From what I've read about this topic is basically this. Isaac Newton believed light was made up of particles. When Thomas Young performed the double slit experiment in the early 1800's, It seemed to show that Newton was wrong. The experiment seemed to clearly show that light spreads out from its source with wave like properties. For those not familiar with the experiment, I suggest doing a little reading on the subject. For those familiar with the subject I would like feedback on how to resolve the paradox. Does Light travel as a wave, particle or both? The way I view the problem, light is made up of particles (photons) that create waves. In the experiment when an ordinary light source is used, an interference pattern develops when light is allowed to go through both slits. The same holds true for individual photons fired one at a time even if the rate is slowed to one every ten seconds. How can this be? How can a photon that has traveled through the slits, struck the rear board and is absorbed, interfere with a photon that hasn't yet been fired? Good illustration of this experiment can be found in the book(The elegant universe, by Brian Greene pg. 97-101). Matter particles can also cause the interference pattern when fired at the two slits also. The experiment has been done in such a way to try to determine which path the particle will take. When a beam splitter or polarizer is used to determine the path of the particle, the interference pattern disappears. Richard Feynman believed that fully understanding this one experiment could unlock the mysteries of the quantum world. So it's worth the time studying it. I believe the reason particle's develop the interference pattern is due to the geometry of spacetime. It is thought that there could be extra dimensions possibly 10 spatial dimensions according to M-theory. We can only see in three spatial dimensions and visualize geometric shadow images of four. If we existed in a higher dimension, complex problems in our world could be easily solved. Much like us solving problems on a two dimensional or flat surface is easier than a three dimensional surface. We cant see the higher dimensions, but the double slit experiment might someday be used to see the shadows of the higher dimensions. How could this be done? I believe the answer lies in what is actually happening when photons and other particles are fired at the two slits. My visualization is that when a photon for example is fired, it interacts with the fabric of space. It could be reflected or refracted in hyperspace, the fabric is like a grid work that "lights up" or energizes when the photon is emitted. This signal is carried through both slits, so no matter which slit the particle enters from, it will interfere with it on the other side causing the interference pattern to develop. Could it be that when the photon is polarized it allows it to "slice" through without energizing the grid. I believe it's possible. To test my theory a test could be performed someday in outer space in "zero" gravity. Using a regular light source and a particle gun, different interference patterns may occur in space as opposed to the surface of the earth. For example the bands of light and shadows could be wider in space and more narrow on earth. Accelerating the experiment to duplicate higher gravity may show a different pattern. Adjusting wavelength, amplitude and intensity of the light source could be manipulated to learn more about the higher dimensions. When you look at the bands of light and shadows when using a regular light source the display reminds me of a spectrograph image. Could it be that the interference measured is the interaction of light with the higher dimensions? Wouldn't it be ironic if someday a device is constructed using the simple double slit experiment apparatus that allows the higher dimensions to be viewed much like we view the spectrum of light invisible to our eyes? One things for sure, it would be less expensive than building a particle accelerator!
server error
Hi Mike001,
Intelligent and well written... I think it is easy to see what is really happening. Light "propagates" as a wave and "interacts" as a particle. Light has no rest mass and so it "spreads" from the radiator...
Here you see the near field and the "Fresnel zone" of a dipole radiator of EM radiation. This is a "slice" in space through the fields. The lines are only the electric field lines and consecutive pancakes "circulate" in opposite directions (conventionally). The radiation pattern is toroidally symmetric but there are null zones in the pattern. Nothing is emitted along the null zones. In the active regions you see the characteristic 1/R^2 spreading pattern of all electromagnetism. Consider that the picture you are looking at is at a scale of 1:1. Now place your double slit a foot or two away from the source (continue the pattern in your minds-eye). Also consider that this pattern is identical regardless of the number of photons being emitted. One photon produces the same geometry between the "dead zones". Imagine this whole pattern is created by singly emitted photons. You see each individual photon will indeed pass through both slits at the same time. The "interaction" at the screen will be one photon at a time but will certainly build up to the full pattern over time.
Most of the other things you have said are dead on target especially regards extra dimensions. You need no assistance in those areas. The reason I believe that EM propagates in higher dimensions is simple practical considerations. Investigation of the transverse amplitudes of EM is not deforming "Space-time" at that scale. It could never do that because of it's intrinsic tension. What we are seeing is a "shadow" on space-time of a more flexible spacial property (Hint: Higher Dimensions). All this you already know.
There was a tendency to become "complicated". I like the adage... KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)... no offense
The Universe must be "simple", it all fits together and makes sense. Ignore what a lot of people tell you and think for yourself.
Cheers
Intelligent and well written... I think it is easy to see what is really happening. Light "propagates" as a wave and "interacts" as a particle. Light has no rest mass and so it "spreads" from the radiator...
Here you see the near field and the "Fresnel zone" of a dipole radiator of EM radiation. This is a "slice" in space through the fields. The lines are only the electric field lines and consecutive pancakes "circulate" in opposite directions (conventionally). The radiation pattern is toroidally symmetric but there are null zones in the pattern. Nothing is emitted along the null zones. In the active regions you see the characteristic 1/R^2 spreading pattern of all electromagnetism. Consider that the picture you are looking at is at a scale of 1:1. Now place your double slit a foot or two away from the source (continue the pattern in your minds-eye). Also consider that this pattern is identical regardless of the number of photons being emitted. One photon produces the same geometry between the "dead zones". Imagine this whole pattern is created by singly emitted photons. You see each individual photon will indeed pass through both slits at the same time. The "interaction" at the screen will be one photon at a time but will certainly build up to the full pattern over time.
Most of the other things you have said are dead on target especially regards extra dimensions. You need no assistance in those areas. The reason I believe that EM propagates in higher dimensions is simple practical considerations. Investigation of the transverse amplitudes of EM is not deforming "Space-time" at that scale. It could never do that because of it's intrinsic tension. What we are seeing is a "shadow" on space-time of a more flexible spacial property (Hint: Higher Dimensions). All this you already know.
There was a tendency to become "complicated". I like the adage... KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)... no offense
The Universe must be "simple", it all fits together and makes sense. Ignore what a lot of people tell you and think for yourself.Cheers
To Good Elf, thanks for the reply. Just so you know, I do try to keep things as simple as I can. I never took advanced mathematics so I'm limited to fully understanding some subjects. For the last eight years I've been browsing the Internet and reading books on physics, cosmology etc. Anyways, I guess I'm like lots of people, just trying to find answers and make sense of the world. Well, concerning the double slit experiment... First off I liked the animation of the wave pattern. It seems to also resemble a fractal that retains its shape at smaller and smaller scales. Its the interaction with the fractal geometry of spacetime that interests me. My main point is its possible that there is a misinterpretation of the results. Prior to the test being done with individual particles, the results appeared to be clear cut with no room to think otherwise. I brought out into the discussion what I thought may be other ways to tweak the experiment that could yield new insight. I wasn't sure for instance if this experiment has been performed trying all the different forms of electromagnetic radiation. We know that light will follow the curvature of space near a massive object like the sun, so I feel that the results of the double slit experiment should also change due to the effects of gravity. We may think we understand the results of this simple experiment today, but that could change dramatically with a new breakthrough in string theory for instance. The best example of what I'm describing would be the Michelson-Morley experiment. The results of this light beam experiment seemed to indicate that the earth was at a standstill and it wasn't until Einsteins special theory of relativity that showed how the speed of light will always measure the same, that made sense of the experiment. When individual particles are used in the double slit experiment it brings the quantum world into play which is filled with weirdness, where ( if you believe what the vast majority of physicists say), the concept of probability and chance determine what a particle may or may not do rather than a rigid rule of physics. So I guess until science understands the quantum world better, the complete interpretation of this experiment remains to be solved. As you indicated, to think of the universe for its simplicity rather than its complexity, I am in agreement. Although all the scientific data and experiment may indicate otherwise, I believe like Einstein, that "God doesn't throw dice". To me there has to be an order or harmony to the universe that doesn't rely on probability and chance to determine its outcome.
Hi Mike001,
Just a caution... being an "Elf" I am prone to be a little "unconventional" and could "mislead". what I offer is not often standard and "accepted" theory. That goes for what I have posted here. To my mind what I have said is "common sense" and direct interpretation of conventional theory. This is not the accepted interpretation of quantum theory.
Just a caution... being an "Elf" I am prone to be a little "unconventional" and could "mislead". what I offer is not often standard and "accepted" theory. That goes for what I have posted here. To my mind what I have said is "common sense" and direct interpretation of conventional theory. This is not the accepted interpretation of quantum theory.
QUOTE (Mike001 Posted on Nov 7 2005+ 04:03 AM)
( if you believe what the vast majority of physicists say), the concept of probability and chance determine what a particle may or may not do rather than a rigid rule of physics
You will find that is definitely not my view and that a lot of this is pure "mysticism" created to confuse those who want to sort this in their minds. This is because of the dominance of Mathematicians in Physics today.
Young's Interference Experiment is indeed the test of many theories. I point you toward Aharanov-Bohm Experiment to indicate the "cutting edge" of higher dimensional Physics. It is a variant of that experiment. I have spoken at length about this in the past.
You will find that is definitely not my view and that a lot of this is pure "mysticism" created to confuse those who want to sort this in their minds. This is because of the dominance of Mathematicians in Physics today.
Young's Interference Experiment is indeed the test of many theories. I point you toward Aharanov-Bohm Experiment to indicate the "cutting edge" of higher dimensional Physics. It is a variant of that experiment. I have spoken at length about this in the past.
QUOTE (Mike001 Posted on Nov 7 2005+ 04:03 AM)
... liked the animation... It seems to also resemble a fractal that retains its shape at smaller and smaller scales. Its the interaction with the fractal geometry of space-time that interests me
What you see there is the Inverse Square Law in action. For "light" to propagate the "index" of "2" must be "exact" otherwise the energy will be "trapped" within concentric shells from the origin of propagation. You may well imagine what "extra space-time curvature" due to mass sources must do to the energy flow and will affect Gauss' Laws for sources.
What you see there is the Inverse Square Law in action. For "light" to propagate the "index" of "2" must be "exact" otherwise the energy will be "trapped" within concentric shells from the origin of propagation. You may well imagine what "extra space-time curvature" due to mass sources must do to the energy flow and will affect Gauss' Laws for sources.
QUOTE (Mike001 Posted on Nov 7 2005+ 04:03 AM)
( if you believe what the vast majority of physicists say), the concept of probability and chance determine what a particle may or may not do rather than a rigid rule of physics
That is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quanta. There are many other interpretations and the Copenhagen Interpretation has been shown to fail under various "special cases" where we know extra information about systems. It is true that the quantum is not visible during it's travels, it is "hidden" from our 3D + T Space-time. I prefer the Bohmian Mechanical View of Quanta where the dynamics of a system chooses from the many worlds possible but chooses "uniquely" and predictably using the old well known laws. Of course if you are dealing with statistical "ensembles" they will behave "statistically". This is analogous to "gas pressure" in a vessel. Nobody knows where each atom is so we need to "generalize". However in the case of individual gas molecules whose dynamics are known I think we can guess better where the particle will end up than just applying statistics... such as a velocity and momentum collimated beam is not going to behave statistically is it? The same for quanta... you can't interfere with them and still be able to to work with them effectively... but when the quanta is in it's hidden mode there may be ways to determine after the event what dynamics was involved. In some special cases it may be possible to infer something about the hidden system such as those "wavelets" that we see on the surface of "space-time". As long as the photon has not undergone quantum demolition it is "still in play".
This "spreading" is not the whole story since the photon probably does not "actually" spread in the higher dimensions... it just looks that way from it's projection in space-time. In the same way your shadow spreads on the surface of the street away from you as you walk at night away from a small concentrated street light... so does this "apparition"of waves spread as an "inverse square" on the "almost flat" surface of space-time.
