time) to prepare the ground for the 'packet' which is what you actually want to describe (in terms of sinewaves). . the point is not whether or not you can describe anything in terms of sinewaves, just .. is it wise to attempt such a thing?

A steady state sinewave analysis is neither more nor less than it claims to be.. it describes a wave with no information content. I suspect the lies and damned lies required to make such a wave carry information are every bit the equal of anything you will find in statistics. Imho opinion relativity went wrong the day these sinewaves were introduced.. nothing wrong with the theory just that garbage in produces garbage out.

Good_Elf touches on the point that historically Einstein and others may have brow beaten into a sinewave interpretation simply because nothing else would have been acceptable.. the situation remains pretty much unchanged today . There are grand claims that light can travel at 1m/s for example.. with the sinewave model this is remarkable.. looked at another way it is totally trivial.

As Good_Elf points out , the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength for a particle with mass is identical to the derivation of a particle without mass. Conceptually it is easier to see how a particle with mass is 'localised' .. and then overlay this with Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.. doing the same for a particle without mass (eg a photon) seems to be a much more difficult process.

QUOTE

Sign on railroad station: These railroads are subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Position and Velocity of a given train can not be specified at the same time. -- Sydney Harris Cartoon

The later part of Good_Elf's response deals with quantum uncertainty .. he has started a thread
Unreality becomes Quantum Reality, Lies, Damn Lies and Quantum Statistics
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=63255
where doubtless discussion will continue.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Sign on railroad station: These railroads are subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Position and Velocity of a given train can not be specified at the same time. -- Sydney Harris Cartoon

QUOTE

wiki
Coaxial lines solve this [interference] problem by confining the electromagnetic wave to the area inside the cable ..
In radio-frequency applications up to a few gigahertz , the wave propagates only in the transverse electric magnetic (TEM) mode, which means that the electric and magnetic fields are both perpendicular to the direction of propagation. However, above a certain frequency called the cutoff frequency, transverse electric (TE) and/or transverse magnetic ™ modes can also propagate, as they do in a waveguide It is usually undesirable to transmit signals above the cutoff frequency, since it may cause multiple modes with different phase velocities to propagate, interfering with each other. The outer diameter is roughly inverse proportional to the cutoff frequency.

Interestingly the author refers to phase velocities rather than multiple paths of varying lengths .. the mark of the sinewave is everywhere.

As of now..
The C2 photon is currently a smidgin of E and H field, this 'holds' a certain amount of energy. The wavelength only has any validity within the framework of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) and a single photon has no quality that can be described as frequency. No rotation, no change of orientation, just zap at the speed of light subject to modification by HUP.

Until proven otherwise (possibly a matter of minutes!) I maintain this can produce all known EM effects. Anyone is welcome to try to disprove this suggestion. It is no more than a suggestion - better ones are welcome.
-C2.

TRoc

13th February 2006 - 06:02 PM

C2,

You will have to come up with an alternate explanation for polarization to do away with "photon spin", as well as a new mathematical duality to replace the frequency wavelength relationship. Without the "cycle", there can be no measurement of wavelength that is less than the distance between the 2 resonating electrons.

The axis that the rotation takes place upon is what you are talking about... the straight line between point A and B. As the harmonics of the wavelength decrease at the "bow" (Huygens front) of the wave, the size of the vibration decreases. This decreasing spiral tends to "straightness", and an increase in energy and velocity, as well as an ability to "pierce" anything built on the largely spaced electron collections. This has been called a "pilot wave", among other things, and is now being modeled in gravity as well, with an "anti-gravity" pre- wave line. (see recent news on this forum) The measurement can NEVER take place until the resonant electron wavelength reaches the observer. (at speed c) This means the "pilot wave" is not detectable with electron based technology.

You are right about the 2D sine wave not being the right model, even though it remains the easiest conceptual representation for current theory.

Good Elf,

I will respond to your post on your new thread, as to not detour C2's thread.

TRoc

Confused2

14th February 2006 - 12:06 PM

Hi Troc,

Hopefully the C2 photon is useful for gaining an insight into what is actually going on, if nothing else.

Of photon spin.. the H (magnetic) part of the C2 photon can be linked to the E part by the concept of spin.. it seems 'plausible' to me

QUOTE

wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
A non-relativistic spin-1 particle has three possible spin states (−1, 0 and +1). However, in the framework of special relativity, this is not the case for massless spin-1 particles, such as the photons, which have only two spin projections, helicities, corresponding to the right- and left-handed circular polarizations of classical electromagnetic waves. The more familiar linear polarization is formed by a superposition of the two spin projections of a photon.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Because the C2 photon doesn't change with time or distance it will always arrive with the transmitted polarisation .. or 'spin'.

Of wavelength without a 'cycle' .. you can't measure the wavelength of any single photon - you need at least two points to measure a wavelength, if you detect a photon in one place then that's it .. you've lost your wavelength measurement. As far as I know all wavelength measurements are probability based .. there are peaks but the majority of the action is in between those peaks - you need a lot of action (photons) to be able to get nice clean peaks. I'm suggesting a transmitter sending a sinewave of frequency f will send out only photons of energy E = h f, in a real transmitter there will be a vast number photons and the count will (naturally) peak at the peaks, hence a photon counter (or any receiver) will 'see' the waveform of the transmitter even though it is not contained in any single photon. As the wiki extract draws attention to the case of 'linear polarisation of classical EM waves' the C2 photon based sinewave (many photons) will consist of spin up and spin down photons of the same energy though not at the same time . A single spin up (or down) C2 (or 'conventional') photon is entirely possible.

The axis that the rotation takes place upon is what you are talking about... the straight line between point A and B. As the harmonics of the wavelength decrease at the "bow" (Huygens front) of the wave, the size of the vibration decreases. This decreasing spiral tends to "straightness", and an increase in energy and velocity, as well as an ability to "pierce" anything built on the largely spaced electron collections. This has been called a "pilot wave", among other things, and is now being modeled in gravity as well, with an "anti-gravity" pre- wave line. (see recent news on this forum) The measurement can NEVER take place until the resonant electron wavelength reaches the observer. (at speed c) This means the "pilot wave" is not detectable with electron based technology.

C2 photons always travel in straight lines, except for the quantum uncertainty about position and momentum. As a single (tending to zero size) entity they don't need anything in front of them to prepare the way for the 'real thing' .. they hit (get detected) or they don't. The price of a C2 type photon is an effective uncertainty about the velocity of light .. obviously relativistically nasty but QM is riddled with these problems anyway.
I'd have liked waves but they just get so messy when you try to carry information with them - as you point out, you need pilot waves, superluminal waves etc.. a theory that says something is there but you can never detect it.. hmm .. more explanation of that perhaps?
Many thanks Troc, comments most welcome ..
-C2.

TRoc

14th February 2006 - 06:29 PM

Hi C2,

Don't let my ideas slow you down, I must practice what I preach; that is, if you don't have the WHOLE answer, you can't make demands on the WHOLE population. You may "sway" a few voters, but in the end, Science should be totalitarian, and not democratic. It is not a popularity contest, it is "the best idea takes all".

So, a snip from your quote: "However, in the framework of special relativity, .." and the comment that SR is not the "best answer". Don't take this to mean (anybody else reading this too) the typical forum arguments: "you are trying to "disprove Einstein", "it is the most accurate", blah blah. This goes for QM too. All I am saying here is simply, neither is the final BEST answer. Just the fact that they don't agree with each other, and neither can include gravity, and both have "wrongness", doesn't mean they are useless, or entirely wrong, and can be "disproven".

I do not have the BEST answer either, therefore, I can only give my opinion, based on my model. The bottom line is SCIENCE has no model for the photon. A photon has never been seen. I believe that ultimately, a model is a wild goose chase, because there is no "particle" that we identify as a photon.

