I had an interesting idea for a perpetual motion machine and wanted to see if anyone could shoot the idea down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
If reflected light exerts a pressure on an object, imagine two mirrors with light travelling between them (reflected light exerts double the pressure).
Imagine photons being reflected between them. Would each reflection continue to add more outward force? I have a feeling there's a quantum catch here, but I've never heard of light pressure varying depending on experiment set up.
Anyway, this acceleration could continue indefinitely, assuming the path of the photons was aligned correctly. The light will always travel faster than the mass, so no matter the distance, light will continue to cycle between them.
To make this a more realistic setup, just to show that this could provide a real gain (again assuming no quantum catches) imagine two mirrors with a rotating arm between them. If both sides of this arm had mirrors that were held parallel to the two surrounding and stationary mirrors, then you could reflect light on one side of the arm in one direction and one the other side of the mirror for the other side of the arm and generate a rotational force on the arm. Realistically you'd want to use large enough mirrors to get at least thousands of reflections, but assuming you had a source of photons that was more efficient than this (not very difficult), you should have a net gain of energy.
Ok, so does anyone know what the catch is, or is there one? I assume this effect, multiplying a reflective force for light could be verified rather easily.
Now something else to consider is that if there is a catch, it's interesting to consider what such a mechanism would imply about light.
Ok, let me help out a bit here:
1) Red shifting can't cause a significant effect because if you increase the masses of the mirrors, the acceleration and velocity is reduced, so even if you have a large number of reflections from mirrors moving away that are constantly red shifting the light, by increasing the mass, you reduce this effect, yet the force for each reflection should still be the same.
2) Losses in the mirrors can be minimized. I believe 99%+ reflective mirrors are possible, and even if we only got effectively 100 reflections of light, that energy should be absorbed somewhere as heat.
The issue seems to fundmentally be one of the two:
1) Either light loses some energy (and I assume becomes red-shifted over time) after each interaction.
or
2) A faster than light effect occurs and determines the path ahead of time and limits the number of real interactions that occur.
1) Red shifting can't cause a significant effect because if you increase the masses of the mirrors, the acceleration and velocity is reduced, so even if you have a large number of reflections from mirrors moving away that are constantly red shifting the light, by increasing the mass, you reduce this effect, yet the force for each reflection should still be the same.
2) Losses in the mirrors can be minimized. I believe 99%+ reflective mirrors are possible, and even if we only got effectively 100 reflections of light, that energy should be absorbed somewhere as heat.
The issue seems to fundmentally be one of the two:
1) Either light loses some energy (and I assume becomes red-shifted over time) after each interaction.
or
2) A faster than light effect occurs and determines the path ahead of time and limits the number of real interactions that occur.
Hi StevenA,
I think the idea that photons are identical to a "bouncing" ball is wrong, photons "spread" as waves and ultimately they interact as a particle. Photons are not like billiard balls, they are actually entangled waves, we can see this from the Young's Double Slit Interference Experiment. I have given my "stringy" version of how to interpret the photon "event" and that is the way I think things occur.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=112371
Consider two mirrors facing each other and the emission of a single photon event somewhere between the two "almost" perfect mirrors. You can see a "Hall of Mirrors" that indicate a history for this event. My view is that the ever expanding wavefront of that single event represents a single instant in time no matter where it has gone and what time our clocks show that it is there. This is because in the frame of the photon, there is no passage of time and the event "connects" a frozen "instant" as it spreads in "our" time. One instant, one wavefront, one photon. No matter how long the photon lasts and how far it spreads and how many images of it are created, it is still only a single instant in time. This is exemplified by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. It matters little in our time when an entangled photon is localized, the twin is "always" affected by apparent subsequent events in time of its mirror duplicate. This is because in the special rest frame of the photon everything is happening in the one instant of time and (through the most extreme form of "length contraction") everything is happening in almost the one place too (relativistic compression normal to the wavefront of the propagation "everywhere"). The "event" is compressed to a small action volume in time and space (almost infinitely small).
Naturally after a "long apparent time" (to the external observers) as a wave moving unseen in quantum space, the single photon will undergo an "interaction" and as far as we can tell it disappears from the Universe... or does it? Whatever... that will finalize the phenomenon from all observers points of view in our Universe can tell. Until then the total wavefront of the spreading photon (since it goes almost everywhere along almost every possible course) is a record of all influence the event will ever have.
Cheers
I think the idea that photons are identical to a "bouncing" ball is wrong, photons "spread" as waves and ultimately they interact as a particle. Photons are not like billiard balls, they are actually entangled waves, we can see this from the Young's Double Slit Interference Experiment. I have given my "stringy" version of how to interpret the photon "event" and that is the way I think things occur.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=112371
Consider two mirrors facing each other and the emission of a single photon event somewhere between the two "almost" perfect mirrors. You can see a "Hall of Mirrors" that indicate a history for this event. My view is that the ever expanding wavefront of that single event represents a single instant in time no matter where it has gone and what time our clocks show that it is there. This is because in the frame of the photon, there is no passage of time and the event "connects" a frozen "instant" as it spreads in "our" time. One instant, one wavefront, one photon. No matter how long the photon lasts and how far it spreads and how many images of it are created, it is still only a single instant in time. This is exemplified by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. It matters little in our time when an entangled photon is localized, the twin is "always" affected by apparent subsequent events in time of its mirror duplicate. This is because in the special rest frame of the photon everything is happening in the one instant of time and (through the most extreme form of "length contraction") everything is happening in almost the one place too (relativistic compression normal to the wavefront of the propagation "everywhere"). The "event" is compressed to a small action volume in time and space (almost infinitely small).
Naturally after a "long apparent time" (to the external observers) as a wave moving unseen in quantum space, the single photon will undergo an "interaction" and as far as we can tell it disappears from the Universe... or does it? Whatever... that will finalize the phenomenon from all observers points of view in our Universe can tell. Until then the total wavefront of the spreading photon (since it goes almost everywhere along almost every possible course) is a record of all influence the event will ever have.
Cheers
I admit this experiement would actually be fun to try out and not overly difficult. I've seen a radiometer before and they're rather simple, except you need a good vacuum and you'd have to hook it up a bit different for this case.
Well, I think you're correct that ultimately only one event at a time occurs but it would still be interesting to know if this even includes individual reflections ... it probably does, but it's just so wierd!
(Wierd is good in this case)
Consider also that light travelling through space could be operating along a similar principle of being reflected or refracted along the path, so it could be that the same phenomenon occurs throughout the entire path of a photon ... so what would this pressure look like if it occured in space?
How does it both create a pressure when reflected and yet still have a reflection visible if it's only one event?
(Dang, I wish I had my hands on some decent equipment to try this stuff out!)