Cheers
That is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quanta. There are many other interpretations and the Copenhagen Interpretation has been shown to fail under various "special cases" where we know extra information about systems. It is true that the quantum is not visible during it's travels, it is "hidden" from our 3D + T Space-time. I prefer the Bohmian Mechanical View of Quanta where the dynamics of a system chooses from the many worlds possible but chooses "uniquely" and predictably using the old well known laws. Of course if you are dealing with statistical "ensembles" they will behave "statistically". This is analogous to "gas pressure" in a vessel. Nobody knows where each atom is so we need to "generalize". However in the case of individual gas molecules whose dynamics are known I think we can guess better where the particle will end up than just applying statistics... such as a velocity and momentum collimated beam is not going to behave statistically is it? The same for quanta... you can't interfere with them and still be able to to work with them effectively... but when the quanta is in it's hidden mode there may be ways to determine after the event what dynamics was involved. In some special cases it may be possible to infer something about the hidden system such as those "wavelets" that we see on the surface of "space-time". As long as the photon has not undergone quantum demolition it is "still in play".
This "spreading" is not the whole story since the photon probably does not "actually" spread in the higher dimensions... it just looks that way from it's projection in space-time. In the same way your shadow spreads on the surface of the street away from you as you walk at night away from a small concentrated street light... so does this "apparition"of waves spread as an "inverse square" on the "almost flat" surface of space-time.
Cheers
To Good Elf, thanks again for the reply. I will read up on the topics you indicated. If the Bohm is David Bohm I'm sure it will be good. I have read of his early work with holographic theory. When I post again I will do it in the relativity, quantum mechanics, new theories forum. Good bye for now.
mr G.Elf the dipole radiator graphic is very interesting. I would like to project it on a larger screen. where can I find it? is it available to download?
Hi herbo21k,
Sure... all these images on web pages have a link location. Anything you see on any page you can download. I use Mozilla and I just right click on the image and the details are to be found there...
I did a "copy" image location and I will paste it here (control v) ..
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/PAGE1/Pic3.gif
This is where a lot more "animation" information can be obtained...
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/
Notice that I used the image link to "dig around" and recover the source page.
Cheers
QUOTE
where can I find it? is it available to download?
Sure... all these images on web pages have a link location. Anything you see on any page you can download. I use Mozilla and I just right click on the image and the details are to be found there...
I did a "copy" image location and I will paste it here (control v) ..
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/PAGE1/Pic3.gif
This is where a lot more "animation" information can be obtained...
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/
Notice that I used the image link to "dig around" and recover the source page.
Cheers
Mr. G Elf: thank you for the animation tip. I don't spend a lot of time on the web and it has become a galaxy in its own right, a vast territory to explore, and many such sites (sights) are easily obscured by dust clouds. Your shadow on the street analogy was very telling.
Hi herbo21k,
For a full exposition look at this thread and a few posts above...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
This one links some things together as well...
Lights Clock and the "Topological Photon"
Cheers
QUOTE
Your shadow on the street analogy was very telling.
For a full exposition look at this thread and a few posts above...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
This one links some things together as well...
Lights Clock and the "Topological Photon"
Cheers
The particle/wave nature of light can be explained if we define light as having three parameters of mass, distance and time. The mass=0 aspect of energy defines the particles nature of light and moves at the speed of light. The distance and time aspects, by showing finite distance and time or wavelength and frequency is the wave aspect of energy. Something traveling uniformly at C should be fully time dilated and distance contracted. But light does not show this. Its finite distance and time implies only its mass=0 at C. While the distance and time are less than C allowing it to change from reference to reference. Only the mass=0 aspect is the same in all references.
Hi guys, first of all I believe that light is both a particle and a wave, as explained by Einstein's winning piece the photo-electric effect which is now being used. However, could the same be true with sound - that it is both a particle and a wave? My understanding of quanta and math are near to non existent but if you could capture light particles thru solar cells, can the same be applied to sound particles which can be captured thru some device thus making possible the equivalent of "sonar" cells - cells that can capture sound and convert it into electrical energy, that is if sound is likewise a particle and a wave? Hmm, I'm confused but it's like a reverse speaker or something like that right? Pardon me for interrupting this thread but am confused.... and I would just like to ask this - Is sound likewise a particle and a wave much like light, which was proved to be true by Einstein?...
Hi pinoycreep,
He he he... Good point. This is my take on it... Sound is sinusoidally longitudinal varying pressure waves in air... Pressure waves exert force. Force is the result of virtual photons (that is if you believe in them). So in a way sound is the result of virtual particles.
Taken to the extreme sound in water or some hydrogenous fluids like dry cleaning fluid.. result in cavitation (tiny bubbles) and this process can release flashes of light in the implosion phase. If the sound waves are of high enough frequency (Ultrasonic frequencies) and the system is driven "just right" this process is called Sonoluminescence and some say the light is the result of thermonuclear fusion... a teeny bit of it... and that can produce neutrons as well as light.
Cheers
He he he... Good point. This is my take on it... Sound is sinusoidally longitudinal varying pressure waves in air... Pressure waves exert force. Force is the result of virtual photons (that is if you believe in them). So in a way sound is the result of virtual particles.
Taken to the extreme sound in water or some hydrogenous fluids like dry cleaning fluid.. result in cavitation (tiny bubbles) and this process can release flashes of light in the implosion phase. If the sound waves are of high enough frequency (Ultrasonic frequencies) and the system is driven "just right" this process is called Sonoluminescence and some say the light is the result of thermonuclear fusion... a teeny bit of it... and that can produce neutrons as well as light.
Cheers
I don't think you're going to like this..
"The probability of detecting a photon at any point is the sum of all the probabilities of the photon being detected at that point by any path " (Feynman)
There is a rather boring version of Feynman's suggestion .. if a photon isn't detected first time round it is free to wander, for example it might bounce off the wall, be reflected off a cup, out of the window, off the surface of the moon, back through the window, back to the point where you are waiting to detect it, in this way all possible paths add to the probability - clearly the photon does not actually have to check them out as this is purely additive. To lower the probability of detection the photon would have to check out all the alternative paths. The two slit experiment demonstrates that alternative paths do lower the probability of detection..there it is, I knew you wouldn't like it. QED Feynman.
"The probability of detecting a photon at any point is the sum of all the probabilities of the photon being detected at that point by any path " (Feynman)
There is a rather boring version of Feynman's suggestion .. if a photon isn't detected first time round it is free to wander, for example it might bounce off the wall, be reflected off a cup, out of the window, off the surface of the moon, back through the window, back to the point where you are waiting to detect it, in this way all possible paths add to the probability - clearly the photon does not actually have to check them out as this is purely additive. To lower the probability of detection the photon would have to check out all the alternative paths. The two slit experiment demonstrates that alternative paths do lower the probability of detection..there it is, I knew you wouldn't like it. QED Feynman.
Hi confused2,
No problem... a single photon only ends up in one place. Photons will not "bounce" off the moon or hang around in bars to have another go later. . The function is not "purely" additive... it is phase (vector) additive. While all possible paths do contribute they can also contribute "negatively". The strongest contribution usually always comes from along the direction of the direct "ray". Block that path and you can really stuff it up.
Which photons probability of detection is lowered by having so many paths? Is it one of the photons I am detecting on the screen??? In what way is that photon "less detectable"? Remember only one photon is getting through the slits at a time. I could put a card in front of the light source and no photons will ever be detected and that does not matter how many alternative paths are available. Photon Detection is either a "yes" or a "no"... not "less" or "more".
Bohmian Mechanics is totally consistent with current theory and you will find no difference in statistical outcomes regardless of the choice of this theory or Copenhagen Interpretation. The truth is it is not that mysterious.
Cheers
No problem... a single photon only ends up in one place. Photons will not "bounce" off the moon or hang around in bars to have another go later. . The function is not "purely" additive... it is phase (vector) additive. While all possible paths do contribute they can also contribute "negatively". The strongest contribution usually always comes from along the direction of the direct "ray". Block that path and you can really stuff it up.
Which photons probability of detection is lowered by having so many paths? Is it one of the photons I am detecting on the screen??? In what way is that photon "less detectable"? Remember only one photon is getting through the slits at a time. I could put a card in front of the light source and no photons will ever be detected and that does not matter how many alternative paths are available. Photon Detection is either a "yes" or a "no"... not "less" or "more".
Bohmian Mechanics is totally consistent with current theory and you will find no difference in statistical outcomes regardless of the choice of this theory or Copenhagen Interpretation. The truth is it is not that mysterious.
Cheers
Hello Good_Elf,
Have I missed the point or what? As you point out..
Um. yes..
Um. yes..
Which photons probability of detection is lowered by having so many paths? Is it one of the photons I am detecting on the screen??? In what way is that photon "less detectable"?
Um.. I think I noticed some pre-edit mention of time spent in the bar..
The photons remain just as detectable, the result as I understand it is that they are detected less often in the areas where 'classical wave' destructive interference would be expected and more often where 'classical wave' constructive interference would be expected - the result builds up in time to give exactly the result expected if light were a wave phenomenon. Even though photon detection is a "yes" or a "no" event the relative count (the "probability of detection" which I mentioned) gives the peaks and troughs which we would associate with a wave phenomenon.
This was a result which I expected to divide the community into wave and photon camps - I'm not sure which (if either) you have settled into.
At present I am only concerned with the experimental result - I have not yet reached the point of attempting to interpret the result - but I have ideas - as you might guess.
Best wishes, C2.
Have I missed the point or what? As you point out..
QUOTE
While all possible paths do contribute they can also contribute "negatively".
Um. yes..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While all possible paths do contribute they can also contribute "negatively". |
Um. yes..
Which photons probability of detection is lowered by having so many paths? Is it one of the photons I am detecting on the screen??? In what way is that photon "less detectable"?
Um.. I think I noticed some pre-edit mention of time spent in the bar..
The photons remain just as detectable, the result as I understand it is that they are detected less often in the areas where 'classical wave' destructive interference would be expected and more often where 'classical wave' constructive interference would be expected - the result builds up in time to give exactly the result expected if light were a wave phenomenon. Even though photon detection is a "yes" or a "no" event the relative count (the "probability of detection" which I mentioned) gives the peaks and troughs which we would associate with a wave phenomenon.
This was a result which I expected to divide the community into wave and photon camps - I'm not sure which (if either) you have settled into.
At present I am only concerned with the experimental result - I have not yet reached the point of attempting to interpret the result - but I have ideas - as you might guess.
Best wishes, C2.
Hello all
My understanding for the duality of light is based on two things (at the moment).
1) Light travels as a wave and is subject to wave mechanics.
2) Matter will interact with said waves as a function of probability, intensity, and frequency of the wave. This interaction involves the absorption of a quantum of energy (photon) or the redirection of the wave (some types of scattering). Trying to understand how this "interaction" takes place is a subject of current theories.
My understanding for the duality of light is based on two things (at the moment).
1) Light travels as a wave and is subject to wave mechanics.
2) Matter will interact with said waves as a function of probability, intensity, and frequency of the wave. This interaction involves the absorption of a quantum of energy (photon) or the redirection of the wave (some types of scattering). Trying to understand how this "interaction" takes place is a subject of current theories.
conf.2 / GE,
Isn't the definition of the postulated "photon" a discreet quanta of energy?
How then does one "count" photons?
ISL only applies to Intensity of light, not to the Quantity. A measurement of the intensity, therefore, can NOT determine a quantity since energy is Frequency dependent, and not Quantity dependent.
I have stated before that as long as all the "photons" are coming from the same source, there is no way to change the "phase pattern" that appears on the screen. The first resonance "off the wall" will still be in existence when the next vibration comes through the slit. They DO interact, that is the outcome of the experiment. Reducing the intensity does NOTHING to quantify the pulsed vibration (photon).
Think about drops of water hitting a surface of water in a bucket: only with a separation of time between drops long enough to have the surface completely settle down can allow an accurate measurement of "a water drop" (quanta). As long as your faucet is "set" (same source) the drops that fall will be PERIODIC. Periodic drops hitting a still oscillating surface (from the last Periodic drop) will produce a PERIODIC pattern.