The whole current model is "fixed". If we are not actually measuring distances between crests of a vibrating particle called a "photon", then we are just "playing with numbers". We take an END reading, divide by a CONSTANT ©, and produce the consistent answer, and call that "proof". If you can't see that the CONSTANT is producing the consistency (proof), then I don't know.

The point here is, the equations are rigged by their interconnectedness. You ALWAYS need a starting point that is "ad hoc". Try to derive energy, or mass, or ANYTHING that they claim to "prove" the equation, without using some other concept that also requires something, etc, etc.

I do accept © as a constant, and I do accept that "h" is the quantity that produces the results required by the definition in the theory. In the end, it is all Math; just numbers operating on numbers (not in a "physical sense", of course, just the PROOF). Nature only uses SIMPLE math: addition and subtraction (a duality of one concept: change in quantity). Multiplication and division are Man's ideas extrapolated for convenience of this basic concept. In my book Vibration is the only common denominator in Science. Vibrations can not be physically multiplied or divided, just mathematically , for convenience. The key to vibrations is resonance; in inquiring about how resonance works, you must start with the "phenomena" of One and Two. I know that sounds to elementary for a physics discussion, but it is the truth. Science (or Philosophy) has no "answer" for what happens to our "math" at this level. It is akin to "energies" of the forces "lining up" at a certain level: mathematics as we have laid out FUSES at this point in quantities. The "forces" of + , - , / , x become One; that is why I remain at that point for determining what Nature does from there to produce the quantities that we measure. Does One just "become" Two? Are there "steps" between them? Yes, and that leads to quantum theory, based on Vibration alone. Logic and simple math without ad hoc assumptions. That requires the "next level" of complexity to solve: I am not suggesting that we will answer all questions with addition and subtraction. I am only laying out the framework that logically and mathematically extends from this basic fact.

With that simple and logical start, I have proved that wavelength and frequency can only be measured (in homogeneous mediums) in certain, symmetrical ratios. They are actually the SAME thing, viewed from different "frames" of reference. With that simple and logical start, I have ENDED up with the speed of light, not "thrown it in" as a constant. I have ended up with the "visible" spectrum, and matched all "colors" (frequencies); as well as the entire audible spectrum AS WE perceive it to be "in tune" (the same as we PERCEIVE the "tuning" of colors). Any "constant" that is currently in use can be found, at least "approximately", without assumption; just by this simple math of resonance. The "spectrum" that this concept produces (I refer to it as a resonance matrix) will introduce the the concepts of atomic evolution, and conservation of Vibration to Science.

I would say to keep looking for a more complete explanation for "electromagnetic radiation", but don't worry to much about the "photon" concept.

T.Roc

Confused2

14th February 2006 - 07:29 PM

Hi Troc,

QUOTE

(Troc)
Don't let my ideas slow you down,

We're both enthusiastic about the subject - sorry if I get carried away sometimes. Thread topic is "was wiki wrong.. ". The photon model I presented just sort of hatched as a result .. it wasn't intended as the end of the thread.. just an idea.
Just going through your reply point by point..
I do take SR/GR and QM to be 'excellent' (though not very compatible), anything new needs to 'better' - and they're already pretty good... therein lies the problem for any new ideas. I wouldn't claim SR/GR are the end of the story for gravity but I think it looks a whole lot better than any particle theory.. that's another thread though.

I'm afraid I don't agree about 'modelling' photons being a wild goose chase - we know a lot about EM 'problems' .. I think they can be sorted out by a good model for a photon even if it doesn't claim to be what you would see if you saw a photon. I can't prove the sinewave model is false - only deal with the inconsistensies it creates and point out that they are not necessary - with the intention of (hopefully) providing an equally convincing alternative. The sinewave has a huge amount of 'history' behind it - not for nothing did Good_Elf suggest Einstein might have been brow beaten into submission to this model. At some point a theory requires referees to 'authenticate' it .. I think Einstein first published his theory in a newspaper (?) for that very reason.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(Troc)
Don't let my ideas slow you down,

Looking at the results from Young's slits for a single photon.. I sincerely believe the interference pattern remains (you may dispute this).. IF the pattern remains then C must be somewhat indeterminate because even the same photon can take different path lengths to end up interfering with itself at the same point. If a photon or wave can take longer or shorter paths to end up at the same point at the same time then it follows that C cannot be 'absolute'.

Already we cannot reach the same conclusion because we are not starting from the same point.. as you point out later.. frequency and wavelength are the same thing viewed from different frames of reference ONLY if the speed of light behaves itself. A good point to start from?
-C2.

TRoc

14th February 2006 - 11:10 PM

C2,

The main reason I no longer believe the concept of a "photon" is a good thing, is that it is in the wrong direction. We should be simplifying the concepts that explain Physics, and not making them more complex. "Vibrations are as vibrations do." Continuing to label each vibration differently because of the shape, orientation, or temperature , etc. of the medium is not logical. Also because the term "photon" has come to mean particle, which it is not. I don't think it's wise to drop the wave concept because of "the demands" of rigorous explanation. What information exactly, do you think is being transferred by a wave?

As for the double-slit (which I had not mentioned in the last post), I would say this: the source of the individual "photons" is the same for each of them. This source has its own timing (phase), and can not release energy outside of this timing pattern. That is why it doesn't matter if they are in pulses, streams, or on at a time. It wouldn't matter whether you had 100 violins playing a C note, or one at a time; the end results would be the "phase" pattern of a C note; perhaps more applicably, if you played a song in continuous, unbroken notes, or one note at a time, the "song" is the same end result. Huygens wave model still applies. You did say that the photon can only go in a straight line, didn't you? That doesn't gel with the "sum over paths" approach, which, by altering direction, should also precisely change velocity & momentum, which would change the frequency, which would alter the bands seen on the screen (in the particle mentality). This can't work that way.

As for electricity, I am all for your ideas. I think Catt's work is fine. The basic difference is that electricity is "photons" that are ALWAYS in a homogenous, linear medium. What you learn there may NOT apply directly to vibrations in free space, or vibrations in a plasma, or vibrations in the Earth, or vibrations in the B field in proximity to your head, that may lead you to "believe" that you heard a sound, where none existed.

I honestly never imagined that people believed that sine waves were more than a 2D representation on a screen, so I'm with you there too.

T.Roc

Confused2

15th February 2006 - 01:16 PM

Hi Troc,

Virtually line by line through your last post..

Photons .. wrong direction? .. I favour the hamster's approach.. every possibility is a possibility, it may look random but my hamsters always managed to find a way to escape.

Vibrations are as vibrations do.. ?? .. reality does as reality does..

QUOTE

As for the double-slit (which I had not mentioned in the last post), I would say this: the source of the individual "photons" is the same for each of them. This source has its own timing (phase), and can not release energy outside of this timing pattern. That is why it doesn't matter if they are in pulses, streams, or on at a time. It wouldn't matter whether you had 100 violins playing a C note, or one at a time; the end results would be the "phase" pattern of a C note; perhaps more applicably, if you played a song in continuous, unbroken notes, or one note at a time, the "song" is the same end result. Huygens wave model still applies. You did say that the photon can only go in a straight line, didn't you? That doesn't gel with the "sum over paths" approach, which, by altering direction, should also precisely change velocity & momentum, which would change the frequency, which would alter the bands seen on the screen (in the particle mentality). This can't work that way.