A radiometer can measure the pressure exerted by light http://science.howstuffworks.com/question239.htm
If light was being uniformly exposed to this, the difference in pressure, I assume, is due to the doubled force on the mirrored side, so pressure is exerted on all faces but it's doubled for the mirrored sides and that creates the differential ... I wonder how much force a 20 mW laser would generate?
Ok, I've got to do some research here. This one is just bothering me too much
Well, I think you're correct that ultimately only one event at a time occurs but it would still be interesting to know if this even includes individual reflections ... it probably does, but it's just so wierd!
(Wierd is good in this case)Consider also that light travelling through space could be operating along a similar principle of being reflected or refracted along the path, so it could be that the same phenomenon occurs throughout the entire path of a photon ... so what would this pressure look like if it occured in space?
How does it both create a pressure when reflected and yet still have a reflection visible if it's only one event?
(Dang, I wish I had my hands on some decent equipment to try this stuff out!)
A radiometer can measure the pressure exerted by light http://science.howstuffworks.com/question239.htm
If light was being uniformly exposed to this, the difference in pressure, I assume, is due to the doubled force on the mirrored side, so pressure is exerted on all faces but it's doubled for the mirrored sides and that creates the differential ... I wonder how much force a 20 mW laser would generate?
Ok, I've got to do some research here. This one is just bothering me too much
Ok here's some more info - the radiometer I provided a link to does not measure light pressure. This is misinformation that's been propogated. It doesn't work in a complete vacuum but relies on thermal energy instead and can even go backwards when cooled.
But there was a test using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer to measure this pressure and here's an article also (salespitch I should say) http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:zt6gs0...+and+Hull&hl=en
But it appears there's more than a bit of skepticism around:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...tid=134&tid=160
http://www.hyperflight.com/lightintrinsic.pdf
Apparently others see the same problem with light exerting a force when reflected. My guess would be that light could exert a pressure when absorbed but not reflected.
Also, while doing this search I found a claim that, yes, light does appear to travel faster than light if viewed as following a path reflecting of the mirrors. It would be nice to actually see this stuff first hand but I think you nailed it, Good Elf. Congrats
I hope NASA isn't putting money into solar sails without experimental evidence that the idea actually works.
But on a deeper level, if reflections of light have no inertia, then the ideas of an equivalent momentum to light need to be rethought also. I tend to agree that light doesn't actually travel through space in any real sense, but that instead the way we view space is built upon correlating events as cause and effect. We "see" two things that interact as being located in the same location of space and group them according to what's most likely to interact with what and distances are comparisons of the order in which these interactions will occur but the "vacuum" or space that all these are envisioned as travelling through does not necessarily exist.
But there was a test using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer to measure this pressure and here's an article also (salespitch I should say) http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:zt6gs0...+and+Hull&hl=en
But it appears there's more than a bit of skepticism around:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...tid=134&tid=160
http://www.hyperflight.com/lightintrinsic.pdf
Apparently others see the same problem with light exerting a force when reflected. My guess would be that light could exert a pressure when absorbed but not reflected.
Also, while doing this search I found a claim that, yes, light does appear to travel faster than light if viewed as following a path reflecting of the mirrors. It would be nice to actually see this stuff first hand but I think you nailed it, Good Elf. Congrats
I hope NASA isn't putting money into solar sails without experimental evidence that the idea actually works.
But on a deeper level, if reflections of light have no inertia, then the ideas of an equivalent momentum to light need to be rethought also. I tend to agree that light doesn't actually travel through space in any real sense, but that instead the way we view space is built upon correlating events as cause and effect. We "see" two things that interact as being located in the same location of space and group them according to what's most likely to interact with what and distances are comparisons of the order in which these interactions will occur but the "vacuum" or space that all these are envisioned as travelling through does not necessarily exist.
Hi StevenA,
I think you really have thought about this one and the analysis is "spot on". This seems to me as if we have the dual nature of photons coming to the fore. When the "event" is in motion according to our "external" concept of time, because of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experimental Result it is "painting" a single final view of the total event on the "hyper-surface" of our Universe once and for all time. This is just the "cosmic artist" using "his" timeless brush to paint this event into the framework of our Universe, the "artist" moves only at the speed of light but the individual event is "timeless" and "unchanging". The word "artist" is just a literary artifice... do not take this literally .. he he he!
I think you really have thought about this one and the analysis is "spot on". This seems to me as if we have the dual nature of photons coming to the fore. When the "event" is in motion according to our "external" concept of time, because of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experimental Result it is "painting" a single final view of the total event on the "hyper-surface" of our Universe once and for all time. This is just the "cosmic artist" using "his" timeless brush to paint this event into the framework of our Universe, the "artist" moves only at the speed of light but the individual event is "timeless" and "unchanging". The word "artist" is just a literary artifice... do not take this literally .. he he he!
QUOTE (StevenA Posted on Today at 9:40 AM+)
How does it both create a pressure when reflected and yet still have a reflection visible if it's only one event?
It is true that the wavefronts could potentially criss cross themselves time and time again in the course of millions of years if those photons are traveling from far away to us. The "event" does have a beginning and an end when it is originally "emitted" and finally "absorbed", these are the only "particle events"... others are unseen wave phenomena that are executing in "hidden quantum space". To "see" this for an individual photon is to destroy it in a quantum demolition event shooting the "particle" down from its "hyperspace" into a local flash of scattered light from a hypothetical screen. These two "components" are not "exactly the same thing" since emission and absorption are not "instantaneous processes". This defines an exceedingly small interval of time in which a particle is in the process of emission and an exceedingly short period of time during the absorption... as well as an exceedingly small region of space ... the evanescent zone... in which this process is "confined". This means that in that "double ended" event the photon is experiencing a tiny quantity of time... not while traveling... but on "creation and destruction" as a particle. Without the progress of time and a localization of space... the particle processes of energy and momentum cannot occur... this is because all these "dynamic" processes require some infinitesimal time to elapse. All the multiple reflections are for free. In the real world if you "see" any of these wavelike behaviors then that is where those individual events (entering your eye) come to an end through quantum demolition.
If you want that exchange of momentum you would need to look carefully at these end processes to get the "deal" you need. Of course I have a "stringy interpretation" of this phenomena.
If you want that exchange of momentum you would need to look carefully at these end processes to get the "deal" you need. Of course I have a "stringy interpretation" of this phenomena.
QUOTE (StevenA Posted on Today at 9:40 AM+)
but it would still be interesting to know if this even includes individual reflections ... it probably does, but it's just so wierd! (Wierd is good in this case) Yep!... I agree it is really interesting. But I think you can answer this now when you consider that only those "endings" involve any momentum or energy exchanges which necessarily involve some passage of infinitesimal time. I wonder if you have been following my arguments regarding "Kondo Phantoms"? This process supplies the alternative Universes required and insisted on by modern Quantum Theory and also the operation of Quantum Computers. Everything is "good".