The only way I can see around this is to set up a "Gatling gun" of separate electrons. The "barrels" could fire from the exact same point, yet truly represent "one at a time", independent pulses of discreet energy.
TRoc
Isn't the definition of the postulated "photon" a discreet quanta of energy?
How then does one "count" photons?
ISL only applies to Intensity of light, not to the Quantity. A measurement of the intensity, therefore, can NOT determine a quantity since energy is Frequency dependent, and not Quantity dependent.
I have stated before that as long as all the "photons" are coming from the same source, there is no way to change the "phase pattern" that appears on the screen. The first resonance "off the wall" will still be in existence when the next vibration comes through the slit. They DO interact, that is the outcome of the experiment. Reducing the intensity does NOTHING to quantify the pulsed vibration (photon).
Think about drops of water hitting a surface of water in a bucket: only with a separation of time between drops long enough to have the surface completely settle down can allow an accurate measurement of "a water drop" (quanta). As long as your faucet is "set" (same source) the drops that fall will be PERIODIC. Periodic drops hitting a still oscillating surface (from the last Periodic drop) will produce a PERIODIC pattern.
The only way I can see around this is to set up a "Gatling gun" of separate electrons. The "barrels" could fire from the exact same point, yet truly represent "one at a time", independent pulses of discreet energy.
TRoc
When talking about photons, wave-particle duality comes in to the equation. Photons have the characteristics of both particles and waves. de Broglie found something very astonishing, all matter propagates like a wave. Schrödinger's equation which i forget what it is exactly but is something to do with planks contact divided by momentum, shows the extent of this propagation. We do not feel that we propagate because we are large, but the propagation of electrons has been observed so this is not theory anymore, its proven!
I think that classifying something as either wave or particle is deeply flawed, because infact everything is made form some kind of particle and waves do not exist and are just an illusion. Imagine a so called sound wave, it is just the propagation of particles in the air that cause this wave, but the wave does not exist.
A wave can be used to send information and is just a certain movement of particles, particles create waves, but waves are not tangible objects they are just a characteristic of the movement of particles, particles are the tangible objects!
I think that classifying something as either wave or particle is deeply flawed, because infact everything is made form some kind of particle and waves do not exist and are just an illusion. Imagine a so called sound wave, it is just the propagation of particles in the air that cause this wave, but the wave does not exist.
A wave can be used to send information and is just a certain movement of particles, particles create waves, but waves are not tangible objects they are just a characteristic of the movement of particles, particles are the tangible objects!
Hi Montec,
If light was a wave then there would be no problem - Good_Elf would agree that when you shine a light (waves) on a book then a bit might go out of the window, down the road, bounce off a beer tankard, and so on until it eventually comes back and makes a small (very small) contribution to the light you actually see while reading your book. Quantum mechanics was a bit shy about this effect until Feynman grasped it and said particles (photons) can do that too - anything waves can do particles can do too, generally known as "a sum over paths" theory or something similar. The only slight problem with it is that it seems absolutely ridiculous when you use particles and probability instead of waves and intensity. The probability often gets ridiculously small but it remains finite - just as with waves. The same game appears when receiving light from distant stars - the probability of detecting a photon falls off with the square of the distance - but remains finite no matter how dim or far away the star is. If you wish you can do away with your wavicles altogether - but it comes at a price - people will think you are mad. The choice is yours. A book called QED by Richard Feynman would be the place to start..
Hi Troc,
Yes you can count photons. The detectors used to be like Geiger Muller tubes - a photon strikes a metal plate - releases an electron , high voltage causes the the electron to accelerate and it crashes into gas in the tube - more electrons - called a photomultiplier - you get a pulse for each photon - just count the pulses. Semiconductors may have replaced vacuum devices over the last 30 years or so but the principle is pretty much the same. The energy you get from (say) a distant star is replaced by the probability of receiving a photon from it - ISL still works but is not quite as deterministic as you might like.
In the 2 slit experiment the phase pattern you see on the screen has been replaced by photon counters , there is no screen. The photons are released sufficiently slowly that the first is detected before the next is fired. There is no interaction btween photons - there is only one photon at a time- the pattern still emerges as the counts build up.
If you find conclusive evidence that I am the victim of one hell of a joke - please let me know - until then - it's up to you.
Best wishes, C2.
If light was a wave then there would be no problem - Good_Elf would agree that when you shine a light (waves) on a book then a bit might go out of the window, down the road, bounce off a beer tankard, and so on until it eventually comes back and makes a small (very small) contribution to the light you actually see while reading your book. Quantum mechanics was a bit shy about this effect until Feynman grasped it and said particles (photons) can do that too - anything waves can do particles can do too, generally known as "a sum over paths" theory or something similar. The only slight problem with it is that it seems absolutely ridiculous when you use particles and probability instead of waves and intensity. The probability often gets ridiculously small but it remains finite - just as with waves. The same game appears when receiving light from distant stars - the probability of detecting a photon falls off with the square of the distance - but remains finite no matter how dim or far away the star is. If you wish you can do away with your wavicles altogether - but it comes at a price - people will think you are mad. The choice is yours. A book called QED by Richard Feynman would be the place to start..
Hi Troc,
Yes you can count photons. The detectors used to be like Geiger Muller tubes - a photon strikes a metal plate - releases an electron , high voltage causes the the electron to accelerate and it crashes into gas in the tube - more electrons - called a photomultiplier - you get a pulse for each photon - just count the pulses. Semiconductors may have replaced vacuum devices over the last 30 years or so but the principle is pretty much the same. The energy you get from (say) a distant star is replaced by the probability of receiving a photon from it - ISL still works but is not quite as deterministic as you might like.
In the 2 slit experiment the phase pattern you see on the screen has been replaced by photon counters , there is no screen. The photons are released sufficiently slowly that the first is detected before the next is fired. There is no interaction btween photons - there is only one photon at a time- the pattern still emerges as the counts build up.
If you find conclusive evidence that I am the victim of one hell of a joke - please let me know - until then - it's up to you.
Best wishes, C2.
confused2,
Well, the whole World is probably the biggest joke; don't feel singled out.
I have to "hold the line" here.
NO "photon" has ever been seen, measured, etc. ONLY the results of energies transfered by waves.
Therefore, you can only measure ENERGY, and more precisely (because h is in the equation) the Quanta. Energy has a way of changing via superposition that IS NOT accounted for as of yet by the Texts.
All that is happening is measuring an amount of energy, and dividing by Planck's constant to reach the assumed # of photons. This is not good Science to me; the equation produces the expected results by default.
I'll restate my analogy..
Think about drops of water hitting a surface of water in a bucket: only with a separation of time between drops long enough to have the surface completely settle down can allow an accurate measurement of "a water drop" (quanta). As long as your faucet is "set" (same source) the drops that fall will be PERIODIC. Periodic drops hitting a still oscillating surface (from the last Periodic drop) will produce a PERIODIC pattern.
DETECTING the drop before releasing the next one DOES NOT guarantee that the vibrations have dissipated. Only a specific amount of time can mathematically eliminate beat frequencies.
From what I have read, the time between the "assumed" photons is not enough. I say assumed again because they CAN NOT be seen "in flight". The pulse is a "packet" that consists of resonant frequencies LESS than that which will trigger the counter. That means LONGER wavelengths covering MORE distance at the FIXED speed of light; these longer wavelengths exist before and after the frequency that triggers the energy counter, and they ALL leave the same body (a few atoms) that has a definite period, or phase. The whole system (experiment) is co-related; not too much unlike entanglement.
Check again on the inverse square as it applies to light. It only covers INTENSITY, NOT energy, NOT speed, NOT distance.
TRoc
Well, the whole World is probably the biggest joke; don't feel singled out.
I have to "hold the line" here.
NO "photon" has ever been seen, measured, etc. ONLY the results of energies transfered by waves.
Therefore, you can only measure ENERGY, and more precisely (because h is in the equation) the Quanta. Energy has a way of changing via superposition that IS NOT accounted for as of yet by the Texts.
All that is happening is measuring an amount of energy, and dividing by Planck's constant to reach the assumed # of photons. This is not good Science to me; the equation produces the expected results by default.
I'll restate my analogy..
Think about drops of water hitting a surface of water in a bucket: only with a separation of time between drops long enough to have the surface completely settle down can allow an accurate measurement of "a water drop" (quanta). As long as your faucet is "set" (same source) the drops that fall will be PERIODIC. Periodic drops hitting a still oscillating surface (from the last Periodic drop) will produce a PERIODIC pattern.
DETECTING the drop before releasing the next one DOES NOT guarantee that the vibrations have dissipated. Only a specific amount of time can mathematically eliminate beat frequencies.
From what I have read, the time between the "assumed" photons is not enough. I say assumed again because they CAN NOT be seen "in flight". The pulse is a "packet" that consists of resonant frequencies LESS than that which will trigger the counter. That means LONGER wavelengths covering MORE distance at the FIXED speed of light; these longer wavelengths exist before and after the frequency that triggers the energy counter, and they ALL leave the same body (a few atoms) that has a definite period, or phase. The whole system (experiment) is co-related; not too much unlike entanglement.
Check again on the inverse square as it applies to light. It only covers INTENSITY, NOT energy, NOT speed, NOT distance.
TRoc
Hi confused2,
Yep... you got me on that one? I guess what I am actually saying is this... looking at the dipole radiation pattern "above" The actual "size" that individual photons "wave" spread over does not match the "final" size of the photon "particle" condense on to. The former "encompass" a huge solid angle of "interaction" yet when the photon drops out of "uberspace" it is a very small flash on a phosphor screen. This is just indicating that the single photon "feels" a large area of the zone of interaction by its wave nature (interference) and even both slits are felt at the same time. Of course since this is one photon it will make only one flash on the screen. The difference is this if the photon had "mass" it would "live" in a small depression in the Uberspace and attempts to spread out of its little depression would be unsuccessful because it now is a non-inverse square law "particle" and the energy will stay inside a finite distance from its "centroid". In both cases of no mass and mass particles large numbers spread according to the inverse square law.
In the first case it is as shown in that animated image. In the case of particles with mass they would spread as a heap of small BB's in all direction and as a collection would exhibit an inverse square law of spreading independent of how much each individual particle itself "spreads". Now think of the single individual photon and a single individual mass particle say an electron or proton or neutron, the photons spread because they are "massless" on a flat Minkowski space-time (no mass source) and the particles with mass do not "individually" spread at all in their "personal" individual (rest) frame of reference, their size will depend on their mass and how far the energy will propagate away before it returns to the source "inductively" (a near-field), this is the phase velocity of the particle in its own frame of reference whereas the group velocity is less than C. See my point? The photons exhibit Bose-Einstein Statistics (a billion of them can exist in the one spot and violate PEP) whereas the particles with mass obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics and obey PEP). The first particle we think of as "soft" and the latter particles we think of as "hard".
The "hard" particles need a totally different slot spacing in order to exhibit the interference more in keeping with their "de Broglie" wavelength. The photon is the exchange particle "inside" this bubble Universe and it travels by spreading as a massless and chargeless wave. Yet a photon is not entirely chargeless since it is a dynamic EM wave. Other particles with mass or charge travel at less than light speed, do not spread beyond a short range. Indeed they can sit in one spot and they will only "spread" a little bit according to de Broglie.
Move it faster its wavelength shortens. etc. Notice without the relativistic correction wavelength goes to "infinity" which is not true. Most texts "forget" to show this form of the de Broglie wavelength.