I would say this: the source of the individual "photons" is the same for each of them. Agreed
This source has its own timing (phase), and can not release energy outside of this timing pattern.
Unclear.. If you shine a UV light onto a metal plate you get electrons (with a certain range of energy) emitted from the plate (I am assured) .. if you increase the intensity of the UV you get more photons .. with the same range of energy. With your sinewave interpretation are the electrons only emitted at the positive and negative peaks.. or throughout the cycle (?) If only at the peaks then what is there going on at (say) the 45 degree point .. a waiting game (?). With the C2 model photons are emitted throughout 'your' cycle (except at the zero crossing) - all with the same energy. I don't have a 45 degree 'angle' .. just less photons then. - this point needs rigorous examination from both points of view. One can see that a sinewave must have intermediate stages.. so how does it start with nothing ahead, how do 'pilot waves' arise when there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in the source to produce such a thing?

That is why it doesn't matter if they are in pulses, streams, or one at a time. - I think the point is crucial.

It wouldn't matter whether you had 100 violins playing a C note, or one at a time; the end results would be the "phase" pattern of a C note; .. assuming the violins are playing a perfect C .. you could arrange them so that no sound will be heard in a particular direction .. each half a wavelength apart playing out of phase. As far as each violin is concerned it is radiating in every direction.. yet the total can be zero... it does matter how many violins you have.. I'm simply not sure what Huygens had to say about that..

if you played a song in continuous, unbroken notes, or one note at a time, the "song" is the same end result.
As before.. you cannot 'start' a C note without some new frequency appearing (gain and phase velocity etc).. this isn't a simple point.. it's where it all starts to fall apart.
Photons in straight lines.. only in free space..

That doesn't gel with the "sum over paths" approach, which, by altering direction, should also precisely change velocity & momentum, which would change the frequency,
I am proposing there is no uncertainty in the energy of any or all photons, a reflection or deflection would not change that energy ( unless the event was a 'detection'). With the energy fixed the illusion of wavelength is only an odd consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) .. the HUP gives a woryying clue about the speed of light and/or time.. that at least 'something' isn't quite right. Dividing something that isn't quite right by the illusion of wavelength may give something that still isn't quite right

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm gives a nice simple (?) account of sinewaves propagating in space. My proposal is 'not that'!

As for electricity.. I think we have enough problems already!

With the 100 violins we have touched on constructive and destructive interference .. I'm going to admit to a problem here.. I have spin up and spin down photons.. it is fairly clear that they do interfere .. at the moment I have no explanation as to how. I notice that a spin up and a spin down electron can share the same shell .. I suspect there's a clue there but ??

-C2.

TRoc

15th February 2006 - 05:47 PM

Hi C2,

Some response, with context.

When I said "wrong direction", I did not mean something to do with vectors. I mean complexity vs simplicity; if we want to "unify", or just complete Physics, it will be this way, and not through more complexity.

"Vibrations are as Vibrations do", means that the term "photon" is describing a vibration, just as the many other different terms, when in a different medium, are also JUST vibrations. All the photon, soliton, phonon, etc. labels that are used to describe the same concept, under different situations.

I stated that I was NOT in agreement with the sine-wave form approach, so I will pass on responding to the parts where you termed that "my" model.

The group of atoms, or molecules, have a group vibration. The energy supplied to this body is the same throughout. That is why I said that it can only produce the phase pattern of that body on the screen, regardless of whether it is "one at a time", or "continuous".

The sound phenomena that you referred to is a perception thing. The sound waves do not "disappear". They are not heard at certain positions because we have TWO ears that are not tuned the same. This will not happen with a single microphone (detector). Anywhere this will be picked up, it will be a "C".

The "other frequencies" that you mentioned are all harmonics, or overtones of a "C"; that means they are ALL C's. The detector will display the same "waveform".

I'm not sure how HUP fits into your model; I was assuming that you are talking about a "particle", and that would have momentum? Changes there would produce changes on the screen.

TRoc

Confused2

15th February 2006 - 07:21 PM

Hi Troc,

We seem to be in agreement over Wiki was wrong bit .. time to change tack?

You start from where you would like to start from and we'll see how we go from there.. ok?

-C2.

Confused2

15th February 2006 - 07:25 PM

Hi Troc .. so soon..
I think you've already done it .. if you paste it in again without the baggage about my views that would be a nice fresh start.
-C2.

I have a gut feeling it's going to include the word 'vibrations' .. please can you be as clear as possible about 'vibrations'.. like you say .. sometimes theories that might look totally different can turn out to be very similar.

TRoc

16th February 2006 - 07:04 AM

Hi C2,

First off, I hope I didn't offend you in any way; I have a writing style for the internet that seems too short and to the point, and sometimes comes across the wrong way. If we were talking face to face, you would see quite a different personality.

I was actually "correcting" what I thought was your description of my baggage; but at any rate, a fresh start is good.

I realize my ideas can be taken as overly "simplistic"; my intentions are to pare down the redundancies that I feel are there.

So, a definition, by my thinking, on Vibration. You could certainly use the term "harmonic oscillation" instead. It is a duality; it MUST be left/right, up/down, whatever. That is why the "wave form" fits. You can not have other than integers; all measurements (frequency or wavelength) are either # of whole cycles per unit of time, or distance between whole cycles. Very simple, yet there is a set of "mathematical handcuffs" on this system of measurements. Since the speed of light in "free space, or vacuum" is set at 299, 792, 458 , there is only ONE number that can be used to quantumly compound itself to this velocity, and maintain the symmetry that it requires. In case that is not as clear to you (& readers) as myself (I have the answer after all) let me go further (while trying to "keep it short").

I am assuming that you have read most of what I have said elsewhere on this forum; I realize that it has been spread out, but it is there. If I need to repeat something, I will, but I will not repeat everything again here.

The discreet steps I use is in increments of 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2). I do that because it produces "harmonic values" necessary for resonance in any format (freq, wavelength, radians, Pi..). The quantity "2" is important because it is the first resonant number. The seeds of a simple system. 12 discreet steps between the unit of "1", and its' primary resonance "2". Further info, and the "instructions" are linked here.

The point I am trying to make is that with whole cycles, or vibrations, there is a very specific mathematical pattern that will apply regardless of the form, or label, for the cycle. Everything vibrates to a specific frequency; the only interactions that this math allows for the specific whole cycles per unit of time is based on resonance. The changing of the unit of time for the resonance to occur (by geometry, velocity, density, etc) will also change the interaction, but with the same pattern.

That is basically why I said the "form" of the "photon" shouldn't take all of your time/energy, because whether it moves in spirals, loops, figure 8's, sine waves, or in a straight line with an "off/on" pulse, they will all be measured by this cycle per unit of time pattern.

In the end, absolutely, I think the form of the electron and "photon" are important to understand. I would like to see the "house" cleaned up first. (man that sounded like my wife)

T.Roc

Confused2

16th February 2006 - 06:56 PM

QUOTE

(TRoc)
First off, I hope I didn't offend you in any way; I have a writing style for the internet that seems too short and to the point, and sometimes comes across the wrong way. If we were talking face to face, you would see quite a different personality

I understand completely.. I have the same problem.. I might even come out better on the web

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I understand completely.. I have the same problem.. I might even come out better on the web

..

Troc
The point I am trying to make is that with whole cycles, or vibrations, there is a very specific mathematical pattern that will apply regardless of the form, or label, for the cycle. Everything vibrates to a specific frequency; the only interactions that this math allows for the specific whole cycles per unit of time is based on resonance. The changing of the unit of time for the resonance to occur (by geometry, velocity, density, etc) will also change the interaction, but with the same pattern.

That is basically why I said the "form" of the "photon" shouldn't take all of your time/energy, because whether it moves in spirals, loops, figure 8's, sine waves, or in a straight line with an "off/on" pulse, they will all be measured by this cycle per unit of time pattern.

I am trying to get at your meaning of 'vibration'..
My own 'view' is that on the microscale HUP dominates entirely.
Your vibrations are 'regardless of form'..I still can't tell whether we are on the same track or not.