Cheers
Yep!... I agree it is really interesting. But I think you can answer this now when you consider that only those "endings" involve any momentum or energy exchanges which necessarily involve some passage of infinitesimal time. I wonder if you have been following my arguments regarding "Kondo Phantoms"? This process supplies the alternative Universes required and insisted on by modern Quantum Theory and also the operation of Quantum Computers. Everything is "good". Cheers
Your talking about trapping a perfectly uniform beam of light between two perfectly placed and 100% reflective mirrors. Good luck. Even then it wouldn't work. What it says at wackipedia is that electromagnetic radiation has force. When light is reflected it is absorbed then resent out. When the light is absorbed it imparts a force on what is absorbing it. When it is sent out (same photon with the same energy level) that force is once again imparted upon the object sending it out (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). The photon isn't traveling at twice the speed and so it will do the same with the opposing mirror applying an identical force as it did with the first mirror being absorbed and resent out back to the first mirror. You do have an endless cycle but the force doesn't increase (double) from mirror to mirror.
QUOTE (Precursor562+)
Your talking about trapping a perfectly uniform beam of light between two perfectly placed and 100% reflective mirrors.
No, if you read what I posted, I was even talking about typical optics and referring to even hundreds or less of reflections.
If light imparted a force being reflected, then it should lose energy and be red-shifted. Since when does light lose energy during a reflection?
No, if you read what I posted, I was even talking about typical optics and referring to even hundreds or less of reflections.
If light imparted a force being reflected, then it should lose energy and be red-shifted. Since when does light lose energy during a reflection?
QUOTE (Precursor562+)
Good luck. Even then it wouldn't work. What it says at wackipedia is that electromagnetic radiation has force.
It's not just wikipedia. Even NASA was researching solar sails. I'm not the one claiming reflected light creates a force. I'm the one pointing out the problem with such an idea.
Ok, so let's say you mounted a mirror on a large mass and reflected light off it. Do you believe you could get the object to move by shining light on the mirror?
If light is absorbed for some finite time, then a finite force is created and a finite amount of energy lost.
I'd assume reflections don't extert any force at all and NASA etc. are wrong. http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/
Either that or we have free energy. They aren't simply assuming the non-reflected component provides a force but that the force is simply proportional to whatever equilavent momentum of light is reflected (double the absorbed value).
Ok, so let's say you mounted a mirror on a large mass and reflected light off it. Do you believe you could get the object to move by shining light on the mirror?
If light is absorbed for some finite time, then a finite force is created and a finite amount of energy lost.
I'd assume reflections don't extert any force at all and NASA etc. are wrong. http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/
Either that or we have free energy. They aren't simply assuming the non-reflected component provides a force but that the force is simply proportional to whatever equilavent momentum of light is reflected (double the absorbed value).
When it is sent out (same photon with the same energy level) that force is once again imparted upon the object sending it out (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).
If I take a mirror and bounce light off at a 90 deg angle, would you expect to see a force at a 45 degree angle? If light is absorbed in one direction and reemitted in another direction, then these aren't equal and opposite.
Reflections must not exert a physical force at all otherwise we can use them for perpetual motion (not that I'd complain).
I don't believe the particle component of a photon ever even travelled to the mirror at all.
Ok, if I take a beam splitter and run a photon through it then I recombine a reflection of this, doesn't the photon interact with itself at faster than light speeds?
How can a photon travel all these paths at the speed of light yet still take one path at the speed of light?
If you want to say it takes all these reflected paths simultaneously, then you're saying the same thing as I am - that light didn't actually follow each reflection, stop, exert a force and then bounce on to the next position but instead went effectively faster than light speed in determining where it was finally absorbed.
Personally, I don't think the photon was absorbed at all during the reflection or this seems to imply it had to physically interact with all these points at faster than light speed.
My personally view is that the path is determined at faster than light speeds (according to our interpretations of space) and that the particle itself simply hops from point to point instantly. This doesn't actually need to take any time at all. It only needs to take an average time relative to other such instantaneous events.
Ok, if I take a beam splitter and run a photon through it then I recombine a reflection of this, doesn't the photon interact with itself at faster than light speeds?
How can a photon travel all these paths at the speed of light yet still take one path at the speed of light?
If you want to say it takes all these reflected paths simultaneously, then you're saying the same thing as I am - that light didn't actually follow each reflection, stop, exert a force and then bounce on to the next position but instead went effectively faster than light speed in determining where it was finally absorbed.
Personally, I don't think the photon was absorbed at all during the reflection or this seems to imply it had to physically interact with all these points at faster than light speed.
My personally view is that the path is determined at faster than light speeds (according to our interpretations of space) and that the particle itself simply hops from point to point instantly. This doesn't actually need to take any time at all. It only needs to take an average time relative to other such instantaneous events.
and so it will do the same with the opposing mirror applying an identical force as it did with the first mirror being absorbed and resent out back to the first mirror. You do have an endless cycle but the force doesn't increase (double) from mirror to mirror.
Ok, so you appear to agree that there's no reflective force from light also, or I'd assume you would have said the force increases.
Well in either event it's worth testing anyway. No matter what theories say, there's nothing like reality to give the final say. If reflected light does generate a force as a lot of mainstream views have portrayed then there's free energy sitting around and solar sails will work. If not, then the idea needs to be rethought and likely only absorbtion at the endpoint of a path for a photon yields a force.
No it actually sounds like your talking about trapping light between two mirrors.
No it actually sounds like your talking about trapping light between two mirrors.
If light imparted a force being reflected, then it should lose energy and be red-shifted. Since when does light lose energy during a reflection?
When light is "reflected" is is first absorbed then re-emitted by the material doing the reflecting. With 100% reflection for every photon absorbed one of identical energy level is emitted out. The photon impacting the atom imparts a force (the photon is absorbed upon impact) the same photon emitted will impart the same force provided it is the same photon (for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction). So the force is two fold on the mirror but nothing changes with the light. The light will hit the next mirror with the same force since it will be traveling at the same speed. That force too will be a double force with the same photon being emitted and the double force on the second mirror will be the same as that placed on the first mirror.
I'm not denying that electromagnetic radiation has force. Hell I believe light to be comprised of a photon particle with mass so of course it will impart a force if it collides with something.
I'm not denying that electromagnetic radiation has force. Hell I believe light to be comprised of a photon particle with mass so of course it will impart a force if it collides with something.
Ok, so let's say you mounted a mirror on a large mass and reflected light off it. Do you believe you could get the object to move by shining light on the mirror?
