I contacted Fermilab and presented them with these questions.
To: Mike Perricone,
Two photon physics, in these experiments gamma ray interaction produces matter particles.
Why do you refer to these interactions as photon collisions? Are you claiming these photon interactions are different than the destructive interference which can be observed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum? If so, do you see a relationship in particles produced when interference is destructive vs. constructive? Or, if gamma ray photon collisions are a destructive interference resulting in matter particles (as an observable standing wave) then why are there not more experiments preformed in other frequencies?
I received this answer:
Hello,
Mike Perricone no longer works at Fermilab. You'll find information relevant to your question in these Web pages:
http://www.fnal. gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/ index.html
Best wishes,
Kurt
I did not find a sufficient answer to my questions although in the link provided reference is made to the interference I inquired about.
Dale Wahl
QUOTE (drwahl6913+Aug 31 2007, 04:56 PM)
Why do you refer to these interactions as photon collisions? Are you claiming these photon interactions are different than the destructive interference which can be observed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum?
During photon-photon collision a new particle-antiparticle pair can be created. The product of such collision will not be the photon anymore.
By AWT this result follows from the foam behavior of vacuum. The foam gets dense when shaken. If some critical density is reached, the dense area of foam (which is the product of the constructive interference) will undergo the phase transform, i.e. condensation. You can imagine, the resulting dense blob of such foam will become so dense, so that the standing wave will bounce from it's internal surface like standing wave packet due total reflection phenomena. At this moment the light wave collapse and it will change itself into standing wave packet of particle, which will stop travel by supersluminal speed. As a mechanical analogy of such condensation can serve the formation of foamy caps at the stormy water surface.
During photon-photon collision a new particle-antiparticle pair can be created. The product of such collision will not be the photon anymore.
By AWT this result follows from the foam behavior of vacuum. The foam gets dense when shaken. If some critical density is reached, the dense area of foam (which is the product of the constructive interference) will undergo the phase transform, i.e. condensation. You can imagine, the resulting dense blob of such foam will become so dense, so that the standing wave will bounce from it's internal surface like standing wave packet due total reflection phenomena. At this moment the light wave collapse and it will change itself into standing wave packet of particle, which will stop travel by supersluminal speed. As a mechanical analogy of such condensation can serve the formation of foamy caps at the stormy water surface.
Which is exactly my point Zephir.
It has to be the result of the destructive interference producing an observable standing wave as matter particles.
Dale Wahl
It has to be the result of the destructive interference producing an observable standing wave as matter particles.
Dale Wahl
QUOTE (drwahl6913+Aug 31 2007, 05:23 PM)
It has to be the result of the destructive interference producing an observable standing wave as matter particles.
Why? The claim without reasoning has no sense here.
Why just the destructive interference if the new particles are created?
Why? The claim without reasoning has no sense here.
Why just the destructive interference if the new particles are created?
I was just reading the information on the photon. I'd like to challenge certain statement made, which the writer apparently still believes in.
It quoted a sentence Einstein once made, saying that information in a vacuum cannot travel faster-than-light.
Now... we just need to look at quantum entanglement to see Einstein was badly wrong with his strong statement. We notice instantaneous effects over large distances which can only be answered by saying information, or at least, certain types of information can, and do move faster than superluminal speeds.
Of course, there might be the odd scientist who still believes in the hidden variable theory, but as far as i was aware, that theory was now discredited.
NeoNo.1
It quoted a sentence Einstein once made, saying that information in a vacuum cannot travel faster-than-light.
Now... we just need to look at quantum entanglement to see Einstein was badly wrong with his strong statement. We notice instantaneous effects over large distances which can only be answered by saying information, or at least, certain types of information can, and do move faster than superluminal speeds.
Of course, there might be the odd scientist who still believes in the hidden variable theory, but as far as i was aware, that theory was now discredited.
NeoNo.1
Do you agree that an electromagnetic wave is made up of a substance?
If you do, then the destructive interference has removed that substance from the original waveform. The substance is now in the form of matter particles. Its called a standing wave and for all destructive interference no matter what kind of waves we observe, a standing wave is produced from destructive interference.
For water waves the standing wave produced from destructive interference is absorbed back into the body of water.