Vibration testing zone coming up..
As photons tend to wizz past a bit too quickly I'll use electrons to illustrate the point .. the so called 'wave properties' of electrons .. as you can probably guess I feel the interpretation of a wave-function as a wave is not a valid move but no matter..

Accepting the HUP .. if (for example) a single energy state existed on the surface of a sheet tinfoil .. a single electron in that energy state could be spread over many square miles of tinfoil.. you could make no statement about where it is.. only the probability of detecting it at any given point.

If a crystal has a single energy state distributed throughout the crystal then an electron occupying that energy state can be anywhere in the crystal.. and can be detected anywhere.. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor ) wiki suggests an electron 'can move freely through the crystal' .. rather than 'can be detected anywhere within the crystal' .. it's the same thing.

Because both the above are energy states you can still say f must be equal to E/h and the wavelength must be X .. but does it mean anything?

Are my 'energy states' in any way similar to your 'vibrations'? In fairness neither give any insight into the structure of an electron any more than my 'photon' model gives any real insight into the structure of a photon .. hopefully looking at (even agreeing ) how they behave might give us some clue .. even if it is only agreeing about what we are not looking at.

Like yourself I am seeking simple explanations wherever possible.. the HUP certainly isn't simple but if it works everywhere and you can't get round it even if you don't like it then I think that's how it has to be. In the tinfoil and crystal example it is difficult to see the significance of 'frequency', and in all honesty therefore difficult to see the significance of harmonic values. Please feel free to point out the significance and/or that you feel I am wrong about the significance of HUP and/or whatever.

Without (me) understanding vibrations I can't really comment on the 12th root of 2 bit. The unit we use for frequency was based on the length of time it took for the earth to go round the sun.. I think there was even a particular year chosen. The unit for wavelength is based on a French system involving what seems to be a fairly large pace (as of walking).

I have to admit that I find it unlikely that the way we chose to divide up a year and the size of a Frenchman are linked by anything more than coincidence to produce the number 256 which we happen to quite like the sound of.
If we can meet somewhere on the vibration front .. that will be at least one step forward..

-C2.

gadfly

17th February 2006 - 12:08 AM

Hi TRoc and Confused2:

I am somewhat redundant in reposting information that I previously posted of the topic: nature of "electricity" & "magnetism" in this forum.

However you might find them interesting. Sorry that I cannot participate as much as I would like - twistor string theory in complex 3D space-time is just too interesting.

I was unable to participate in either ‘Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory’ or ‘Milo Wolff's Wave Structure of Matter ‘.

1 - There is an excellent website on ‘Geometric Algebra’ by David Hestenes physicist [emeritus] Arizona State University discussing ‘projective geometry, linear algebra and Lie groups’ and other geometric algebras.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/html/GeoAlg.html

Phasor equations of Steinmetz appear to be a Grassman algebra from Hestenes.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/html/GeoAlg.html

‘The Kinematic Origin of Complex Wave Functions’ by Hestenes relates a parametric equation for a lightlike helix z(t) = x(t) + r(t) to the Schrodinger equation.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:3fHM_...s&ct=clnk&cd=30

2 - There was a very interesting development that may relate to helicity.
‘Surface Story’ by Ivars Peterson: “Inspired by spiral soap films, mathematicians zero in on a novel, economical, and infinite helix.”
http://sciencenews.org/articles/20051217/bob9.asp

The Periodic Genus 1 Helicoid Family
http://www.msri.org/about/sgp/jim/geom/min...dg1p/index.html

3 - Twistor String Theory
Link to program and transparencies
THE MATHEMATICAL INSTITUTE University of Oxford
London Mathematical Society Workshop 10-14 January 2005
Abstract
“This meeting was organised to take stock of the rapid progress being made on twistor-string theory and to encourage further cross-fertilization between string-theory, twistor theory and perturbative gauge theory. Twistor string theory was introduced by Witten in hep-th/0312171 as a string theory in twistor space that makes contact with N=4 super Yang-Mills theory on space-time via a generalization of the Penrose-Ward transform augmented by certain D-instanton corrections. It promises to combine many of the most attractive features of string theory and twistor theory and has implications not only for Yang-Mills but also for (conformal) gravity. It has in particular led to major advances in the calculations of Yang-Mills scattering amplitudes with applications to collider physics.”
http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~lmason/Tws/

Best wishes

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein

TRoc

17th February 2006 - 09:02 AM

Hi Gadfly & C2,

Nice to hear from you Gadfly; as usual toting excellent links. I'd like to snip a few quotes from my favorite (you're right, I remember most from your other posts).

THE KINEMATIC ORIGIN OF COMPLEX WAVE FUNCTIONS

Abstract. A reformulation of the Dirac theory reveals that i bar h has a geometric meaning relating it to electron spin. This provides the basis for a coherent physical interpretation of the Dirac and Schrodinger theories wherein the complex phase factor exp(-i "y" / bar h) in the wave function describes electron zitterbewegung, a localized, circular motion generating the electron spin and magnetic moment. Zitterbewegung interactions also generate resonances which may explain quantization, diffraction, and the Pauli principle.

Special note: zitterbewegung = orbital vibration cycle in my theory

Edwin T. Jaynes ... greatest accomplishment has been to recognize that in the evolution of statistical mechanics the principles of physics had gotten confused with principles of statistical inference, and then to show how the two can be cleanly separated to produce a simpler yet more powerful theoretical system.
..

S™ = 1/2 i bar h™ (equation 19)

This proves unequivocally that the "imaginary" factor i bar h in the Dirac equation is a
representation of the electron spin angular momentum S by its eigenvalue, and the
electron wave function is always an "eigenstate" of the spin.

Special note: eigen___'s are resonant related; resonant state (frequency, tonic), the whole # modification, etc.

The term S ¢ ¹ (equation 24) has precisely the form of a rotational kinetic energy. Thus, the intrinsic energy (mass) of the electron is associated with rotational motion in the space-like plane of the spin S.

This leads to a self-consistent interpretation of the Dirac theory with the following features:
(a) The electron is modeled as a structureless point particle traveling at the speed
of light along a helical lightlike trajectory in space-time.
(b ) The helical trajectory has a diameter on the order of a Compton wavelength,
and a circular frequency on the order of twice the de Broglie frequency mc^2=bar h ~ 10^21 s -1.
( c) The helical motion generates electron spin and may be attributed to magnetic
self-interaction.
(d) Each solution of the Dirac equation determines an infinite family of such helices
and a probability distribution for the electron to be found on any given helix.
(e) The center of curvature for each helix lies on a streamline of the Dirac current.

Note: The helical form is my preferred method of wave

The helical motion of the electron can be visualized as a particle moving in a circle lying in the space-like plane of the spin S while the center of the circle is translated along a streamline of the Dirac current.

The complex phase factor exp(-i "y" /bar h) in both the Dirac and Schrodinger wave functions describes kinematics of electron motion, specifically the circular zitterbewegung.

Schrodinger theory describes the dominant component of the zitterbewegung. That's why it is such a successful approximation to the Dirac theory.

Indeed, to explain the electron's static magnetic dipole field as a consequence
of the zitterbewegung, we must regard the electron as a point charge for which the average motion over a zitterbewegung period is an effective current loop. But the same assumption implies that the zitterbewegung must generate high-frequency fluctuations about that average; call this the zitterbewegung field of the electron. The frequency of these fluctuations (~ 10^21 s -1) is too high to observe directly, but it has been suggested that zitterbewegung fields are responsible for some of the most peculiar features of quantum mechanics [7].

In any case, it appears that a complete mathematical treatment of zbw interactions requires new physical assumptions which have not yet been formulated and analyzed, so the best that can be done at this time is a qualitative analysis..