Well since light imparts a force onto the object it is being absorbed by and it also imparts a force in the same direction when the light is emitted back out. The problem is that light imparts a very small force and your sail will have to be huge but the larger the sail the more mass it has and the more inertia it will have so the force light applies will not be enough to make it move. Then there is the ship that will add to the mass and therefore the inertia. What would need to happen is to increase the current of high energy photons (number of photons passing a specified volume of space in a specified amount of time) while leaving the size of the sail fixed to give it (and the ship attached) a fixed mass. The question is how many high energy photons can we cram together and how crammed can we get them.
I swear if you don't spell things out.....
When light is absorbed by a material a force is imparted on it. Provided that the photon came perpendicular to (forming a 90deg angle with) the material doing the absorption than if the same photon were emitted back out in the direction in which it came (reflected) it would impart the same force once again in the same direction as before.
I swear if you don't spell things out.....
When light is absorbed by a material a force is imparted on it. Provided that the photon came perpendicular to (forming a 90deg angle with) the material doing the absorption than if the same photon were emitted back out in the direction in which it came (reflected) it would impart the same force once again in the same direction as before.
Ok, if I take a beam splitter and run a photon through it then I recombine a reflection of this, doesn't the photon interact with itself at faster than light speeds?
That makes absolutely no sense. First off a beam splitter splits the beam. Individual photons don't split. Lets say you shine a laser onto a surface, it takes so much time for the individual photons to make the journey from their source to the surface. Lets say mirrors are placed so that half the beam gets deflected in a different direction (beam splitter splitting the beam) while the other half continues to take the direct path. The reflected beam then reflects off three more mirrors so it ends up back next to the beam that took the direct route. If you were to track two separate photons that were emitted at the exact same time where one took the direct path and the other took the indirect path (following the mirrors) than the photon that took the direct path will reach the surface before the one taking the indirect route. If the indirect route is twice the distance as the direct route than the photon will take very little more than twice as long as the photon taking the direct route.
The distance alone would cause it to take twice as long but then you have to add the time it takes for a photon to be emitted after being absorbed and multiply this time by four (the number of mirrors doing the absorbing and emitting).
So for the one photon t=d/V
t=Time of travel
d=Distance
V=Velocity
The second photon t=d/V+4X
t=Time of travel
d=Distance
V=Velocity
X=Time it takes for the photon to be emitted after being absorbed
If you shine two lasers directly at each other then the speed of each photon is still only the speed of light but if two photons were to head directly toward each other the speed at which they are traveling toward each other is twice that of the speed of light (the sum of their individual speeds).
Car A is moving east along a road at 100mph and car B is headed west on that same road at 100mph. They may be moving at 100mph individually but are moving toward each other at 200mph.
Give car A a speed of 50mph and car B a speed of 150mph they are still moving toward each other at 200mph.
No I'm saying there is a force but that it just doesn't increase.
Here is what I'm not saying
Let's say that a photon applies a force of 1N on an object when absorbed and then applies this force again while being emitted for a total force of 2N.
So the photon contacts the mirror getting absorbed applying 1N of force. The mirror then emits the same photon applying an additional 1N of force in the same direction as before for a total of 2N of force on the mirror. The same photon then contacts a second mirror applying 2N of force while getting absorbed then applies an additional 2N while getting emitted for a total of 4N. The photon then goes back to the first mirror applying 4N to the mirror while getting absorbed then applies an addition 4N while getting emitted for a total of 8N.
I repeat "That is not what I am saying"
What I am saying is if the photon applies 1N of force to the mirror while getting absorbed it will apply an additional 1N when emitted for a total of two. When the photon contacts the second mirror it applies 1N of force once again and then applies an additional 1N when emitted for a total of 2N on the second mirror. Same as the first. It doesn't matter how many times the photon reflects back and forth the force applied to each mirror will be 2N. If you reflect the photon off 1 million mirrors you will still only have 2N of force applied to each mirror.
If it reaches all of them without colliding with anything first.
I think there is a confusion here. One is the photon's energy level (eV) while the other is the photons momentum.
Simply put, a photon has mass so when it decelerates (upon being absorbed by the atom it collides with) it exerts a force upon the atom. The atom being part of a greater body (sail) will feel this force. The emitting of a photon will exert a force upon the atom once again in the opposite direction of that in which the photon leaves. The the direction of both forces are the same.
The photon carries a charge (eV) and when absorbed by the atom causes electron(s) to increase in energy level. The atom then drops in energy level and a photon is emitted.
Two different scenarios that are closely related. I believe it would be best to think of the atom as the perfect spring. Throw a base ball (photon) at a spring (atom) mounted on a wall (greater body). The ball contacts the spring causing it compress (atom getting absorbed) but as it does the the ball slows down to a stop prior to changing direction. As the spring gets compressed by the ball a force is place upon both the ball and the wall. Both the ball and the wall receive the same force in opposing directions so the wall receives the force in the same direction the ball would be headed had the wall and spring not be there where the ball is receiving the force in opposition to the direction in which it is headed and is the force causing it to slow down. At this point the kinetic energy (the eV of the photon) the ball had went into compressing the spring (increasing the energy level of the atom causing one or more electrons to jump to a higher energy level). Now the spring will 'spring' back to it's original state (the atom will return to its original energy level) by exerting force upon the ball. However the force the ball receives by the spring re-asserting itself is also applied to the wall opposite to that of the ball's direction.
With the ball and the spring the spring will continue to apply pressure to both the ball and the wall for as long as it is compressed. This is unlike the atom and the photon where the pressure ceases. So it would be like the ball compressing the spring which will apply pressure but as soon as the spring reaches maximum compression (the point where the photon is absorbed) it no longer applies any force to neither the wall nor the ball. However it once again applies pressure to both when the ball is ready to leave (when the photon is released).
So the photon impacts the atom. The photon rapidly slows to near stop due to a force applied to it. The same force is applied to the atom in the opposite direction. The photon is then absorbed adding its eV to that of the atom causing one or more electrons to jump energy levels. The one or more electrons then drop back down and the photon is sent back out in the direction from which it came. It gets up to speed at the same rate at which it slowed before getting absorbed and so the same force is applied to the photon once again in the same direction as before. An equal and opposite force is applied to the atom once again as before. The perfect spring.
The short answer...eV.
Photon hits atom with momentum.
Collision places a directional force on the atom.
Photon gets absorbed by the atom causing the atom to jump energy level(s)
Atom returns to previous energy level releasing a photon.
The photon is released in the opposite direction from which it came (reflection)
The photon is released with the speed of light so a force must be applied to the photon to allow for such a velocity.
Same force gets exerted on the atom in the same direction as the previous force.