For sound waves the standing waves are absorbed back into what ever medium the sound was traveling through.
For electromagnetic waves the standing waves produced from destructive interference can be matter.
Dale Wahl
If you do, then the destructive interference has removed that substance from the original waveform. The substance is now in the form of matter particles. Its called a standing wave and for all destructive interference no matter what kind of waves we observe, a standing wave is produced from destructive interference.
For water waves the standing wave produced from destructive interference is absorbed back into the body of water.
For sound waves the standing waves are absorbed back into what ever medium the sound was traveling through.
For electromagnetic waves the standing waves produced from destructive interference can be matter.
Dale Wahl
QUOTE (drwahl6913+Aug 31 2007, 05:57 PM)
then the destructive interference has removed that substance from the original waveform
Are you perfectly sure, do you know exactly, what are you talking about?
Anyway, which testable prediction follows from the idea of yours?
How can you falsify it?
Are you perfectly sure, do you know exactly, what are you talking about?
Anyway, which testable prediction follows from the idea of yours?
How can you falsify it?
QUOTE (drwahl6913+Aug 31 2007, 01:56 PM)
Why do you refer to these interactions as photon collisions? Are you claiming these photon interactions are different than the destructive interference which can be observed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum?
The wikipedia has a good article on two-photon physics, showing how it is a secondary interaction among the virtual particles created by a photon.
What does that have to do with destructive interference? I don't understand why you are equating the two.
The wikipedia has a good article on two-photon physics, showing how it is a secondary interaction among the virtual particles created by a photon.
What does that have to do with destructive interference? I don't understand why you are equating the two.
QUOTE (drwahl6913+Aug 31 2007, 02:57 PM)
Do you agree that an electromagnetic wave is made up of a substance?
If you do, then the destructive interference has removed that substance from the original waveform. The substance is now in the form of matter particles. Its called a standing wave and for all destructive interference no matter what kind of waves we observe, a standing wave is produced from destructive interference.
That does not make any sense whatsoever.
Quantum interference, as seen in the double-slit experiment, controls where a particle will be found -- where it is allowed to go.
Classical interference, like in radio waves, is when the antenna is affected in opposite ways at the same time, so no net electric field is seen.
A standing wave is one that retraces its path over and over again.
If you do, then the destructive interference has removed that substance from the original waveform. The substance is now in the form of matter particles. Its called a standing wave and for all destructive interference no matter what kind of waves we observe, a standing wave is produced from destructive interference.
That does not make any sense whatsoever.
Quantum interference, as seen in the double-slit experiment, controls where a particle will be found -- where it is allowed to go.
Classical interference, like in radio waves, is when the antenna is affected in opposite ways at the same time, so no net electric field is seen.
A standing wave is one that retraces its path over and over again.
I don't know how else to explain this, if we have a wave tank with a measured amount of water. Then we produce waves at one end of the wave tank and measure the amount of water in waveform and the amount of water not in waveform (the body of water making up the medium). Now if we produce the identical waves at the other end of the wave tank a destructive interference will take place between the waves. At the location where the destructive interference takes place we will notice a higher level of water as the standing wave is developed. If we could produce a single wave at each end of the tank when the waves meet in the middle and cancel each other out the water level where the waves met would be a higher water level, this is the standing wave. Which is then absorbed back into the body of water.
By your definition of the destructive interference of electromagnetic waves when applied to this water tank you are saying we will have less water in the tank as we cancel waves. This is not so, we will always have the same amount of water, some will be in waveform and some will not. This has to be true for electromagnetic waves too.
Even in the double slit experiment, destructive interference removes the electromagnetic energy from waveform which is observed as no light on the screen. Constructive interference can also be observed making up the bands of light which will appear on the screen.
Dale Wahl
By your definition of the destructive interference of electromagnetic waves when applied to this water tank you are saying we will have less water in the tank as we cancel waves. This is not so, we will always have the same amount of water, some will be in waveform and some will not. This has to be true for electromagnetic waves too.
Even in the double slit experiment, destructive interference removes the electromagnetic energy from waveform which is observed as no light on the screen. Constructive interference can also be observed making up the bands of light which will appear on the screen.
Dale Wahl
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.