Note: that is what I am trying to do

Every electron, of course, is perturbed by the zbw fields of other electrons, with doppler-shifted frequencies due to their motions. Conceivably, this random background of electromagnetic fluctuations can play the role of the vacuum field in quantum electrodynamics, and a stochastic term in the electron equations of motion is needed to account for its effect.

Special note: background EM fluctuations = background vibrations; the "tonic", or fundamental vibration of the Universe.

A more significant and prominent feature of zbw interactions is the likelihood of resonances. Three kinds of resonances are of special interest:

(1) Electron diffraction is usually "explained" by invoking an interference metaphor.
However, an explanation in terms of "quantized momentum exchange" is equally
consistent with the formalism of quantum mechanics as well as a strict particle
interpretation. Moreover, the zbw field provides a physical mechanism for this
exchange. When an electron is incident on a crystal, it is preceded by its zbw field
which is reflected from the crystal back to the electron. The conditions for resonant
momentum exchange are met when the reflected field is resonant with the electron's
zbw, which must occur at the Bragg angles if the explanation is correct.

Special note: interference is a "beat frequency" measurement (BF); aka dissonance. The above paragraph also gives the mechanism for the "pilot wave", or preceding, helical vibration w/ smaller radius, or harmonic "wavelet".

(2) Quantized energy states appear when the frequency of an electron's orbital motion is resonant with a harmonic of its zbw frequency, as is implied by a zbw interpretation of solutions to Schrodinger's equations. As in diffraction, the underlying
causal mechanism may be a resonance of the electron's zbw with the reflection of its own zbw field of the atomic nucleus.

Note: recall my interpretation of the 2 slit "phenomenon": the phase of the source is a key factor; the reflection angles are not repeated, making no difference between continuous or 1 at a time "waves".

(3) The Pauli principle may be explained as a zbw resonance between two electrons, mediated by their zbw fields. Such a resonance can occur only when the electrons are in the same state of translational motion, as the Pauli principle requires.

Other quantum phenomenon, such as barrier penetration and the Lamb shift, can also be explained qualitatively by the zbw. The problem remains to make these explanations fully quantitative.

Again, that is what I'm after.

The only other thing I can add (C2), is on the HUP example that you mentioned. Just to put it right out there, I don't buy it. My interpretation of the resonance measured statistically different at different locations on the tin sheet or the crystal, is that the modes (of resonance) are happening more frequently at certain locations than others. The energy wave is moving through the body, and vibrating individual electrons at the specific frequency of the input signal (energy). It has to resonate with the probe, or measuring device, and that only happens when the wave passes the location that the experimenter has chosen. This has higher probabilities at locations where the resonance modes happen more often, over time. Given enough time, they will happen everywhere; but in that same block of time, will happen much more often where the modes are more dense. There is the "cloud" picture, obscuring the fundamentally (classic) underlying principle.

T.Roc

ps. you will have to go to the link for the equations, they do not copy over well

Confused2

17th February 2006 - 12:07 PM

Hi Gadfly & Troc,

Many thanks for the links.. a huge amount of interesting stuff.

There are certainly some bits I missed in the Electricity and magnetism thread .. they seem just as relevent here..

http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/Kinematic.pdf

THE KINEMATIC ORIGIN OF COMPLEX WAVE FUNCTIONS

As already quoted by Troc.. at the top of page 8 we see

QUOTE

(1) Electron diffraction .. when an electron is incident on a crystal, it is preceded by its zbw field ..

On this point we stand divided - the very point the author proposes as the solution is what I see as the problem..

.. the effect (the zbw field, pilot wave etc) precedes, in time, the cause (the electron etc). This is the problem with all classical wave type solutions, at least some part of the effect (the wave) must always precede the cause. As far as I can see the only way to escape from this 'result preceding cause' problem is with a shockwave solution (all and every wave) - nothing in front and nothing behind (1). In fairness it is possible to start playing about with the description of time but I suspect this leads wave solutions (2) straight into the very swamp (QT) which they seem to be trying to escape from.

Am I missing something

?

All comments most welcome.

-C2.

(1) HUP, as always, produces the illusion of wavelength.
(2) It occurs to me that this may be like Big-Endians and Little-Endians, it may be that the HUP allows both solutions to have some equivalence, it's just a choice of interpretation. Possibly we could examine this equivalence..

Using HUP to cover an error in time might lead to things which must always be on the move .. resonant or whatever, the probability of detection is (I assume) interpreted as whatever it is (say electron) being potentially somewhere else.

Using HUP to cover an error in position seems to lead to 'static' solutions where the probability of detection is calculated 'cold' and offers no real physical interpretation.

TRoc

17th February 2006 - 05:51 PM

C2,

My idea on getting around the apparent cause before "time" is this:

1. the energy input that caused the increase in oscillation arrives before, so why not the effect?

If sensitivities are turned way up, you can detect the preceding harmonics. This means the "recording" of the event begins before time 0 of the experiment. The equilibrium between 2 vibrating bodies (actually 3, including the source of "energy") is not static either. In order for resonance to occur, they are all in sync, as far as vibration is concerned. The shock wave is a band of increased energy, and in conservation, is at the expense of energy of the rest of the wave. In the 2 slit, these are the darker bands. Let me try (not too well) a "diagram".

Standard "time 0" parameter:

Input..........target(cause).......observer(effect)
..(|)................(|)...........................(|)
..n/a.................0...........................end.......[time]

Vibration diagram:
..|().................|()..........................|()........"right" oscillation
..()|.................()|..........................()|........."left" oscillation

In this outlook, the " | " lines are measurement points.

You can see the distance between points is not the same as the model that assumes all bodies are static. No need to tinker with time; the distance parameter will do the same thing. This is "simplistic" version, but a start. With resonant bodies, the wavelengths are symmetrical, and arrive "off sync" (shorter distance). Notice that any 2 bodies in this outlook will always have the measurement point on the opposing side. (dualistic)

Part 2 (again not too good, but using the available symbols)

....|()....()|....|().../...|()....()|....|()..

The harmonic, preceding wave arrives first, but only DISCREET energy (the large wave in this example) will trigger the detector (or resonant body). The harmonics are not taken into consideration in the current model, yet they are absolutely necessary for equilibrium, and communication of "full time" parameters, like gravity. The harmonics arrive before, and are both reflected back (in phase) and carried through, the body. Only at relativistic speeds, is the change in distance fast enough to "doppler shift" the phase match; this would just "modulate" the harmonics, and change the point where a resonant measurement could take place. (fourier/amplitude increase)

"Energy" comes in discreet quantities, because resonance occurs in discreet quantities. That does not mean that there is "nothing" going on before the detection.

Imagine a hearing test: tones are played UNTIL you begin to hear them, or after your "sensitivity" ends. That is detection, but says nothing about the tones that ARE being played; only about the "resonance" parameters of your hearing.

Since everything we make is electron based, these "sensitivity parameters" (resonant conditions) are built in limitations. Quantum optics is starting to get around this limitation using the vibrations themselves ("photons") using the same, inherent, resonant method.

Any help??

T.Roc

Confused2

18th February 2006 - 12:52 PM

Hi Troc,

QUOTE

"Energy" comes in discreet quantities, because resonance occurs in discreet quantities. That does not mean that there is "nothing" going on before the detection.

Back to coax cable if we may.. we can send pulses almost as narrow as we like down coax .. I see no reason in principle why this cannot be done in free space except that everybody else is using free space and it makes it difficult to sort out your own signal.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=63020 ..

It's a pity the chap is sending a series of pulses and (obviously) has at least one mismatched termination.. I only chose him because I think he's giving an honest account of what he sees. A much better 'experiment' comes in the form of time domain reflectometers which send out a single pulse and watch for reflections ..
In general.. a pulse front arrives at a totally untuned and unresonant receiver (oscilloscope) as pretty much a front.. I am reasonably sure that transistors don't know in advance when they are going to be asked to switch .. your PC is a fair indication of this. As on the Catt thread in New Theories.. (I hope we agree that Catt knows his pulses).. pulses travel as pulses .. there is nothing seen ahead of the pulse and without some sort of spooky action I don't see how there can actually be anything ahead of the pulse.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"Energy" comes in discreet quantities, because resonance occurs in discreet quantities. That does not mean that there is "nothing" going on before the detection.