No energy is lost. The photon gives up its energy to the atom which then returns it to the photon. In a perfect reflection 100% of the energy is returned. When you look at something that is red, purple, green or whatever color, photons of all energy levels (white light) collides with the atoms making up the colored object. They get absorbed but then released in a controlled manner. Where photons of all energy levels get absorbed by the atom only photons of a specific energy level gets released giving you the color of the object. So the atom takes the energy of the photons whose energy level is higher than those of the color and gives it to the photons whose energy level is lower than the color. You still end up with no energy lost. However in the case of something that is purple, Violet photons have the highest of the energy levels in the visible light spectrum. So lets say that only photons of the visible light spectrum shines on the purple object. The violet photons will be re-released but those photons that are lower in energy level will be combined within the atom then release as violet photons. When an atom absorbs a photon the photon is essentially gone (although it still exists as an increase in the atom's energy level). So when the atom drops in energy level it releases a photon whose energy level is equal to the atom's energy drop. So in the case of colored objects the atoms that make up those objects will only drop a set amount of energy level. That set amount is the color.
It's not just wikipedia. Even NASA was researching solar sails. I'm not the one claiming reflected light creates a force. I'm the one pointing out the problem with such an idea.
QUOTE
When light is reflected it is absorbed then resent out. When the light is absorbed it imparts a force on what is absorbing it.
Ok, so let's say you mounted a mirror on a large mass and reflected light off it. Do you believe you could get the object to move by shining light on the mirror?
If light is absorbed for some finite time, then a finite force is created and a finite amount of energy lost.
I'd assume reflections don't extert any force at all and NASA etc. are wrong. http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/
Either that or we have free energy. They aren't simply assuming the non-reflected component provides a force but that the force is simply proportional to whatever equilavent momentum of light is reflected (double the absorbed value).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When light is reflected it is absorbed then resent out. When the light is absorbed it imparts a force on what is absorbing it. |
Ok, so let's say you mounted a mirror on a large mass and reflected light off it. Do you believe you could get the object to move by shining light on the mirror?
If light is absorbed for some finite time, then a finite force is created and a finite amount of energy lost.
I'd assume reflections don't extert any force at all and NASA etc. are wrong. http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/
Either that or we have free energy. They aren't simply assuming the non-reflected component provides a force but that the force is simply proportional to whatever equilavent momentum of light is reflected (double the absorbed value).
When it is sent out (same photon with the same energy level) that force is once again imparted upon the object sending it out (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).
If I take a mirror and bounce light off at a 90 deg angle, would you expect to see a force at a 45 degree angle? If light is absorbed in one direction and reemitted in another direction, then these aren't equal and opposite.
Reflections must not exert a physical force at all otherwise we can use them for perpetual motion (not that I'd complain
).I don't believe the particle component of a photon ever even travelled to the mirror at all.
QUOTE
The photon isn't traveling at twice the speed
Ok, if I take a beam splitter and run a photon through it then I recombine a reflection of this, doesn't the photon interact with itself at faster than light speeds?
How can a photon travel all these paths at the speed of light yet still take one path at the speed of light?
If you want to say it takes all these reflected paths simultaneously, then you're saying the same thing as I am - that light didn't actually follow each reflection, stop, exert a force and then bounce on to the next position but instead went effectively faster than light speed in determining where it was finally absorbed.
Personally, I don't think the photon was absorbed at all during the reflection or this seems to imply it had to physically interact with all these points at faster than light speed.
My personally view is that the path is determined at faster than light speeds (according to our interpretations of space) and that the particle itself simply hops from point to point instantly. This doesn't actually need to take any time at all. It only needs to take an average time relative to other such instantaneous events.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The photon isn't traveling at twice the speed |
Ok, if I take a beam splitter and run a photon through it then I recombine a reflection of this, doesn't the photon interact with itself at faster than light speeds?
How can a photon travel all these paths at the speed of light yet still take one path at the speed of light?
If you want to say it takes all these reflected paths simultaneously, then you're saying the same thing as I am - that light didn't actually follow each reflection, stop, exert a force and then bounce on to the next position but instead went effectively faster than light speed in determining where it was finally absorbed.
Personally, I don't think the photon was absorbed at all during the reflection or this seems to imply it had to physically interact with all these points at faster than light speed.
My personally view is that the path is determined at faster than light speeds (according to our interpretations of space) and that the particle itself simply hops from point to point instantly. This doesn't actually need to take any time at all. It only needs to take an average time relative to other such instantaneous events.
and so it will do the same with the opposing mirror applying an identical force as it did with the first mirror being absorbed and resent out back to the first mirror. You do have an endless cycle but the force doesn't increase (double) from mirror to mirror.
Ok, so you appear to agree that there's no reflective force from light also, or I'd assume you would have said the force increases.
Well in either event it's worth testing anyway. No matter what theories say, there's nothing like reality to give the final say. If reflected light does generate a force as a lot of mainstream views have portrayed then there's free energy sitting around and solar sails will work. If not, then the idea needs to be rethought and likely only absorbtion at the endpoint of a path for a photon yields a force.
QUOTE
If reflected light exerts a pressure on an object, imagine two mirrors with light traveling between them (reflected light exerts double the pressure).
Imagine photons being reflected between them. Would each reflection continue to add more outward force?
Imagine photons being reflected between them. Would each reflection continue to add more outward force?
No it actually sounds like your talking about trapping light between two mirrors.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If reflected light exerts a pressure on an object, imagine two mirrors with light traveling between them (reflected light exerts double the pressure). Imagine photons being reflected between them. Would each reflection continue to add more outward force? |
No it actually sounds like your talking about trapping light between two mirrors.
If light imparted a force being reflected, then it should lose energy and be red-shifted. Since when does light lose energy during a reflection?
When light is "reflected" is is first absorbed then re-emitted by the material doing the reflecting. With 100% reflection for every photon absorbed one of identical energy level is emitted out. The photon impacting the atom imparts a force (the photon is absorbed upon impact) the same photon emitted will impart the same force provided it is the same photon (for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction). So the force is two fold on the mirror but nothing changes with the light. The light will hit the next mirror with the same force since it will be traveling at the same speed. That force too will be a double force with the same photon being emitted and the double force on the second mirror will be the same as that placed on the first mirror.
QUOTE
It's not just wikipedia. Even NASA was researching solar sails. I'm not the one claiming reflected light creates a force. I'm the one pointing out the problem with such an idea.
I'm not denying that electromagnetic radiation has force. Hell I believe light to be comprised of a photon particle with mass so of course it will impart a force if it collides with something.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's not just wikipedia. Even NASA was researching solar sails. I'm not the one claiming reflected light creates a force. I'm the one pointing out the problem with such an idea. |
I'm not denying that electromagnetic radiation has force. Hell I believe light to be comprised of a photon particle with mass so of course it will impart a force if it collides with something.