Cheers
Yep... you got me on that one? I guess what I am actually saying is this... looking at the dipole radiation pattern "above" The actual "size" that individual photons "wave" spread over does not match the "final" size of the photon "particle" condense on to. The former "encompass" a huge solid angle of "interaction" yet when the photon drops out of "uberspace" it is a very small flash on a phosphor screen. This is just indicating that the single photon "feels" a large area of the zone of interaction by its wave nature (interference) and even both slits are felt at the same time. Of course since this is one photon it will make only one flash on the screen. The difference is this if the photon had "mass" it would "live" in a small depression in the Uberspace and attempts to spread out of its little depression would be unsuccessful because it now is a non-inverse square law "particle" and the energy will stay inside a finite distance from its "centroid". In both cases of no mass and mass particles large numbers spread according to the inverse square law.In the first case it is as shown in that animated image. In the case of particles with mass they would spread as a heap of small BB's in all direction and as a collection would exhibit an inverse square law of spreading independent of how much each individual particle itself "spreads". Now think of the single individual photon and a single individual mass particle say an electron or proton or neutron, the photons spread because they are "massless" on a flat Minkowski space-time (no mass source) and the particles with mass do not "individually" spread at all in their "personal" individual (rest) frame of reference, their size will depend on their mass and how far the energy will propagate away before it returns to the source "inductively" (a near-field), this is the phase velocity of the particle in its own frame of reference whereas the group velocity is less than C. See my point? The photons exhibit Bose-Einstein Statistics (a billion of them can exist in the one spot and violate PEP) whereas the particles with mass obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics and obey PEP). The first particle we think of as "soft" and the latter particles we think of as "hard".
The "hard" particles need a totally different slot spacing in order to exhibit the interference more in keeping with their "de Broglie" wavelength. The photon is the exchange particle "inside" this bubble Universe and it travels by spreading as a massless and chargeless wave. Yet a photon is not entirely chargeless since it is a dynamic EM wave. Other particles with mass or charge travel at less than light speed, do not spread beyond a short range. Indeed they can sit in one spot and they will only "spread" a little bit according to de Broglie.
Move it faster its wavelength shortens. etc. Notice without the relativistic correction wavelength goes to "infinity" which is not true. Most texts "forget" to show this form of the de Broglie wavelength.
Cheers
Hi confused2,
I have added something to this post above... it will need to be re-read. I think it means more now.
Cheers
I have added something to this post above... it will need to be re-read. I think it means more now.
Cheers
Hello Good_Elf - I was planning a grand exposition of QM type stuff here but have run out of time to finish - just writing it down has involved checking stuff as best I can - its not MY theory so don't shoot the messenger. I'll edit it in here later.. unless someone fills it in for me. I don't think the thread is 'complete' without it.
meanwhile..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_over_paths
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/~www/feynman/feynmanc.html
http://advancingphysics.iop.org/teacher/revision/QED.html
Mrs C2 insists I celebrate Xmasfest in some way so I shall be festering away until the 29th or so.
Best wishes - C2.
meanwhile..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_over_paths
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/~www/feynman/feynmanc.html
http://advancingphysics.iop.org/teacher/revision/QED.html
Mrs C2 insists I celebrate Xmasfest in some way so I shall be festering away until the 29th or so.
Best wishes - C2.
I am so pleased nobody elase has felt brave enough to attempt this.. the views expressed are my own .. and are the result of some years of thought.. and may well be totally incorrect or misleading.. judge for yourself.. feel free to say you hate it..
If we have a 60 Watt light bulb in a roon .. assuming just 3 Watt of visible light E=hf
h = 6.6 x 10^-34 and f = approx 5x10^14 Hx so E per photon = 30 x 10^-20
Our 3 Watt is giving us about 10^19 photons per second spread over the whole of the visible spectrum. Generally the room has darker bits, bits in shadow and so on. Even the bits in shadow are not completely dark. If you have a few CDs or DVDs lying around then there will be complex interference patterns generated. Starting with (say) 10^19 photons you don't have to worry about the rate they are arriving - there will be always be enough to fool you into thinking the light is arriving continuously. If the light is reflected off a million surfaces each of which reflect 1% - there are still something like 10^7 photons per second remaining.
See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quan...e_a_photon.html for a comment on the sensitivity of the human eye to photons.
One of the claims made by Quantum mechanics is that the light bulb could be replaced by a source that emits these same photons over a period of (say) 10^19 years (1 photon a year) and every reflection, interference effect and all else will still occur in exactly the same way. Clearly we would have to replace the concept of 'light intensity' by photon count. In fairness there would be some error in all the counts - not because we have made a mistake but because the outcome is the result of probability rather than absolutely defined results for each situation.
In our slow experiment each photon has some probability of ending up in any particular place in our final picture. I hear someone say - but if we know it's heading.. yes, you have a point, maybe this the one that bounces off the detector instead of being detected and 5 reflections later is the very one that makes up the count for the photons diffracted by the CD's on the other side of the room - it isn't for us to say, know or care - we just count. Why can't we know where it will go in advance? You just can't. With 10^19 photons you can say what will happen 'most of the time' but one isn't 'most of the time' - it's just one.
The 'probability of detection' has made no prediction about 'when' the photon will be detected - the speed of light has dropped out of the picture. With the loss of the velocity of light we have also dropped out of Minkowski space. Without the weight of sheer numbers we are trying to make predictions with only probability to guide us. Dipole radiation tells the masses about the masses but says nothing about the individuals that make up the mass - quantum mechanics attempts to deal with the individual.
I think that is already enough to stir up a hornets nest so I'll stop. I'd have liked to have done "how big is a photon" - maybe later.
Best wishes from a very full post Xmas C2.
If we have a 60 Watt light bulb in a roon .. assuming just 3 Watt of visible light E=hf
h = 6.6 x 10^-34 and f = approx 5x10^14 Hx so E per photon = 30 x 10^-20
Our 3 Watt is giving us about 10^19 photons per second spread over the whole of the visible spectrum. Generally the room has darker bits, bits in shadow and so on. Even the bits in shadow are not completely dark. If you have a few CDs or DVDs lying around then there will be complex interference patterns generated. Starting with (say) 10^19 photons you don't have to worry about the rate they are arriving - there will be always be enough to fool you into thinking the light is arriving continuously. If the light is reflected off a million surfaces each of which reflect 1% - there are still something like 10^7 photons per second remaining.
See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quan...e_a_photon.html for a comment on the sensitivity of the human eye to photons.
One of the claims made by Quantum mechanics is that the light bulb could be replaced by a source that emits these same photons over a period of (say) 10^19 years (1 photon a year) and every reflection, interference effect and all else will still occur in exactly the same way. Clearly we would have to replace the concept of 'light intensity' by photon count. In fairness there would be some error in all the counts - not because we have made a mistake but because the outcome is the result of probability rather than absolutely defined results for each situation.
In our slow experiment each photon has some probability of ending up in any particular place in our final picture. I hear someone say - but if we know it's heading.. yes, you have a point, maybe this the one that bounces off the detector instead of being detected and 5 reflections later is the very one that makes up the count for the photons diffracted by the CD's on the other side of the room - it isn't for us to say, know or care - we just count. Why can't we know where it will go in advance? You just can't. With 10^19 photons you can say what will happen 'most of the time' but one isn't 'most of the time' - it's just one.
The 'probability of detection' has made no prediction about 'when' the photon will be detected - the speed of light has dropped out of the picture. With the loss of the velocity of light we have also dropped out of Minkowski space. Without the weight of sheer numbers we are trying to make predictions with only probability to guide us. Dipole radiation tells the masses about the masses but says nothing about the individuals that make up the mass - quantum mechanics attempts to deal with the individual.
I think that is already enough to stir up a hornets nest so I'll stop. I'd have liked to have done "how big is a photon" - maybe later.
Best wishes from a very full post Xmas C2.
Hi confused2,
I think what I am trying to get across there is in the standard picture of a photon it is dealt with as a small particle of a size defined by the wavelength. While with spreading waves such as those in the animated gif, the wavelength does not change as it spreads but the "spread" axially "appears" to increase its size. When you consider the fact that this is just the inverse square law in operation (representing a space symmetry) we notice that the wave have large pancake shaped circulating "vortices" expanding in the same way that the image indicates even if there is only one photon at a time. This is the wave nature of the photon. The incongruity comes when the photon "interacts" as a particle, it is suddenly "localized" to a particle of the size of the wavelength somewhere on that expanding pancake surface. If it is traveling in a higher dimensional space than simple minkowski space-time , what you are seeing "on" the surface of minkowski space-time is an optical effect not the "real particle".
I respect the Feynman interpretation (one has to really) and I have a copy of that book, I am "seduced" to have this alternative interpretation that "classically" arrives at the same result. The question then only becomes which photon went where? All photons propagating in the general direction "feel" both slits in the zone of interaction, and thus in a Bohmian Mechanical sense the photons pick and choose where to go based on "internal" properties of the photon and its dynamics. All those photons being emitted simply "add" to the intensity of the effect because they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics as bosons but the interaction with "electrons" has the PEP and Fermi-Dirac Statistics and spreads them out.
The bit about seeing photons is quite interesting... when you think about it... it must be true otherwise you would not see photons at all. To see any particular photon it must actually enter the eye... though so we never see photons in transit, because they would be "destroyed" by the very act of seeing itself. What we are seeing are really "secondary dephased photons" scattered from the interaction but not absorbed into the screen?? Is that your take on it? If a photon was "totally absorbed" by the screen, we would not see it either. Any comment there? The screen is acting like an imperfect mirror to a portion of the photons. That way we see them with the same approximate frequency of the original photon, sometimes modified by the absorber material which removes some energy from some of them coloring the reflected diffuse light (modifying its frequency) from the screen you see with your eye.
Cheers
I think what I am trying to get across there is in the standard picture of a photon it is dealt with as a small particle of a size defined by the wavelength. While with spreading waves such as those in the animated gif, the wavelength does not change as it spreads but the "spread" axially "appears" to increase its size. When you consider the fact that this is just the inverse square law in operation (representing a space symmetry) we notice that the wave have large pancake shaped circulating "vortices" expanding in the same way that the image indicates even if there is only one photon at a time. This is the wave nature of the photon. The incongruity comes when the photon "interacts" as a particle, it is suddenly "localized" to a particle of the size of the wavelength somewhere on that expanding pancake surface. If it is traveling in a higher dimensional space than simple minkowski space-time , what you are seeing "on" the surface of minkowski space-time is an optical effect not the "real particle".
I respect the Feynman interpretation (one has to really) and I have a copy of that book, I am "seduced" to have this alternative interpretation that "classically" arrives at the same result. The question then only becomes which photon went where? All photons propagating in the general direction "feel" both slits in the zone of interaction, and thus in a Bohmian Mechanical sense the photons pick and choose where to go based on "internal" properties of the photon and its dynamics. All those photons being emitted simply "add" to the intensity of the effect because they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics as bosons but the interaction with "electrons" has the PEP and Fermi-Dirac Statistics and spreads them out.
The bit about seeing photons is quite interesting... when you think about it... it must be true otherwise you would not see photons at all. To see any particular photon it must actually enter the eye... though so we never see photons in transit, because they would be "destroyed" by the very act of seeing itself. What we are seeing are really "secondary dephased photons" scattered from the interaction but not absorbed into the screen?? Is that your take on it? If a photon was "totally absorbed" by the screen, we would not see it either. Any comment there? The screen is acting like an imperfect mirror to a portion of the photons. That way we see them with the same approximate frequency of the original photon, sometimes modified by the absorber material which removes some energy from some of them coloring the reflected diffuse light (modifying its frequency) from the screen you see with your eye.
Cheers
Hi Good_Elf,
This is difficult - if I seem certain it is because I am uncertain - conclusions can be demonstrably wrong - indecision goes on forever...
.. and pigs may fly ..
I think what I am trying to get across is that when you draw your dipole radiation is that what you are really drawing is a probability distribution. I suspect the incongruity between waves and their interaction arises because the waves were never there in the first place. A dipole fed at its resonant frequency is pretty - feed it with noise and its not so pretty. Feed a black body radiator with thermal (or random) noise and I think we are closer to the real world. I didn't start this with this in mind but I feel you (we) need to make a choice between free electrons and 'bound electrons' at some stage. A dipole is possibly the most confusing because it combines a well defined state - verging on a quantum state (the optimum radiation frequency) without the E=hf component . I'm too tired to rewrite this para in logical format but I hope hope it makes some sense to you. Also ... I think the free electron is an unreliable detector - the screen you mentioned I think is much better - I'd say its about as reliable as the back of the eye (best we've got) - I'd trust it. Anything that does not destroy the photon you're trying to look at just leaves you wondering what trick its going to get up to next.