If you regard pulses in coax as a fair test (please say if not) - can you suggest what sort of equipment might be required to detect whatever it is ahead of the pulse?

-C2.

TRoc

18th February 2006 - 05:54 PM

Hi C2,

This is your area, so correct me if I use some backasswards terminology!

Also pre-note: I am going to genuinely try to answer that, but I may have to ask questions myself. I am not being coy, facetious, etc. I have certainly forgotten more than I can remember.

Definitely, there are machines that are "tuned" for wider than a single frequency band of energy. Then there are set-ups that take the "real time", fluctuating signal, and properly break that down to a measurable result. I'm not sure which internal "parts" are responsible for that; the difference between a tuned response like radio/ tv, and oscilloscopes or seismographs. In the case of the latter, there is definitely a large range of frequencies that are excluded (white noise).

In fact that seems to be pretty common, even our brain is actively EXCLUDING much more signals than we are ever aware of. I'm not sure what your opinion of a gravity wave being EM type of radiation or not, but if it is even REMOTELY similar, then that is a "full time" background signal, that mass can not completely ignore. Ignoring (tuning out, limiting/capping allowable energy, etc.) does not means that there is no signal, just that the "read-out" is not printing/displaying those values.

So, in an electrical (copper) wire, we would have the "white noise" of the vibrating electrons themselves, correct? The sampling rate must be ~double the expected frequency, otherwise there is not enough time to measure the "preceding" wave-lets. All of the sensitive measurements that I have seen do this; it may be interpreted as a negative signal, behind the zero axis. If we double the electron frequency, to around 2.5e20, do we have the technical ability to sample at that? (gamma range)

It seems that the copper "nano-tubes" are hitting the limits of our ability. A quote from a recent paper: ["Infrared-Radiating Carbon Nanotubes", Chen et al. (p. 1171), © 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"In light-emitting diodes (LEDs), oppositely charged carriers (electrons and holes) are injected into an active region where they can recombine and release energy as photons. The study shows that in suspended carbon nanotubes, the local acceleration of a single type of carrier (electrons or holes) creates excitons. Under these conditions of one-dimensional confinement, excitons recombine and release radiation in the infrared. This process is 100 to 1000 times more efficient than that of electron-hole recombination in LEDs."

I realize that I may have wandered a bit from "electricity", but since you mentioned "pulses almost as narrow as we (can)sic" I thought that might apply.

Another possibly applicable study: Constructal Theory (Duke U., Bejan, 1996) showing that systems that generate "flow" (including electronics) "evolve so as to minimize imperfections -- energy wasted to friction or other forms of resistance -- such that the least amount of useful energy is lost."

Other than with "superconductivity", energy is ALWAYS lost. This must be in the form of radiation, and measurable, on some, very small, scale. We should NOT find that it is "disconnected" from the source signal; there will be "scaling" present somewhere in the "line".

From mass, density, and "tension" (gravity, resistance, geometrical limitation,..) a rate of vibration can be determined; that rate will follow the laws of harmony / resonance.

So, for the time being (until gravity level fluctuations are detectable) I think the answer is no, there is no way to directly detect this.

T.Roc

Confused2

19th February 2006 - 01:31 PM

Hi Troc,

I'll just go with the flow as much as I can..
Most communications devices have a tuned front end to get rid of other stations on other frequencies.. as you say (later) they generally need a bandwidth about twice that of the intended signal.
You feed your own signal to an oscilloscopes and they can display frequencies from 0 up to 10GHz or more.. deliberately no tuning whatsoever, if there's anything electrical in that range you'll see it, hence my confidence that there's nothing 'funny' ahead of a pulse that a 'scope can see... and if a scope can't see it I don't think it's there. Seismographs.. don't know anything about filtering but I seem to remember you do get waves at different times.. not electromagnetic in origin though.
My brain definitely excludes signals.. Mrs C will confirm that.
Gravity.. until recently I was utterly convinced that Einstein was right with his curved space, the conviction level is now 'fairly sure'. The people working on fusion have had huge magnets, high voltages and high currents and they've been doing it for years, I'm sure they've all had a little look for gravitational effects .. and nothing has been reported. Even if gravity waves are remotely similar to EM waves I think it would need a huge amount of mass to be accelerated to generate any sort of signal. I have to admit my 'research' extends no further than participating in gravity type threads on the Physorg forum (excluding the current one, which I have been too busy to look at). As far as I can tell from the threads I have followed it seems to be like an electrostatic field in the way that it sticks with the source. Without being able to accelerate (say) the sun I can't see how to test the speed of propagation of a gravitational field. The result of which is that I agree gravity is a 'background' but I'm not convinced there is a signal within the definition of signal as being a carrier of (new) information.

QUOTE

So, in an electrical (copper) wire, we would have the "white noise" of the vibrating electrons themselves, correct? The sampling rate must be ~double the expected frequency, otherwise there is not enough time to measure the "preceding" wave-lets. All of the sensitive measurements that I have seen do this; it may be interpreted as a negative signal, behind the zero axis. If we double the electron frequency, to around 2.5e20, do we have the technical ability to sample at that? (gamma range)

Starting with the last sentence and working back to the start of the quote..
Sampling at the frequency you suggest..
http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (fantastic site!)
All of the sensitive measurements that I have seen do this; it may be interpreted as a negative signal, behind the zero axis.
I don't understand
The sampling rate must be ~double the expected frequency, otherwise there is not enough time to measure the "preceding" wave-lets.
I agree with double the frequency but don't understand the "preceding" reference .. lower in frequency?
So, in an electrical (copper) wire, we would have the "white noise" of the vibrating electrons themselves, correct?
This is a PhD question.. looking at two of umpteen types of noise
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0303/0303027.pdf ..
Mesoscopic = small but not tiny
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.22.html ..

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

From the abstract above "the wavelike electrons interfere with themselves". It is my opinion that writers of abstracts and news items fail to distinguish between what is a 'wave' where a wave is reasonably interpreted as some sort of oscillation of energy and a 'wave-function' which (at present) has no particular physical interpretation.

Also thermal noise.. just about everything is in thermal equilibrium, etc.

This is all leading into a swamp. To get away from the swamp I hope it will help to point out that these are indeed 'noise' rather than signal. We (try) to keep the signal (energy if you like) significantly above the noise level .. there is certainly signal induced noise but not, I claim, noise induced signal - we choose the level of the signal so this does not happen.

'so, in an electrical (copper) wire, we would have the "white noise" of the vibrating electrons themselves, correct? '
I'm not quite sure what you mean by vibrating electrons - as of whizzing round the atoms? If whizzing round the atoms is suggested as a mechanism for producing noise, this is one of the effects predicted by classical theory that lead to the 'invention' of quantum theory. If the electrons radiated in any way they would lose energy and fall into the nucleus - they do not.. enter quantum theory.. there is no classical explanation. Even with quantum mechanics one is left with the strong notion that an electron is sufficiently massive that (say) a hydrogen atom would still vibrate and radiate.. and this does not happen either.. enter the wave function as a description of the electron. The wave function (unfortunately), as far as I know, has no obvious physical interpretation. The alternative to the wave function seems to be to wait for string theory to come up with a (possibly) better description. Within the wave function interpretation 'frequency' doesn't really have any meaning. If you take an energy level and say there must be a frequency associated with it.. I can't say that is 'wrong' only that I don't think it is meaningful or helpful.