Ok, so let's say you mounted a mirror on a large mass and reflected light off it. Do you believe you could get the object to move by shining light on the mirror?
Well since light imparts a force onto the object it is being absorbed by and it also imparts a force in the same direction when the light is emitted back out. The problem is that light imparts a very small force and your sail will have to be huge but the larger the sail the more mass it has and the more inertia it will have so the force light applies will not be enough to make it move. Then there is the ship that will add to the mass and therefore the inertia. What would need to happen is to increase the current of high energy photons (number of photons passing a specified volume of space in a specified amount of time) while leaving the size of the sail fixed to give it (and the ship attached) a fixed mass. The question is how many high energy photons can we cram together and how crammed can we get them.
QUOTE
If I take a mirror and bounce light off at a 90 deg angle, would you expect to see a force at a 45 degree angle? If light is absorbed in one direction and re-emitted in another direction, then these aren't equal and opposite.
I swear if you don't spell things out.....
When light is absorbed by a material a force is imparted on it. Provided that the photon came perpendicular to (forming a 90deg angle with) the material doing the absorption than if the same photon were emitted back out in the direction in which it came (reflected) it would impart the same force once again in the same direction as before.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I take a mirror and bounce light off at a 90 deg angle, would you expect to see a force at a 45 degree angle? If light is absorbed in one direction and re-emitted in another direction, then these aren't equal and opposite. |
I swear if you don't spell things out.....
When light is absorbed by a material a force is imparted on it. Provided that the photon came perpendicular to (forming a 90deg angle with) the material doing the absorption than if the same photon were emitted back out in the direction in which it came (reflected) it would impart the same force once again in the same direction as before.
Ok, if I take a beam splitter and run a photon through it then I recombine a reflection of this, doesn't the photon interact with itself at faster than light speeds?
That makes absolutely no sense. First off a beam splitter splits the beam. Individual photons don't split. Lets say you shine a laser onto a surface, it takes so much time for the individual photons to make the journey from their source to the surface. Lets say mirrors are placed so that half the beam gets deflected in a different direction (beam splitter splitting the beam) while the other half continues to take the direct path. The reflected beam then reflects off three more mirrors so it ends up back next to the beam that took the direct route. If you were to track two separate photons that were emitted at the exact same time where one took the direct path and the other took the indirect path (following the mirrors) than the photon that took the direct path will reach the surface before the one taking the indirect route. If the indirect route is twice the distance as the direct route than the photon will take very little more than twice as long as the photon taking the direct route.
The distance alone would cause it to take twice as long but then you have to add the time it takes for a photon to be emitted after being absorbed and multiply this time by four (the number of mirrors doing the absorbing and emitting).
So for the one photon t=d/V
t=Time of travel
d=Distance
V=Velocity
The second photon t=d/V+4X
t=Time of travel
d=Distance
V=Velocity
X=Time it takes for the photon to be emitted after being absorbed
If you shine two lasers directly at each other then the speed of each photon is still only the speed of light but if two photons were to head directly toward each other the speed at which they are traveling toward each other is twice that of the speed of light (the sum of their individual speeds).
Car A is moving east along a road at 100mph and car B is headed west on that same road at 100mph. They may be moving at 100mph individually but are moving toward each other at 200mph.
Give car A a speed of 50mph and car B a speed of 150mph they are still moving toward each other at 200mph.
QUOTE
Ok, so you appear to agree that there's no reflective force from light also, or I'd assume you would have said the force increases.
No I'm saying there is a force but that it just doesn't increase.
Here is what I'm not saying
Let's say that a photon applies a force of 1N on an object when absorbed and then applies this force again while being emitted for a total force of 2N.
So the photon contacts the mirror getting absorbed applying 1N of force. The mirror then emits the same photon applying an additional 1N of force in the same direction as before for a total of 2N of force on the mirror. The same photon then contacts a second mirror applying 2N of force while getting absorbed then applies an additional 2N while getting emitted for a total of 4N. The photon then goes back to the first mirror applying 4N to the mirror while getting absorbed then applies an addition 4N while getting emitted for a total of 8N.
I repeat "That is not what I am saying"
What I am saying is if the photon applies 1N of force to the mirror while getting absorbed it will apply an additional 1N when emitted for a total of two. When the photon contacts the second mirror it applies 1N of force once again and then applies an additional 1N when emitted for a total of 2N on the second mirror. Same as the first. It doesn't matter how many times the photon reflects back and forth the force applied to each mirror will be 2N. If you reflect the photon off 1 million mirrors you will still only have 2N of force applied to each mirror.
Hi Precursor562 and StevenA et al,
Cheers
QUOTE
What I am saying is if the photon applies 1N of force to the mirror while getting absorbed it will apply an additional 1N when emitted for a total of two. When the photon contacts the second mirror it applies 1N of force once again and then applies an additional 1N when emitted for a total of 2N on the second mirror. Same as the first. It doesn't matter how many times the photon reflects back and forth the force applied to each mirror will be 2N. If you reflect the photon off 1 million mirrors you will still only have 2N of force applied to each mirror.
No quarrel here but just like to get your view on this one Precursor562... What if those 1 million mirrors were scattered around the galaxy? Does this one photon do work on all those 1 million mirrors?Cheers
If some force is detectable from a reflection, then this force should be doing work and providing energy otherwise you couldn't measure the force if it provided no displacement.
So we'll assume this is a real acceleration and not simply a mathematical abstraction.
We also know photon energies are quantized into discrete units.
Now if I were to emit a single photon of the lowest possible energy, a single unit, and it reflected off something and was absorbed elsewhere, where do the energies do?
1) Did the emitter recoil? If so, how many units of energy were present in the recoil?
2) Did the reflector receive energy? If so how many units?
3) Did the receiver receive energy? If so how many units?
The only way any of this makes sense is simply if the receiver received a single unit of energy and the reflection (or even multiple reflections) received nothing.
This might sound unintuitive but consider the wavefunction for light is capable of being modulated and shifted at faster than light speed.
For example, quantum tunnelling, and Cherekov radiation are suppose to be due to these effects.
In small clusters of cesium atoms, charged particles can travel at up to 300 times light speed for short distances.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gene...n_c_000719.html
Here's a more in depth description:
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=34
Of course on average for long distances (in uncontrolled, non-accelerating, average vacuum of space, for round trip measurements) you can't exceed the speed of light for long but the group velocity for the wave could potentially be infinite.