In fairness to Feynman he does not claim he has an interpretation - simply a method that works (brilliantly) - he could get away with that because of who he was. It may be bathwater or it may have the baby right in the middle of it. We're stuck with trying to get some sort of interpretation out of it so we can turn 'read a book' into something potentially predictive.
If you are willing I would appreciate dwelling on QED a little -
.. and pigs may fly ..
I think what I am trying to get across is that when you draw your dipole radiation is that what you are really drawing is a probability distribution. I suspect the incongruity between waves and their interaction arises because the waves were never there in the first place. A dipole fed at its resonant frequency is pretty - feed it with noise and its not so pretty. Feed a black body radiator with thermal (or random) noise and I think we are closer to the real world. I didn't start this with this in mind but I feel you (we) need to make a choice between free electrons and 'bound electrons' at some stage. A dipole is possibly the most confusing because it combines a well defined state - verging on a quantum state (the optimum radiation frequency) without the E=hf component . I'm too tired to rewrite this para in logical format but I hope hope it makes some sense to you. Also ... I think the free electron is an unreliable detector - the screen you mentioned I think is much better - I'd say its about as reliable as the back of the eye (best we've got) - I'd trust it. Anything that does not destroy the photon you're trying to look at just leaves you wondering what trick its going to get up to next.
In fairness to Feynman he does not claim he has an interpretation - simply a method that works (brilliantly) - he could get away with that because of who he was. It may be bathwater or it may have the baby right in the middle of it. We're stuck with trying to get some sort of interpretation out of it so we can turn 'read a book' into something potentially predictive.
If you are willing I would appreciate dwelling on QED a little -
The question then only becomes which photon went where? All photons propagating in the general direction "feel" both slits in the zone of interaction, and thus in a Bohmian Mechanical sense the photons pick and choose where to go based on "internal" properties of the photon and its dynamics. All those photons being emitted simply "add" to the intensity of the effect because they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics as bosons but the interaction with "electrons" has the PEP and Fermi-Dirac Statistics and spreads them out.
Are we looking at the same book - All photons? just one photon would seem to suffice? "internal" - this is a method not a dissection but if it happens to poke a knife into a photon then surely we should look at this in as much detail as possible? If you 'simply' have the answer here then..please share .. Nobel prize?
sorry PEP - ? ("Peak Envelope Power" to me)
Best wishes - C2.
This is difficult - if I seem certain it is because I am uncertain - conclusions can be demonstrably wrong - indecision goes on forever...
QUOTE
C2 - I'd have liked to have done "how big is a photon"
.. and pigs may fly
..I think what I am trying to get across is that when you draw your dipole radiation is that what you are really drawing is a probability distribution. I suspect the incongruity between waves and their interaction arises because the waves were never there in the first place. A dipole fed at its resonant frequency is pretty - feed it with noise and its not so pretty. Feed a black body radiator with thermal (or random) noise and I think we are closer to the real world. I didn't start this with this in mind but I feel you (we) need to make a choice between free electrons and 'bound electrons' at some stage. A dipole is possibly the most confusing because it combines a well defined state - verging on a quantum state (the optimum radiation frequency) without the E=hf component . I'm too tired to rewrite this para in logical format but I hope hope it makes some sense to you. Also ... I think the free electron is an unreliable detector - the screen you mentioned I think is much better - I'd say its about as reliable as the back of the eye (best we've got) - I'd trust it. Anything that does not destroy the photon you're trying to look at just leaves you wondering what trick its going to get up to next.
In fairness to Feynman he does not claim he has an interpretation - simply a method that works (brilliantly) - he could get away with that because of who he was. It may be bathwater or it may have the baby right in the middle of it. We're stuck with trying to get some sort of interpretation out of it so we can turn 'read a book' into something potentially predictive.
If you are willing I would appreciate dwelling on QED a little -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| C2 - I'd have liked to have done "how big is a photon" |
.. and pigs may fly
..I think what I am trying to get across is that when you draw your dipole radiation is that what you are really drawing is a probability distribution. I suspect the incongruity between waves and their interaction arises because the waves were never there in the first place. A dipole fed at its resonant frequency is pretty - feed it with noise and its not so pretty. Feed a black body radiator with thermal (or random) noise and I think we are closer to the real world. I didn't start this with this in mind but I feel you (we) need to make a choice between free electrons and 'bound electrons' at some stage. A dipole is possibly the most confusing because it combines a well defined state - verging on a quantum state (the optimum radiation frequency) without the E=hf component . I'm too tired to rewrite this para in logical format but I hope hope it makes some sense to you. Also ... I think the free electron is an unreliable detector - the screen you mentioned I think is much better - I'd say its about as reliable as the back of the eye (best we've got) - I'd trust it. Anything that does not destroy the photon you're trying to look at just leaves you wondering what trick its going to get up to next.
In fairness to Feynman he does not claim he has an interpretation - simply a method that works (brilliantly) - he could get away with that because of who he was. It may be bathwater or it may have the baby right in the middle of it. We're stuck with trying to get some sort of interpretation out of it so we can turn 'read a book' into something potentially predictive.
If you are willing I would appreciate dwelling on QED a little -
The question then only becomes which photon went where? All photons propagating in the general direction "feel" both slits in the zone of interaction, and thus in a Bohmian Mechanical sense the photons pick and choose where to go based on "internal" properties of the photon and its dynamics. All those photons being emitted simply "add" to the intensity of the effect because they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics as bosons but the interaction with "electrons" has the PEP and Fermi-Dirac Statistics and spreads them out.
Are we looking at the same book - All photons? just one photon would seem to suffice? "internal" - this is a method not a dissection but if it happens to poke a knife into a photon then surely we should look at this in as much detail as possible? If you 'simply' have the answer here then..please share .. Nobel prize?
sorry PEP - ? ("Peak Envelope Power" to me)
Best wishes - C2.
Hi confused2,
I would not argue with QED. It gives the correct answer. As an interpretation it leaves me dry. As there are many interpretations of the quantum theory and they too give the same operational answer as does the Copenhagen Interpretation. Bohmian Mechanics is still able to provide the same level of a solution by those who profess it as do other theories. The theories of physics is not a race such that the first across the line wins. It is a story of refinement and open mindedness that moves from one entrenched position to a wider more embracing concept.
What I believe is that there are entrenched ideas that forbid the investigation of wider concepts because someone "won" a race. It is important that we all understand that even one idea or experiment can change that status instantly. The spreading of photons is not revolutionary and I see these phenomena as dimensional in character. QED was such a strong idea it has stifled all other modes of thought in favour of the purely mathematical approach. As Feynman would say "shut up and calculate". Yet even he failed to produce a unified field theory. Maybe there is no unified field theory but I am not going to accept that as a decree. What I know is this that neither QED nor QCD have sufficient dimensions to produce a consistent theory of Gravitation and Einstein's Special and General Theory are still untouched by any experiment.
There is nothing to be gained by discussing QED since it is "right". Unfortunately as in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the answer to life the Universe and everything was 42. Very neat numbers, no insight. The question now is what is the next step?... I personally think that Einstein was right to pursue a UFT despite the naysayers and all the criticism that he was/is subjected to.
I will illustrate spreading of the wave packet with this applet that is on the web
Java applet of wave packet
Here is another case of electron spreading within the orbit of an atom
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
Follow all the examples at the bottom of the page to see what is happening. Note for many of them the coloring indicates the complex plane. For others we see the ensemble of component wavelets as phase and group velocity components.
PEP ... Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Cheers
I would not argue with QED. It gives the correct answer. As an interpretation it leaves me dry. As there are many interpretations of the quantum theory and they too give the same operational answer as does the Copenhagen Interpretation. Bohmian Mechanics is still able to provide the same level of a solution by those who profess it as do other theories. The theories of physics is not a race such that the first across the line wins. It is a story of refinement and open mindedness that moves from one entrenched position to a wider more embracing concept.
What I believe is that there are entrenched ideas that forbid the investigation of wider concepts because someone "won" a race. It is important that we all understand that even one idea or experiment can change that status instantly. The spreading of photons is not revolutionary and I see these phenomena as dimensional in character. QED was such a strong idea it has stifled all other modes of thought in favour of the purely mathematical approach. As Feynman would say "shut up and calculate". Yet even he failed to produce a unified field theory. Maybe there is no unified field theory but I am not going to accept that as a decree. What I know is this that neither QED nor QCD have sufficient dimensions to produce a consistent theory of Gravitation and Einstein's Special and General Theory are still untouched by any experiment.
There is nothing to be gained by discussing QED since it is "right". Unfortunately as in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the answer to life the Universe and everything was 42. Very neat numbers, no insight. The question now is what is the next step?... I personally think that Einstein was right to pursue a UFT despite the naysayers and all the criticism that he was/is subjected to.
I will illustrate spreading of the wave packet with this applet that is on the web
Java applet of wave packet
Here is another case of electron spreading within the orbit of an atom
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
Follow all the examples at the bottom of the page to see what is happening. Note for many of them the coloring indicates the complex plane. For others we see the ensemble of component wavelets as phase and group velocity components.
PEP ... Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Cheers
All these QM interpretations are nice, but the particle nature of the light has the very simple reason, as the light waves are interfering with the inhomogeneities of vacuum so they're spreading at the form of wave pockets. Such interference is the more pronounced, the more closer is the light wavelength (i.e. energy density) closer to the Planck length (i.e. vacuum energy density of about 10E+93 GeV/m-3). Try to compare it with the Java applet.
Hello Montec, Good_Elf, Zephir et al,
Good_Elf .. Thanks for your kind response, and the two links. I was rather trying to emphasis the way time does not seem appear in Feynman's analysis - as though photons aren't having it really - more lost a dimension than gained one - as far as photons are concerned all problems are 'static'???? - as a matter of reality rather than analysis???? I must admit I was rather hoping for an attack on this view .. anyone else?
For the sake of anyone else reading this thread - Good_Elf and I have disagreed on other threads about the usefulness of the wave-packet picture - I am yet to be convinced that wavepackets are actually held together by Fourier analysis.
Zephir .. brilliant applet .. thanks - what is generating the imperfections? Random? It's going to be very hard to tell whether the probabilities are 'continuous' or have a random element to them - I suspect you are suggesting the degree of 'random' will always be too small to be detectable - yes?
Best wishes, C2 .
Good_Elf .. Thanks for your kind response, and the two links. I was rather trying to emphasis the way time does not seem appear in Feynman's analysis - as though photons aren't having it really - more lost a dimension than gained one - as far as photons are concerned all problems are 'static'???? - as a matter of reality rather than analysis???? I must admit I was rather hoping for an attack on this view .. anyone else?
For the sake of anyone else reading this thread - Good_Elf and I have disagreed on other threads about the usefulness of the wave-packet picture - I am yet to be convinced that wavepackets are actually held together by Fourier analysis.
Zephir .. brilliant applet .. thanks - what is generating the imperfections? Random? It's going to be very hard to tell whether the probabilities are 'continuous' or have a random element to them - I suspect you are suggesting the degree of 'random' will always be too small to be detectable - yes?
Best wishes, C2
.