Enough controversy for one post I suspect..

C2.

TRoc

20th February 2006 - 04:28 AM

C2,

I appreciate you patience.

We have different theories, tied to current "accepted" theory, at different points.

For me, the electron is a standing wave resonance. There would not be EM radiating out.

A "preceding" signal would be a harmonic of the main, higher frequency (smaller pre-wavelength). They could also be modulated / superimposed.

The copper molecule, in spectroscopy, will emit/absorb specific wavelengths of "light" (energy or vibration); that is what I mean with "white noise". Inherent resonant state; any other frequency must be resonant with this to travel freely across/through it. Other frequencies would add or subtract to this. While we're close, can I ask if there is a reason that electricity operates at the specific frequencies of 60/120/240 (or 55/110/220)?

Isn't there some amount of "loss" to the wire when a "signal" goes through?

I'm not saying that your oscilloscope would detect this. When you say "we choose the level of the signal so this does not happen", do you mean that the scope is engineered to disregard a certain level? Or something else?

Is there any device to detect the "holes" that are moving in the opposite direction?

Here is a paper that "classically" treats the electron (orbital decay time) by Daniel C. Cole & Yi Zou, Physical Review E, 69, 016601, (2004). HERE

Just more ideas on resonance behaviors.

T.Roc

Guest_Confused2

20th February 2006 - 08:31 PM

Hi Troc,

I appreciate your patience.

The reference you gave..

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/ColeHydrogenPRE.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0206/0206033.pdf

I've never seen this sort of thing before.. it looks very interesting. I'd like to spend some time looking at more papers in this direction. I'll see what these people have to say about electrons and maybe comment later if that's ok..

White noise .. ah! my white noise is like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise .. I call the specific frequencies due to state transitions 'line spectra' - that could be wrong too.

Any other frequency must be resonant.. to travel freely across/ through. My own view of how electricity travels changes almost daily but I don't think the type of resonance you describe is involved. One (of many) views is that the a conductor has elctrons which are relatively (like totally) free to move .. hence no frequency and no resonance involved. The common voltages and frequencies in use for electrical power distribution have no particular significance .. 110/120 volts (American Standard) isn't normally fatal, UK + ? standard of 240 volts is slightly more efficient for carrying power yet still 'low voltage' for convenience. 50 Hertz .. sensible choice.. 60 Hertz .. equally sensible - transformers are slightly smaller than for 50 Hertz but they are slightly more expensive to make. Historically different compromises were made and we're all pretty much stuck with what we've got.

Losses going through the wire.. 'mostly' resistive losses .. another swampy area.

Oscilloscopes are designed to pick up everything .. this can be a problem - noise is always there for any of a multitude of reasons. In the context of looking at the mechanism of wave propagation I see no objection to turning up the signal level until the noise has become insignificant. If the noise level rose with the signal .. we'd see it.

Holes.. ?? see Hall effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect.

Back to looking at that paper and references!

-C2.

Confused2

12th November 2006 - 04:31 PM

Following a post from yquantum

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141625

I thought it best to divde the thread

( This post copied from ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141720 ) )

QUOTE (Confused2 (that's me)+)

All (especially yquantum):-

By "waves of nothing" I think yquantum might have been trying to suggest that we are not really looking at waves made out of the interaction between charge and and magnetism. He is too polite to suggest that EM analysis is simply 'wrong' so he merely advises us to look at the wavefunction-psi as a better analysis. The DSE is the point where ALL analysis can be seen to fall apart .. not just Maxwell's equations. Old tools are like old friends .. nobody wants to abandon them .. but perhaps if we try to hand wave ourselves gently into the concept and maths of wavefunction-psi then maybe it will be worth the effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction

Personally I feel it is premature to talk about extra dimensions before we've all had a look at the quantum world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence

I suspect decoherence might be the part of the reason why we can extract different answers from the same thing .. we just increase the probability of our desired result to the exclusion of all other results .. and we get our desired result.. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE) looks like the perfect test of this suggestion. I'm not sure you can detect the impossible .. but I'm pretty sure you can drag the highly unlikely into the spotlight. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser )

holograms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holograms ) give a fair demonstration of 'something' .. if we shift our analysis and start looking at them as a deliberate manipulation of probability .. the highly improbable might start to look more probable.

Is probability anything or nothing? If we can manipulate it and it can manipulate us .. I suggest we should at least have a look at it. By looking at it, I fear we may lose our photon altogether.

Hopefully we can continue here.

Best wishes,

-C2.

TRoc

13th November 2006 - 12:36 AM

Hey C2,

I had "lost" this thread!

Yes, you are right, maybe we should continue with parts of that conversation here.

Which part though?

I'll let you go first.

T.Roc

TRoc

13th November 2006 - 06:57 PM

I guess we can start here.

I didn't know if you saw this post?

QUOTE

Perfect mirror
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A perfect mirror is a theoretical mirror that reflects light (and electromagnetic radiation in general) perfectly, and doesn't transmit it.

Domestic mirrors are not perfect mirrors as they absorb a significant portion of the light which falls on them.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

14th November 2006 - 12:40 PM

Hi TRoc,

Sorry about the delay (part domestic duties). I've spent some time on this but where I come from it's almost axiomatic that no new frequencies are generated so it's a bit difficult to prove the point from an axiom.

K sin(wt) = K sin (wt) !!

Can you help me by giving your expectation of the result?

Best wishes,

C2.

TRoc

14th November 2006 - 04:52 PM

C2,

My expectations?

The standard results are what I expect, with a realistic explanation.

I guess we are in the same, different boat together !

Just a few points:

At this size (the "smallest"), everything counts.

Every imperfection of every part. The temperature, vibrational, and rotational energies of every molecule present. The amounts "out of square", and/or out of parallel between the walls, laser -to- slit -to- screen geometry. Etc., etc.

For the MM experiment, and other "mirror based" ones, these mirror differences are "conserved". The 2 arms have (basically) the same mirrors. Any differences are symmetric, and offset each other. I don't think that there is any way do detect anything but the constant SOL with this device.

The DSE is a different story. In all my posting, the goal was only to explain the "anomalies", that required the "typical" QM hand-waving answers. This was done, to my satisfaction at least.

ONLY by NOT assuming that ANY possibility exists inside the machine to possibly effect the outcome, are explanations like those necessary. These are the "hand-waving" answers, IMO.

1. That there is ANY remote chance for a "particle" interpretation. There is NO WAY for a 100nm "particle" to go through a 50nm slit, or hole. So, you CAN NOT justify using "particle" to explain the loss of pattern on screen. It is a PROCESS REMOVAL. It is EXACTLY like a "finger assisted" whistle: take the finger away, the "noise" stops. Sound is a process, light is a process. Both require SENDER and RECEIVER to fully define the process. The TWO slits are BETTER described as ONE HOLE, DIVIDED in 2 by a fine line. That way, when the "change" is made, (to 1 slit) you get still ONE HOLE, but smaller, and no "whistle" line.

(this explanation is just "thrown" in there by hand wavers, to back up their "we understand/we don't understand" duality)

2. The explanation for the "removal" of the "which way" branch of the signal is just as hokey. They usually describe this as ONE photon, so IMMEDIATELY, this conflicts with the concept of "removing" something, and still having something to measure. The wave (photon) is divided into 2 parts, so now you have 2 waves. Very simple. Now matter how cleverly disguised, when you "cut a whistle in half", you get NO PROCESS. The concept of "before" and "after" that they use to defend when this change is made is BOGUS. There can be no definitive before or after when using TIME AVERAGES. There can be NO simultaneous measurement of these 2 parameters (position in time, momentum of energy). The "photon collapse" prevents this.