I believe the resolution is simply that the wavefunction is affected by reflections but this doesn't mean the particle has to physically bounce off the mirrors to do so, nor need to deliver a force. It can simply hop to whereever it gets absorbed and delivery the energy there.
So we'll assume this is a real acceleration and not simply a mathematical abstraction.
We also know photon energies are quantized into discrete units.
Now if I were to emit a single photon of the lowest possible energy, a single unit, and it reflected off something and was absorbed elsewhere, where do the energies do?
1) Did the emitter recoil? If so, how many units of energy were present in the recoil?
2) Did the reflector receive energy? If so how many units?
3) Did the receiver receive energy? If so how many units?
The only way any of this makes sense is simply if the receiver received a single unit of energy and the reflection (or even multiple reflections) received nothing.
This might sound unintuitive but consider the wavefunction for light is capable of being modulated and shifted at faster than light speed.
For example, quantum tunnelling, and Cherekov radiation are suppose to be due to these effects.
In small clusters of cesium atoms, charged particles can travel at up to 300 times light speed for short distances.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gene...n_c_000719.html
Here's a more in depth description:
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=34
Of course on average for long distances (in uncontrolled, non-accelerating, average vacuum of space, for round trip measurements) you can't exceed the speed of light for long but the group velocity for the wave could potentially be infinite.
I believe the resolution is simply that the wavefunction is affected by reflections but this doesn't mean the particle has to physically bounce off the mirrors to do so, nor need to deliver a force. It can simply hop to whereever it gets absorbed and delivery the energy there.
QUOTE
What if those 1 million mirrors were scattered around the galaxy? Does this one photon do work on all those 1 million mirrors?
If it reaches all of them without colliding with anything first.
I think there is a confusion here. One is the photon's energy level (eV) while the other is the photons momentum.
Simply put, a photon has mass so when it decelerates (upon being absorbed by the atom it collides with) it exerts a force upon the atom. The atom being part of a greater body (sail) will feel this force. The emitting of a photon will exert a force upon the atom once again in the opposite direction of that in which the photon leaves. The the direction of both forces are the same.
The photon carries a charge (eV) and when absorbed by the atom causes electron(s) to increase in energy level. The atom then drops in energy level and a photon is emitted.
Two different scenarios that are closely related. I believe it would be best to think of the atom as the perfect spring. Throw a base ball (photon) at a spring (atom) mounted on a wall (greater body). The ball contacts the spring causing it compress (atom getting absorbed) but as it does the the ball slows down to a stop prior to changing direction. As the spring gets compressed by the ball a force is place upon both the ball and the wall. Both the ball and the wall receive the same force in opposing directions so the wall receives the force in the same direction the ball would be headed had the wall and spring not be there where the ball is receiving the force in opposition to the direction in which it is headed and is the force causing it to slow down. At this point the kinetic energy (the eV of the photon) the ball had went into compressing the spring (increasing the energy level of the atom causing one or more electrons to jump to a higher energy level). Now the spring will 'spring' back to it's original state (the atom will return to its original energy level) by exerting force upon the ball. However the force the ball receives by the spring re-asserting itself is also applied to the wall opposite to that of the ball's direction.
With the ball and the spring the spring will continue to apply pressure to both the ball and the wall for as long as it is compressed. This is unlike the atom and the photon where the pressure ceases. So it would be like the ball compressing the spring which will apply pressure but as soon as the spring reaches maximum compression (the point where the photon is absorbed) it no longer applies any force to neither the wall nor the ball. However it once again applies pressure to both when the ball is ready to leave (when the photon is released).
So the photon impacts the atom. The photon rapidly slows to near stop due to a force applied to it. The same force is applied to the atom in the opposite direction. The photon is then absorbed adding its eV to that of the atom causing one or more electrons to jump energy levels. The one or more electrons then drop back down and the photon is sent back out in the direction from which it came. It gets up to speed at the same rate at which it slowed before getting absorbed and so the same force is applied to the photon once again in the same direction as before. An equal and opposite force is applied to the atom once again as before. The perfect spring.
Well it wouldn't be lossless for the photon if it delivered some momentum to the mirror. The photon would then have less momentum as it transferred it to another mass.
So how would this loss of momentum be witnessed in a reflected photon?
I know light becomes polarized reflecting at an angle off of metal and so it could lose some component of energy in one direction from this, but that's actually due to an imperfect reflection and some energy being absorbed on an axis. I've never heard of polarization from a reflection off a mirror or red shifting before. So what component of light provides this energy for a reflection? How can it deliver a force to a surface and not obviously have lost any energy in the process? Is there some unobvious mechanism that transfers energy?
99.99% reflective mirrors aren't difficult to make and some mirrors are claimed to be 99.9999% reflective and could potentially amplify such a force over 1 million times with possibly even better mirrors in the future. This seems like free energy.
So how would this loss of momentum be witnessed in a reflected photon?
I know light becomes polarized reflecting at an angle off of metal and so it could lose some component of energy in one direction from this, but that's actually due to an imperfect reflection and some energy being absorbed on an axis. I've never heard of polarization from a reflection off a mirror or red shifting before. So what component of light provides this energy for a reflection? How can it deliver a force to a surface and not obviously have lost any energy in the process? Is there some unobvious mechanism that transfers energy?
99.99% reflective mirrors aren't difficult to make and some mirrors are claimed to be 99.9999% reflective and could potentially amplify such a force over 1 million times with possibly even better mirrors in the future. This seems like free energy.
QUOTE
So what component of light provides this energy for a reflection? How can it deliver a force to a surface and not obviously have lost any energy in the process? Is there some unobvious mechanism that transfers energy?
The short answer...eV.
Photon hits atom with momentum.
Collision places a directional force on the atom.
Photon gets absorbed by the atom causing the atom to jump energy level(s)
Atom returns to previous energy level releasing a photon.
The photon is released in the opposite direction from which it came (reflection)
The photon is released with the speed of light so a force must be applied to the photon to allow for such a velocity.
Same force gets exerted on the atom in the same direction as the previous force.
No energy is lost. The photon gives up its energy to the atom which then returns it to the photon. In a perfect reflection 100% of the energy is returned. When you look at something that is red, purple, green or whatever color, photons of all energy levels (white light) collides with the atoms making up the colored object. They get absorbed but then released in a controlled manner. Where photons of all energy levels get absorbed by the atom only photons of a specific energy level gets released giving you the color of the object. So the atom takes the energy of the photons whose energy level is higher than those of the color and gives it to the photons whose energy level is lower than the color. You still end up with no energy lost. However in the case of something that is purple, Violet photons have the highest of the energy levels in the visible light spectrum. So lets say that only photons of the visible light spectrum shines on the purple object. The violet photons will be re-released but those photons that are lower in energy level will be combined within the atom then release as violet photons. When an atom absorbs a photon the photon is essentially gone (although it still exists as an increase in the atom's energy level). So when the atom drops in energy level it releases a photon whose energy level is equal to the atom's energy drop. So in the case of colored objects the atoms that make up those objects will only drop a set amount of energy level. That set amount is the color.