Hi confused2,
He he he.... that did it... "wave packets held together by Fourier Analysis..." Not at all. I guess I must have missed the bus when explaining that one. Fourier analysis does not hold them together. When there is no rest mass involved in the "Uberspace" they spread all the time (photons - see pretty animated gif). When there is a little mass in the "Uberspace" it is warped at the "source" and this varies the inverse square law relationship in the rest frame of the particle sufficiently from 1/r^2 to trap the energy within a small radius from the "particle". This is purely geometrical. Consider two concentric circles drawn encircling a deformed (stretched) rubber membrane with a "mass source" at the center. The "energy" entering the first circle will not exit the second circle at the same rate since the enclosed "area" of the sheet violates the relationship C = 2*pi*r. This effect goes out to "infinity". Only "flat" sourceless space-time allows the spreading of EM waves (photons) without disturbance as spherical wavelets (in 3D... Minkowski space-time). Where there are other particles or obstacles these waves will interact and the photons and mass particle will "tunnel" through them up to a point. The larger the obstacle having mass sources the less the chance that the propagating "particle" will be able to tunnel through. This is absorption, diffraction and because of wavelength ... dispersion.
Now this affects only particles with mass and it defines a range of influence for the particle (because it is a source). Photons, which are massless, have infinite range and other particles have limited ranges depending on their de Broglie wavelength and velocity. Mass Particles now behave like BB's and as a group still exhibit 1/r^2 behavior ... as little BB's. Each little BB stays inside a small region and curves the Uberspace. They also have a lesser influence directly on "Space-time" and infinitesimally affect the curvature of that too and that is what we call gravity. Being a lot "tighter" than the Uberspace it is 10^-40 weaker than electromagnetism effects.
If you want to discuss QED I guess we can. In terms of pure numbers it is "perfect". This property plus precedence gives it a great deal of influence because it has been so successful. "It is so good it is not even wrong". All other theories have been influenced by the success (Quantum Flavordynamics QFD, and Quantum Chromodynamics QCD) but do not work quite as well as the original. The other point is there is no attempt at any sincere original idea to challenge it before "String Theory". Now the best bit about string theory is it has 10 dimensions (or more). It too is in awe of the "Standard Model" and chooses to place itself in a self-effacing position "in a corner".... down below the Planck Length. This way it is less offensive to all entrenched ideas. What I am doing is taking that "String Theory", giving it a pep talk and removing its inferiority complex with the connection with the Planck Length. To compensate I have allowed the quanta to "free range" in the "Uberspace". I have then proceeded to reinterpret everything in terms of those higher dimensions. It explains all quantum postulates and effectively removes the need for them. Now I am no sub-atomic physicist so the details such as the Higgs and all the "particle" details built up over nearly a hundred years are a big ask to explain away but since these theories are built directly in QED... fix the top one and all the bottom ones will need to be readjusted.
"As above... so below".
My contention is that the flattening of the description of QED to work in three dimensions retains the maths but not the physics through "projection" on to "Space-time". Simplicity was the catch cry but it will not explain it all and has been mathematically proven to be inconsistent with a Theory of Everything. Quantum Gravity fails as well without those extra dimensions.
Zephir's idea is fine except it does not explain how a photon can travel for several million years or longer with all the information intact and restorable to make pretty pictures for Hubble deep field.
Where is the "blurring" after traveling 12 billion light years? Each spot is a galaxy. This is despite interstellar dust and all the other things out there including cosmic rays and molecules.
Cheers
He he he.... that did it... "wave packets held together by Fourier Analysis..." Not at all. I guess I must have missed the bus when explaining that one. Fourier analysis does not hold them together. When there is no rest mass involved in the "Uberspace" they spread all the time (photons - see pretty animated gif). When there is a little mass in the "Uberspace" it is warped at the "source" and this varies the inverse square law relationship in the rest frame of the particle sufficiently from 1/r^2 to trap the energy within a small radius from the "particle". This is purely geometrical. Consider two concentric circles drawn encircling a deformed (stretched) rubber membrane with a "mass source" at the center. The "energy" entering the first circle will not exit the second circle at the same rate since the enclosed "area" of the sheet violates the relationship C = 2*pi*r. This effect goes out to "infinity". Only "flat" sourceless space-time allows the spreading of EM waves (photons) without disturbance as spherical wavelets (in 3D... Minkowski space-time). Where there are other particles or obstacles these waves will interact and the photons and mass particle will "tunnel" through them up to a point. The larger the obstacle having mass sources the less the chance that the propagating "particle" will be able to tunnel through. This is absorption, diffraction and because of wavelength ... dispersion.Now this affects only particles with mass and it defines a range of influence for the particle (because it is a source). Photons, which are massless, have infinite range and other particles have limited ranges depending on their de Broglie wavelength and velocity. Mass Particles now behave like BB's and as a group still exhibit 1/r^2 behavior ... as little BB's. Each little BB stays inside a small region and curves the Uberspace. They also have a lesser influence directly on "Space-time" and infinitesimally affect the curvature of that too and that is what we call gravity. Being a lot "tighter" than the Uberspace it is 10^-40 weaker than electromagnetism effects.
If you want to discuss QED I guess we can. In terms of pure numbers it is "perfect". This property plus precedence gives it a great deal of influence because it has been so successful. "It is so good it is not even wrong". All other theories have been influenced by the success (Quantum Flavordynamics QFD, and Quantum Chromodynamics QCD) but do not work quite as well as the original. The other point is there is no attempt at any sincere original idea to challenge it before "String Theory". Now the best bit about string theory is it has 10 dimensions (or more). It too is in awe of the "Standard Model" and chooses to place itself in a self-effacing position "in a corner".... down below the Planck Length. This way it is less offensive to all entrenched ideas. What I am doing is taking that "String Theory", giving it a pep talk and removing its inferiority complex with the connection with the Planck Length. To compensate I have allowed the quanta to "free range" in the "Uberspace". I have then proceeded to reinterpret everything in terms of those higher dimensions. It explains all quantum postulates and effectively removes the need for them. Now I am no sub-atomic physicist so the details such as the Higgs and all the "particle" details built up over nearly a hundred years are a big ask to explain away but since these theories are built directly in QED... fix the top one and all the bottom ones will need to be readjusted.
"As above... so below".
My contention is that the flattening of the description of QED to work in three dimensions retains the maths but not the physics through "projection" on to "Space-time". Simplicity was the catch cry but it will not explain it all and has been mathematically proven to be inconsistent with a Theory of Everything. Quantum Gravity fails as well without those extra dimensions.
Zephir's idea is fine except it does not explain how a photon can travel for several million years or longer with all the information intact and restorable to make pretty pictures for Hubble deep field.
Where is the "blurring" after traveling 12 billion light years? Each spot is a galaxy. This is despite interstellar dust and all the other things out there including cosmic rays and molecules.
Cheers
Hello Good_Elf,
When there is no rest mass involved in the "Uberspace" they spread all the time . When there is a little mass in the "Uberspace" it is warped at the "source" and this varies the inverse square law relationship in the rest frame of the particle sufficiently from 1/r^2 to trap the energy within a small radius from the "particle".
In fairness to puzzled newcomers "Uberspace" is not "from nowhere" - it is Good_Elf's name for the place where extra dimensions might live. The concept has been well developed and discussed elsewhere - hopefully Good_Elf will give a link shortly. I am substituting Ball Bearings for BB's - it seems to work - I hope this is as intended.
It is difficult to see the origin of De Broglie's frequency in the stretched rubber model. I'm just trying to think of an experiment that proves frequency and wavelength are anything more than artifacts of the way we detect things - could it be that the energy (of whatever it is) detemines the probability distribution (in time and space) at both transmitter and receiver and when we see this distribution we interpret it as frequency and wavelength?
For example -when we have a transmitter and aerial well matched to 'space' we get lots of photons of a particular energy (a high probability of such photons) and we view this as a field that varies with time at the 'frequency' of our photons. In fact what we have done is create a situation where the available quantum states within our transmitter (taken as a whole) favour the production of photons of a particular energy. We (reasonably) say that the energy as a whole varies in a particular way with time. At the receiver end we are again selecting for photons of a particular energy and the illusion works in reverse. The point being that we are manipulating probabilities by the geometry of our aerial (etc) - this may or may not have any physical implications for the 'real' size of a 'free' photon.
This brings me back to the frequency and wavelength of something in a stretchy rubber sheet - is it possible that there is no 'frequency' to be found? It will only
'appear' when the particle is detected and even then only as an artifact in a probability distribution? Conveniently (for me) this might also make 'group and phase velocity' somewhat meaningless .
Best wishes, C2.
QUOTE
When there is no rest mass involved in the "Uberspace" they spread all the time . When there is a little mass in the "Uberspace" it is warped at the "source" and this varies the inverse square law relationship in the rest frame of the particle sufficiently from 1/r^2 to trap the energy within a small radius from the "particle".
In fairness to puzzled newcomers "Uberspace" is not "from nowhere" - it is Good_Elf's name for the place where extra dimensions might live. The concept has been well developed and discussed elsewhere - hopefully Good_Elf will give a link shortly. I am substituting Ball Bearings for BB's - it seems to work - I hope this is as intended.
It is difficult to see the origin of De Broglie's frequency in the stretched rubber model. I'm just trying to think of an experiment that proves frequency and wavelength are anything more than artifacts of the way we detect things - could it be that the energy (of whatever it is) detemines the probability distribution (in time and space) at both transmitter and receiver and when we see this distribution we interpret it as frequency and wavelength?
For example -when we have a transmitter and aerial well matched to 'space' we get lots of photons of a particular energy (a high probability of such photons) and we view this as a field that varies with time at the 'frequency' of our photons. In fact what we have done is create a situation where the available quantum states within our transmitter (taken as a whole) favour the production of photons of a particular energy. We (reasonably) say that the energy as a whole varies in a particular way with time. At the receiver end we are again selecting for photons of a particular energy and the illusion works in reverse. The point being that we are manipulating probabilities by the geometry of our aerial (etc) - this may or may not have any physical implications for the 'real' size of a 'free' photon.
This brings me back to the frequency and wavelength of something in a stretchy rubber sheet - is it possible that there is no 'frequency' to be found? It will only
'appear' when the particle is detected and even then only as an artifact in a probability distribution? Conveniently (for me) this might also make 'group and phase velocity' somewhat meaningless . Best wishes, C2.
Hi confused2,
Sorry about "Uberspace"... that refers to the six extra dimensions (excluding space-time's three linear dimensions). Ball bearings will do fine.
Why does the normal de Broglie Wavelength of a particle worry you? It is not stretched rubber it is deformed dimensional space. The rubber is an analogy. Works brilliantly for gravity and planets but you need to make this concept very subtle for electromagnetism. De Broglie Particles behave like waves and it depends on the particles mass and its velocity. No matter think of the energy as EXB energy density (per elemental volume) and this is trying to spread from the source. If the surface of the "space" is curved then this deformation disturbs the ability to spread since it can no longer be an inverse square law. That would require the "space" to be flat (preserves the ratio of the enclosed volume to radius through an exact constant of proportionality of pi. Variation from the inverse square law ultimately return any of this "inductive" field energy density back to source over a "cycle".
You can interpret everything in terms of probability but it is an abstraction from the days when we really had little computing power and were unwilling to display the time dependent part of the solution of "probability". Have you ever seen a probability meter? Is there any practical way to count the probability distribution of a nuclear particle? Without the time dependent part of the solution you could "integrate" up probability to mean "densities". I ask the question... does anyone really know how and when to plot a point in a particular spot on the orbital other than doing a Monte Carlo simulation since you can't really measure these things... they are quanta. They are simply "maps" or "wall charts" that really tell us nothing about dynamic real systems. What I would like to show here is an actual "picture" of the interior of a Schrodinger Waveguide...
Amazing picture of a slice of a Schrodinger Waveguide Cavity recorded by an actual probe
This is an actual picture of "probability" but in actual fact this is a measurement of field density. This is similar to Circuit QED where solutions to Schrodinger's Wave Equation are simply equivalent to wave equations in cavities. At least it is not a wall chart and shows measured probability densities from a real cavity. Also see the paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory - Jian Qi Shen
Check out top of page 3. Schrodinger equation has an equivalent stationary state EM equation... Is this simply a classical limit?... check out the reference... a single photon is trapped for long periods of time.