3. The explanation for the one at a time arrival pattern matching the bulk pattern. At least this one is not immediately obvious. Can you tell me WHEN each leaf (in a group), floating down a river, and caught up in an eddy, will exit the eddy? Not without a fantastic amount of CONTROL and CALCULATION. Will they ever (in any case) just stay there? NO. Can you tell me WHERE each leaf (in a group), floating down a river, and released from an eddy ONE AT A TIME will then flow through an opening (or 2) in a flood-gate (small dam)? Not without a fantastic amount of CONTROL and CALCULATION. Would it help any by calling the "group" of leaves a single LEAF, because they all came from THE SAME TREE? At that point, rational explanation becomes IMPOSSIBLE (which is what they want). A SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT A SINGLE MOVEMENT. VIBRATION REQUIRES 2 PARAMETERS TO begin to DEFINE IT, and 3 to provide an AVERAGE type description.

The choices here are:

DO THE CALCULATIONS, no matter how hard.

or

Make up a ridiculous story about the wave going down every possible path (AT THE SAME TIME), breaking one of the few, measurable constants (sol), and insulting common sense. Require that, even with this "miraculous ability", the waves choose a "random" pattern (just to amuse the experimenters) at first, but then, change their mind, and form the same pattern that is always formed. For good measure, you can quote Einstein saying "Spooky...", say that this QM world is just NOT explainable in every day terms, make up self contradictory terminologies, like "wave-particle" duality. After all, "what the bleep do they know".

ciao!

T.Roc

Confused2

14th November 2006 - 06:23 PM

Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc+)

"The standard results are what I expect.. "

I'm not convinced we are using the same standard results as standard.

I think it is evident from (at least) microwave frequencies to (at least) visible light - there is constructive interference where the path difference is an integer number of wavelengths and destructive interference where the path differs by half a wavelength? The same result is also seen in the ripple tank version of the DSE. I don't think this consistent result can be explained by suggesting every experimenter accidentally creates the result as a consequence of unintended geometry.
From here.. (just one of many)
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...DoubleSlit.html

QUOTE

We can explain the interference pattern for waves. When the two waves from the two slits arrive at some position at the backstop, except for right in the middle they will have traveled different distances from the slits. This means that their "waving" may not be in sync.

Do you agree that the DSE pattern might ** always be the same because the cause is the same (or similar) ?

-C2.

If you agree then I'll try to work through some handwaving .. which could be tricky!

TRoc

14th November 2006 - 07:06 PM

C2,

You have misunderstood me. Let me try to be more clear.

When I said "

QUOTE

The DSE is a different story. In all my posting, the goal was only to explain the "anomalies", ..

, and

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The DSE is a different story. In all my posting, the goal was only to explain the "anomalies", ..

, and The standard results are what I expect, with a realistic explanation

I mean, that the diffraction pattern is standard. That is not being debated, at all. Nothing I have said (anywhere) is about explaining the pattern. It is adequately, and logically explained already, by several methods.

Everything that I talked about was to remove the incorrect, unfounded model that some (ok, most) QM practitioners put forth. It is their "story" (model) that generates the next generation of math to explain it. Math is just a language, to communicate QUANTITY. When it becomes "just a number machine", through excessively complex symbology, and operations, ANY NUMBER can be CONJURED to match the desired outcome. Just like your weekend astrologers. Generalities, Statistics (probabilities), and Flattery will get you a LONG way.. but NOT ALL THE WAY HOME!

The most simple truths, are the most overlooked. They also are impossible to disprove, by the definition of "having removed all other possibilities, thus far observed (anywhere)". "Possible" does NOT mean anything that you can imagine, it means everything that has been observed & recorded. I impose the same rules for Scientific theory that the Courts impose on their trial lawyers.

regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

14th November 2006 - 07:25 PM

QUOTE (Troc+)

the diffraction pattern is standard

What about the interference pattern? Standard or not?

-C2.

TRoc

14th November 2006 - 08:39 PM

C2,

The Pattern is the same.

It doesn't matter if you want to call it interference, diffraction, resonance, dissonance, grated, banded, striped, light & dark, opposing, contrasting, dualistic, zebra, tiger, ETC. ad nauseum.

I do not understand WHAT your question is?

I also do not understand how you can read about this, and IGNORE the verbatim, direct quotes, that I show you. There is no room for mis-interpretation here. YOU offer the "evidence", and I show you, very clearly, why your evidence does not support (their) theory. DON"T BUY IT!!

One more time.

From YOUR link, a very good description of the DSE. This is for students, and is presented HONESTLY. There is a SALES PITCH, asking you to "buy now", and I'm saying "it costs too much", "don't do it."

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml[/URL]

QUOTE

"As anyone who has ever used a light dimmer can attest, decreasing the light output of a given incandescent bulb shifts the spectrum toward the longer, red wavelengths."

Here is the first point: a shift in wavelength is a change in frequency. You must use more than 1 frequency to solve this.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"As anyone who has ever used a light dimmer can attest, decreasing the light output of a given incandescent bulb shifts the spectrum toward the longer, red wavelengths."

Here is the first point: a shift in wavelength is a change in frequency. You must use more than 1 frequency to solve this.

"These observations are essential for a clear appreciation of the sets of measurements taken when the cover is closed and the apparatus appears more like a "black-box." "

"More like a black box" = More like a non-linear medium, or cavity

QUOTE

"In the photomultiplier both the high-voltage (operating voltage) and the pulse-height discriminator threshold voltage must be properly selected to optimize the operation of the photon counting unit."

Arranging the parameters to SHOW the desired outcome. This is not Science, it is dramatization.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Arranging the parameters to SHOW the desired outcome. This is not Science, it is dramatization.

"They must be set so that the photomultiplier will optimally count green photons and optimally reject the dark current."

C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for. And try to find "dark current" in the "Textbook"; it is uncommon, and therefore vague, and ill equipped to communicate clearly. (HAND-WAVING begins)

QUOTE

"(This can be done by the instructor or can be an opportunity for students to learn how to use a photomultiplier for proper photon counting.)"

At this level of education, THE STUDENT ALREADY KNOWS "PROPER" COUNTING METHODS. The reality here is that this is INDOCTRINATION into the QM world. This is the "seed" that is going to generate the "desire to purchase" (As Seen On TV).

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"(This can be done by the instructor or can be an opportunity for students to learn how to use a photomultiplier for proper photon counting.)"

No comment necessary.

QUOTE

"It is here that students must convince themselves that this counting rate indicates the bulb is indeed dim enough so that only one photon at a time reaches the photomultiplier."

It is HERE, that I ask you, not to "CONVINCE" yourself of the ILLOGICAL position taken by mainstream. You DO NOT need to PASS this class, so you don't need to memorize the Agenda. This is the REAL world.

User posted image

IN WHAT VERSION OF SLIT ARRANGEMENTS DO YOU NOT SEE 3 FREQUENCIES ("photons") PRESENT?

That is what I'm saying, C2.

(sorry if I yelled too much)

T.Roc

Confused2

15th November 2006 - 01:23 AM

TRoc,

If you were not inerested in this topic then neither of us would be posting here. THAT aside .. I have never seen such a rubbish DSE result before in my life. (I haven't seen that many but that one is rubbish). Back to the mother thread and basic phyiscs... if that's ok with you.

-C2.

TRoc

15th November 2006 - 02:28 AM

OK C2, point taken. Of course I'm having FUN!

QUOTE

"I have never seen such a rubbish DSE result before in my life."

But I thought HONESTY was the best POLICY !!

I was going to say that that was the MOST TRUTHFUL description of the DSE that I have ever seen! (and I have seen everything from "accidental verb slippage" to "almost letting the cat out of the bag", but NEVER "spilling ALL the beans on the FLOOR!!"

Alas, after reading your last post (on the other thread), I think we may be 'rounding the corner!

I'll post there.

ciao!

T.Roc

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.