Circuit QED Project - photon in a can.
Why does the normal de Broglie Wavelength of a particle worry you? It is not stretched rubber it is deformed dimensional space. The rubber is an analogy. Works brilliantly for gravity and planets but you need to make this concept very subtle for electromagnetism. De Broglie Particles behave like waves and it depends on the particles mass and its velocity. No matter think of the energy as EXB energy density (per elemental volume) and this is trying to spread from the source. If the surface of the "space" is curved then this deformation disturbs the ability to spread since it can no longer be an inverse square law. That would require the "space" to be flat (preserves the ratio of the enclosed volume to radius through an exact constant of proportionality of pi. Variation from the inverse square law ultimately return any of this "inductive" field energy density back to source over a "cycle".
You can interpret everything in terms of probability but it is an abstraction from the days when we really had little computing power and were unwilling to display the time dependent part of the solution of "probability". Have you ever seen a probability meter? Is there any practical way to count the probability distribution of a nuclear particle? Without the time dependent part of the solution you could "integrate" up probability to mean "densities". I ask the question... does anyone really know how and when to plot a point in a particular spot on the orbital other than doing a Monte Carlo simulation since you can't really measure these things... they are quanta. They are simply "maps" or "wall charts" that really tell us nothing about dynamic real systems. What I would like to show here is an actual "picture" of the interior of a Schrodinger Waveguide...
Amazing picture of a slice of a Schrodinger Waveguide Cavity recorded by an actual probe
This is an actual picture of "probability" but in actual fact this is a measurement of field density. This is similar to Circuit QED where solutions to Schrodinger's Wave Equation are simply equivalent to wave equations in cavities. At least it is not a wall chart and shows measured probability densities from a real cavity. Also see the paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory - Jian Qi Shen
Check out top of page 3. Schrodinger equation has an equivalent stationary state EM equation... Is this simply a classical limit?... check out the reference... a single photon is trapped for long periods of time.
Circuit QED Project - photon in a can.
We (reasonably) say that the energy as a whole varies in a particular way with time.
Well the transmitter emit a narrow band of frequencies which represent photons of several frequencies. The reason why you cannot have photons of one frequency is because any system that emits photons as impulses will automatically produce those sidebands merely because the "continuous wave" cannot produce "continuous photons" (whatever that might mean) because of the non-linear work function of the surface of the emitter, they are emitted discretely. This means (to me anyway) that this is the only way photons can actually occur at all.
Interested in your opinion on that.
Cheers
Sorry about "Uberspace"... that refers to the six extra dimensions (excluding space-time's three linear dimensions). Ball bearings will do fine.
QUOTE
It is difficult to see the origin of De Broglie's frequency in the stretched rubber model. I'm just trying to think of an experiment that proves frequency and wavelength are anything more than artifacts of the way we detect things - could it be that the energy (of whatever it is) determines the probability distribution (in time and space) at both transmitter and receiver and when we see this distribution we interpret it as frequency and wavelength?
Why does the normal de Broglie Wavelength of a particle worry you? It is not stretched rubber it is deformed dimensional space. The rubber is an analogy. Works brilliantly for gravity and planets but you need to make this concept very subtle for electromagnetism. De Broglie Particles behave like waves and it depends on the particles mass and its velocity. No matter think of the energy as EXB energy density (per elemental volume) and this is trying to spread from the source. If the surface of the "space" is curved then this deformation disturbs the ability to spread since it can no longer be an inverse square law. That would require the "space" to be flat (preserves the ratio of the enclosed volume to radius through an exact constant of proportionality of pi. Variation from the inverse square law ultimately return any of this "inductive" field energy density back to source over a "cycle".
You can interpret everything in terms of probability but it is an abstraction from the days when we really had little computing power and were unwilling to display the time dependent part of the solution of "probability". Have you ever seen a probability meter? Is there any practical way to count the probability distribution of a nuclear particle? Without the time dependent part of the solution you could "integrate" up probability to mean "densities". I ask the question... does anyone really know how and when to plot a point in a particular spot on the orbital other than doing a Monte Carlo simulation since you can't really measure these things... they are quanta. They are simply "maps" or "wall charts" that really tell us nothing about dynamic real systems. What I would like to show here is an actual "picture" of the interior of a Schrodinger Waveguide...
Amazing picture of a slice of a Schrodinger Waveguide Cavity recorded by an actual probe
This is an actual picture of "probability" but in actual fact this is a measurement of field density. This is similar to Circuit QED where solutions to Schrodinger's Wave Equation are simply equivalent to wave equations in cavities. At least it is not a wall chart and shows measured probability densities from a real cavity. Also see the paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory - Jian Qi Shen
Check out top of page 3. Schrodinger equation has an equivalent stationary state EM equation... Is this simply a classical limit?... check out the reference... a single photon is trapped for long periods of time.
Circuit QED Project - photon in a can.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is difficult to see the origin of De Broglie's frequency in the stretched rubber model. I'm just trying to think of an experiment that proves frequency and wavelength are anything more than artifacts of the way we detect things - could it be that the energy (of whatever it is) determines the probability distribution (in time and space) at both transmitter and receiver and when we see this distribution we interpret it as frequency and wavelength? |
Why does the normal de Broglie Wavelength of a particle worry you? It is not stretched rubber it is deformed dimensional space. The rubber is an analogy. Works brilliantly for gravity and planets but you need to make this concept very subtle for electromagnetism. De Broglie Particles behave like waves and it depends on the particles mass and its velocity. No matter think of the energy as EXB energy density (per elemental volume) and this is trying to spread from the source. If the surface of the "space" is curved then this deformation disturbs the ability to spread since it can no longer be an inverse square law. That would require the "space" to be flat (preserves the ratio of the enclosed volume to radius through an exact constant of proportionality of pi. Variation from the inverse square law ultimately return any of this "inductive" field energy density back to source over a "cycle".
You can interpret everything in terms of probability but it is an abstraction from the days when we really had little computing power and were unwilling to display the time dependent part of the solution of "probability". Have you ever seen a probability meter? Is there any practical way to count the probability distribution of a nuclear particle? Without the time dependent part of the solution you could "integrate" up probability to mean "densities". I ask the question... does anyone really know how and when to plot a point in a particular spot on the orbital other than doing a Monte Carlo simulation since you can't really measure these things... they are quanta. They are simply "maps" or "wall charts" that really tell us nothing about dynamic real systems. What I would like to show here is an actual "picture" of the interior of a Schrodinger Waveguide...
Amazing picture of a slice of a Schrodinger Waveguide Cavity recorded by an actual probe
This is an actual picture of "probability" but in actual fact this is a measurement of field density. This is similar to Circuit QED where solutions to Schrodinger's Wave Equation are simply equivalent to wave equations in cavities. At least it is not a wall chart and shows measured probability densities from a real cavity. Also see the paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory - Jian Qi Shen
Check out top of page 3. Schrodinger equation has an equivalent stationary state EM equation... Is this simply a classical limit?... check out the reference... a single photon is trapped for long periods of time.
Circuit QED Project - photon in a can.
We (reasonably) say that the energy as a whole varies in a particular way with time.
Well the transmitter emit a narrow band of frequencies which represent photons of several frequencies. The reason why you cannot have photons of one frequency is because any system that emits photons as impulses will automatically produce those sidebands merely because the "continuous wave" cannot produce "continuous photons" (whatever that might mean) because of the non-linear work function of the surface of the emitter, they are emitted discretely. This means (to me anyway) that this is the only way photons can actually occur at all.
Interested in your opinion on that.
Cheers
GE,
It can also be interpreted that the DB wave CAUSES mass and velocity, through the interaction of other, non-resonant, matter waves. It then would be the geometry of the interacting wavefronts acting on flat, “empty” space. The dualistic opposite of the ISL is the simple straight line, the shortest (conserving) distance between the two points (longest wave, or mode for the “system”.
It can also be interpreted that the DB wave CAUSES mass and velocity, through the interaction of other, non-resonant, matter waves. It then would be the geometry of the interacting wavefronts acting on flat, “empty” space. The dualistic opposite of the ISL is the simple straight line, the shortest (conserving) distance between the two points (longest wave, or mode for the “system”.
“ You can interpret everything in terms of probability but it is an abstraction from the days when we really had little computing power and were unwilling to display the time dependent part of the solution of "probability". Have you ever seen a probability meter? Is there any practical way to count the probability distribution of a nuclear particle? Without the time dependent part of the solution you could "integrate" up probability to mean "densities". I ask the question... does anyone really know how and when to plot a point in a particular spot on the orbital other than doing a Monte Carlo simulation since you can't really measure these things... they are quanta. They are simply "maps" or "wall charts" that really tell us nothing about dynamic real systems. “
I agree totally; now that we have the “power” to compute out the “time dependent” part of the solution, we can “predict” the interactions. No “probability meter”, so no “photon” counter, right? If we use “circular geometries” based on these predictions, the “particle” location and field density blur out the abstraction of “probabilities”.
This is why, IMO, that the Noble went to quantum OPTICS this year; they are using the absolute closest thing to SINGLE frequency mechanics. Any pulsed vibration, like a bubble, at the moment before and after creation, has deformations that are measured as different wavelengths. The highly tuned laser & chopper do not produce these beat frequencies. A single Electron “uptake” and “release” both occur instantly, and produce a tight response; the “groups” of electrons inherently possess more dissonance (beat frequencies), and therefore, a less narrow bandwidth.
TRoc
QUOTE
‘ De Broglie Particles behave like waves and it depends on the particles mass and its velocity. No matter think of the energy as EXB energy density (per elemental volume) and this is trying to spread from the source. If the surface of the "space" is curved then this deformation disturbs the ability to spread since it can no longer be an inverse square law. That would require the "space" to be flat (preserves the ratio of the enclosed volume to radius through an exact constant of proportionality of pi. Variation from the inverse square law ultimately return any of this "inductive" field energy density back to source over a "cycle". “
It can also be interpreted that the DB wave CAUSES mass and velocity, through the interaction of other, non-resonant, matter waves. It then would be the geometry of the interacting wavefronts acting on flat, “empty” space. The dualistic opposite of the ISL is the simple straight line, the shortest (conserving) distance between the two points (longest wave, or mode for the “system”.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ‘ De Broglie Particles behave like waves and it depends on the particles mass and its velocity. No matter think of the energy as EXB energy density (per elemental volume) and this is trying to spread from the source. If the surface of the "space" is curved then this deformation disturbs the ability to spread since it can no longer be an inverse square law. That would require the "space" to be flat (preserves the ratio of the enclosed volume to radius through an exact constant of proportionality of pi. Variation from the inverse square law ultimately return any of this "inductive" field energy density back to source over a "cycle". “ |
It can also be interpreted that the DB wave CAUSES mass and velocity, through the interaction of other, non-resonant, matter waves. It then would be the geometry of the interacting wavefronts acting on flat, “empty” space. The dualistic opposite of the ISL is the simple straight line, the shortest (conserving) distance between the two points (longest wave, or mode for the “system”.
“ You can interpret everything in terms of probability but it is an abstraction from the days when we really had little computing power and were unwilling to display the time dependent part of the solution of "probability". Have you ever seen a probability meter? Is there any practical way to count the probability distribution of a nuclear particle? Without the time dependent part of the solution you could "integrate" up probability to mean "densities". I ask the question... does anyone really know how and when to plot a point in a particular spot on the orbital other than doing a Monte Carlo simulation since you can't really measure these things... they are quanta. They are simply "maps" or "wall charts" that really tell us nothing about dynamic real systems. “
I agree totally; now that we have the “power” to compute out the “time dependent” part of the solution, we can “predict” the interactions. No “probability meter”, so no “photon” counter, right? If we use “circular geometries” based on these predictions, the “particle” location and field density blur out the abstraction of “probabilities”.
QUOTE
Well the transmitter emit a narrow band of frequencies which represent photons of several frequencies. The reason why you cannot have photons of one frequency is because any system that emits photons as impulses will automatically produce those sidebands merely because the "continuous wave" cannot produce "continuous photons" (whatever that might mean) because of the non-linear work function of the surface of the emitter, they are emitted discretely. This means (to me anyway) that this is the only way photons can actually occur at all.
This is why, IMO, that the Noble went to quantum OPTICS this year; they are using the absolute closest thing to SINGLE frequency mechanics. Any pulsed vibration, like a bubble, at the moment before and after creation, has deformations that are measured as different wavelengths. The highly tuned laser & chopper do not produce these beat frequencies. A single Electron “uptake” and “release” both occur instantly, and produce a tight response; the “groups” of electrons inherently possess more dissonance (beat frequencies), and therefore, a less narrow bandwidth.
TRoc
Hi Good_Elf,
There's a bit of a backlog of stuff to discuss.. please forgive me for my enthusiasm for the leading edge.. wave-particle duality.
Anyone.. please feel free to improve on my explanations..
For anyone having difficulty following this thread . it is generally accepted that something like a pulse happening at a particular time (the time domain) can also be represented by the sum of a (possibly infinite) series of frequencies in what is known as the frequency domain. There is also what might be termed the 'probability domain' which is only concerned with the probability of an event occurring, for example if a pulse happens at A then there is a probability that something will happen at B. I would have liked to have claimed the probability domain was sufficient and complete but Good_Elf and Troc seem to want (at the very least) a time varying component to this probability.
Ok no probability counter but yes to photon counters - this blurring out of probabilities - that is exactly what probabilities do when an experiment is repeated many times. Sometimes you may have to do the same experiment thousands of times to get a precise picture of the probability. With normal light levels the probability is built up over billions of photons and it looks perfectly deblurred - but it's still probability.
Ok no probability counter but yes to photon counters - this blurring out of probabilities - that is exactly what probabilities do when an experiment is repeated many times. Sometimes you may have to do the same experiment thousands of times to get a precise picture of the probability. With normal light levels the probability is built up over billions of photons and it looks perfectly deblurred - but it's still probability.
Good_Elf
Well the transmitter emit a narrow band of frequencies which represent photons of several frequencies. The reason why you cannot have photons of one frequency is because any system that emits photons as impulses will automatically produce those sidebands merely because the "continuous wave" cannot produce "continuous photons" (whatever that might mean) because of the non-linear work function of the surface of the emitter, they are emitted discretely. This means (to me anyway) that this is the only way photons can actually occur at all.
IMHO a photon can be analyzed in the frequency domain as a single spike at a particular frequency. A photon is difficult (perhaps impossible) to analise (it spell-checked ok) in the time domain because it has no detectable 'width' or 'size' , it is an event that is either detected or not detected. In the time domain any sort of pulse 'should' give rise to sidebands - photons don't give rise to sidebands because they are not a pulse - they contain a certain amount of energy and that's all you can say. If your transmitter is truly linear and has quantum states separated by gap E then you will get a stream of photons of energy E and it will be interpreted as an EM wave of frequency f where f = E/h.. there will be no other frequency present. If your receiver is also truly linear and has quantum states separated by gap E then you will receive f, and that only. In general, to convey information we deliberately modify the linearity of our transmitter and receiver it is only this which has given rise to the popularity of time and frequency domain analysis of these non-linear systems. The excitation spectrum of an atom gives a good example of the way transitions between energy states generate particular frequencies - absolutely accurately . Whether as a burst in a supernova or next door there is no inherent spread in the frequency spectrum of photons. The 'quantum price' you pay for this knowledge about their energy is that you can't tell when or where they will turn up.
Photons seem to be perfectly designed - some photons will always reach us from even the most distant star and they don't clump up into energy balls and set fire to our houses - a totally elegant (and brilliant) design.-C2.
There's a bit of a backlog of stuff to discuss.. please forgive me for my enthusiasm for the leading edge.. wave-particle duality.
Anyone.. please feel free to improve on my explanations..
For anyone having difficulty following this thread . it is generally accepted that something like a pulse happening at a particular time (the time domain) can also be represented by the sum of a (possibly infinite) series of frequencies in what is known as the frequency domain. There is also what might be termed the 'probability domain' which is only concerned with the probability of an event occurring, for example if a pulse happens at A then there is a probability that something will happen at B. I would have liked to have claimed the probability domain was sufficient and complete but Good_Elf and Troc seem to want (at the very least) a time varying component to this probability.
QUOTE
(TRoc)
I agree totally; now that we have the “power” to compute out the “time dependent” part of the solution, we can “predict” the interactions. No “probability meter”, so no “photon” counter, right? If we use “circular geometries” based on these predictions, the “particle” location and field density blur out the abstraction of “probabilities”.
I agree totally; now that we have the “power” to compute out the “time dependent” part of the solution, we can “predict” the interactions. No “probability meter”, so no “photon” counter, right? If we use “circular geometries” based on these predictions, the “particle” location and field density blur out the abstraction of “probabilities”.
Ok no probability counter but yes to photon counters - this blurring out of probabilities - that is exactly what probabilities do when an experiment is repeated many times. Sometimes you may have to do the same experiment thousands of times to get a precise picture of the probability. With normal light levels the probability is built up over billions of photons and it looks perfectly deblurred - but it's still probability.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (TRoc) I agree totally; now that we have the “power” to compute out the “time dependent” part of the solution, we can “predict” the interactions. No “probability meter”, so no “photon” counter, right? If we use “circular geometries” based on these predictions, the “particle” location and field density blur out the abstraction of “probabilities”. |
Ok no probability counter but yes to photon counters - this blurring out of probabilities - that is exactly what probabilities do when an experiment is repeated many times. Sometimes you may have to do the same experiment thousands of times to get a precise picture of the probability. With normal light levels the probability is built up over billions of photons and it looks perfectly deblurred - but it's still probability.
Good_Elf
Well the transmitter emit a narrow band of frequencies which represent photons of several frequencies. The reason why you cannot have photons of one frequency is because any system that emits photons as impulses will automatically produce those sidebands merely because the "continuous wave" cannot produce "continuous photons" (whatever that might mean) because of the non-linear work function of the surface of the emitter, they are emitted discretely. This means (to me anyway) that this is the only way photons can actually occur at all.
QUOTE
Troc
..they are using the absolute closest thing to SINGLE frequency mechanics. Any pulsed vibration, like a bubble, at the moment before and after creation, has deformations that are measured as different wavelengths.
..they are using the absolute closest thing to SINGLE frequency mechanics. Any pulsed vibration, like a bubble, at the moment before and after creation, has deformations that are measured as different wavelengths.
IMHO a photon can be analyzed in the frequency domain as a single spike at a particular frequency. A photon is difficult (perhaps impossible) to analise (it spell-checked ok) in the time domain because it has no detectable 'width' or 'size' , it is an event that is either detected or not detected. In the time domain any sort of pulse 'should' give rise to sidebands - photons don't give rise to sidebands because they are not a pulse - they contain a certain amount of energy and that's all you can say. If your transmitter is truly linear and has quantum states separated by gap E then you will get a stream of photons of energy E and it will be interpreted as an EM wave of frequency f where f = E/h.. there will be no other frequency present. If your receiver is also truly linear and has quantum states separated by gap E then you will receive f, and that only. In general, to convey information we deliberately modify the linearity of our transmitter and receiver it is only this which has given rise to the popularity of time and frequency domain analysis of these non-linear systems. The excitation spectrum of an atom gives a good example of the way transitions between energy states generate particular frequencies - absolutely accurately . Whether as a burst in a supernova or next door there is no inherent spread in the frequency spectrum of photons. The 'quantum price' you pay for this knowledge about their energy is that you can't tell when or where they will turn up.
Photons seem to be perfectly designed - some photons will always reach us from even the most distant star and they don't clump up into energy balls and set fire to our houses - a totally elegant (and brilliant) design.-C2.
Hi all, I've read the reference to the "rubber sheet" analogy for a description of gravity. The rubber sheet is supposed to represent the fabric of space. When an object that has mass is placed on the sheet, the rubber stretches to accommodate it. When another object of lesser mass is placed on the rubber sheet, it too deforms the sheet and will be held in the other objects orbit due to the fact that it would have to move "uphill" to break free from the other objects gravitational "pull". An important point to this analogy is that the rubber sheet is stretched thinner between the objects than it is away from them,(a lesser amount of space "material" between the two objects). As a result the force of the rubber sheet snapping back to its at rest position is lessened between the objects. So is the actual fabric of space similar in its design? An object like the earth surrounded by "spacetime" would "feel" less "pull" between itself and the sun and more "push" from the surrounding space not directly between them. As a result, could the theoretical "Graviton" exist within the fabric of space? If "spacetime" is of higher dimensional form, the graviton could be also, making its direct detection impossible using current methods. mike001.
Hello Mike001, (how many of you are you expecting?)
I think everyone gets their own rubber sheet - it doesn't get any thinner because someone else is using it .. the 'stretches' just add linearly.
Sorry - I don't 'do' gravitons so I can't help there.
-C2
I think everyone gets their own rubber sheet - it doesn't get any thinner because someone else is using it .. the 'stretches' just add linearly.
Sorry - I don't 'do' gravitons so I can't help there.
-C2
Hi Confused2, I was assigned this user name on the e-mail system where I'm employed so I stayed with it for this forum.... The graviton is a tough one for me to accept also, (As part of the Standard Model). I believe gravity is caused by "spacetime" pushing against physical matter. Since String Theory predicts "Spacetime" is constructed with extra (Higher) dimensions, the graviton could exist hidden within it. Another way I've visualized the rubber sheet analogy is for the sheet to stretch but to have a sewn construction that puts geometric limits on how much the sheet can deform.....Mike001.
Hello
I am a former professional photographer, and am now painting. In my short artist statement I wrote about light. As I am not at all a scientist, I fear I may have used incorrect terminology and would very much appreciate your corrections.
Thank you.
Susan
I am attracted to the beauty of everyday things and how they are revealed to us in light. Light fascinates me. It can transform the appearance of an object from the ordinary into an object luminous mystery.
Light and radiance are used world wide as a metaphor for God, all being magnificent and incomprehensible. Even science can not explain why the entire universe is built from either waves or particles, except light. It behaves as both. This is a paradox, as waves and particles are mutually exclusive.
Light can imbue everyday items with awe inspiring beauty, a feeling of elegance, wonder, and the mystery of being.
Albert Einstein says, “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”
It is light’s grace and beauty that I wish to explore in my work as a painter.
Again , with my appreciation!
I am a former professional photographer, and am now painting. In my short artist statement I wrote about light. As I am not at all a scientist, I fear I may have used incorrect terminology and would very much appreciate your corrections.
Thank you.
Susan
I am attracted to the beauty of everyday things and how they are revealed to us in light. Light fascinates me. It can transform the appearance of an object from the ordinary into an object luminous mystery.
Light and radiance are used world wide as a metaphor for God, all being magnificent and incomprehensible. Even science can not explain why the entire universe is built from either waves or particles, except light. It behaves as both. This is a paradox, as waves and particles are mutually exclusive.
Light can imbue everyday items with awe inspiring beauty, a feeling of elegance, wonder, and the mystery of being.
Albert Einstein says, “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”
It is light’s grace and beauty that I wish to explore in my work as a painter.
Again , with my appreciation!
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 6 2005, 09:04 AM)
Hi Mike001,
Intelligent and well written... I think it is easy to see what is really happening. Light "propagates" as a wave and "interacts" as a particle. Light has no rest mass and so it "spreads" from the radiator...
Light must start off small and get progresively larger if it spreads. I call this light expansion. The only other option is the instantaneous appearence of the whole wave
Intelligent and well written... I think it is easy to see what is really happening. Light "propagates" as a wave and "interacts" as a particle. Light has no rest mass and so it "spreads" from the radiator...
Light must start off small and get progresively larger if it spreads. I call this light expansion. The only other option is the instantaneous appearence of the whole wave
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.