Well the energy and momentum are supposedly related by e=p*c, which would make sense if you assume the photon is travelling at light speed.
So at least if this is true, then the entire momentum is delivered to the atom when it's absorbed and not just a fraction of it.
Now if the photon is then reemitted, then this momentum absorbed by the atom should be driving force behind it as the atom wouldn't spontaneously emit that energy photon under other circumstances (it only emits the photon from a reflection, so it couldn't have that momentum available to pass onto anything else, because if it did, then it would no longer be in an excited state and reemit the photon).
So it must consume this momentum instead of creating a duplicate and reinforcing copy of the momentum.
I'll draw a little text picture here. The photon heads from the left toward atom1. Atom 1 is bound to atom2 by EMF forces.
photon -----> atom1 - atom2
Now if atom1 absorbs the photon, then it would have a momentum to the right. I'm certain we both agree that if the photon wasn't reflected, then at least part of this momentum could be passed on to atom2 and so the momentum is detectable as a force.
But the question is over the reflection.
If atom1 passes momentum on to atom2, then atom1 no longer has the same momentum and it can't reemit a photon of the same energy.
If atom1 instead consumes the momentum received by the photon in order to reemit it, then the energies remain the same and no momentum is left in either atom.
Now you might say that atom1 absorbs the momentum from the photon, then reemits another photon and again absorbs reinforcing momentum from the reemission of the photon so that now it has twice the momentum of the single photon.
What would stop atom1 from passing some of this overabundance of energy into both atom2 and creating a second photon. Or if atom2 received some of the energy, then it could also emit another photon and gain even more energy etc. The two atoms could pass momentum back and forth and emit photons continually from the extra energy as far as I can tell.
I believe what happens is that for a reflection, the light wave reflects before the particle component ever gets there.
For example, if the wave function drops to 0, a particle will never be detected there. If you look at the mirror as reversing the wave function 180 degs, then you could have a perfect phase cancellation of the wave on the immediate surface of the mirror and the photon would never physically reach that point.
When a photon is instead absorbed, there's no reverse component to the wave and hence no cancellation so absorbtion doesn't have a problem.
I don't believe this 180 deg phase shift of the wave is seen using mirrors, but consider that we only see the absolute magnitude of the wave and not the polarity of it so -amplitude^2 = amplitude^2 so it wouldn't be obvious ... though you'd still assume this would create a problem with cancellations after using a mirror as distances of wavelengths wouldn't be preserved accurately. (does anyone know off hand if this is a real effect that's observed? The conflict I'm thinking of is that a laser should have a standing wave passing through 0 at the mirrors, but it takes self interference to notice this, but that could be because the mirrors aren't perfectly spaced so some phase shifting occurs .. but that should still servo to a steady state I'd think)
I've seen something similar to this before. If you place a mirror to directly reflect a laser back into the emitter, you can kill the beam. I don't know if it's due to an effect exactly like I described, but it could be.
So at least if this is true, then the entire momentum is delivered to the atom when it's absorbed and not just a fraction of it.
Now if the photon is then reemitted, then this momentum absorbed by the atom should be driving force behind it as the atom wouldn't spontaneously emit that energy photon under other circumstances (it only emits the photon from a reflection, so it couldn't have that momentum available to pass onto anything else, because if it did, then it would no longer be in an excited state and reemit the photon).
So it must consume this momentum instead of creating a duplicate and reinforcing copy of the momentum.
I'll draw a little text picture here. The photon heads from the left toward atom1. Atom 1 is bound to atom2 by EMF forces.
photon -----> atom1 - atom2
Now if atom1 absorbs the photon, then it would have a momentum to the right. I'm certain we both agree that if the photon wasn't reflected, then at least part of this momentum could be passed on to atom2 and so the momentum is detectable as a force.
But the question is over the reflection.
If atom1 passes momentum on to atom2, then atom1 no longer has the same momentum and it can't reemit a photon of the same energy.
If atom1 instead consumes the momentum received by the photon in order to reemit it, then the energies remain the same and no momentum is left in either atom.
Now you might say that atom1 absorbs the momentum from the photon, then reemits another photon and again absorbs reinforcing momentum from the reemission of the photon so that now it has twice the momentum of the single photon.
What would stop atom1 from passing some of this overabundance of energy into both atom2 and creating a second photon. Or if atom2 received some of the energy, then it could also emit another photon and gain even more energy etc. The two atoms could pass momentum back and forth and emit photons continually from the extra energy as far as I can tell.
I believe what happens is that for a reflection, the light wave reflects before the particle component ever gets there.
For example, if the wave function drops to 0, a particle will never be detected there. If you look at the mirror as reversing the wave function 180 degs, then you could have a perfect phase cancellation of the wave on the immediate surface of the mirror and the photon would never physically reach that point.
When a photon is instead absorbed, there's no reverse component to the wave and hence no cancellation so absorbtion doesn't have a problem.
I don't believe this 180 deg phase shift of the wave is seen using mirrors, but consider that we only see the absolute magnitude of the wave and not the polarity of it so -amplitude^2 = amplitude^2 so it wouldn't be obvious ... though you'd still assume this would create a problem with cancellations after using a mirror as distances of wavelengths wouldn't be preserved accurately. (does anyone know off hand if this is a real effect that's observed? The conflict I'm thinking of is that a laser should have a standing wave passing through 0 at the mirrors, but it takes self interference to notice this, but that could be because the mirrors aren't perfectly spaced so some phase shifting occurs .. but that should still servo to a steady state I'd think)
I've seen something similar to this before. If you place a mirror to directly reflect a laser back into the emitter, you can kill the beam. I don't know if it's due to an effect exactly like I described, but it could be.
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 12 2006, 10:19 PM)
I had an interesting idea for a perpetual motion machine and wanted to see if anyone could shoot the idea down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
If reflected light exerts a pressure on an object, imagine two mirrors with light travelling between them (reflected light exerts double the pressure).
Imagine photons being reflected between them. Would each reflection continue to add more outward force? I have a feeling there's a quantum catch here, but I've never heard of light pressure varying depending on experiment set up.
Anyway, this acceleration could continue indefinitely, assuming the path of the photons was aligned correctly. The light will always travel faster than the mass, so no matter the distance, light will continue to cycle between them.
To make this a more realistic setup, just to show that this could provide a real gain (again assuming no quantum catches) imagine two mirrors with a rotating arm between them. If both sides of this arm had mirrors that were held parallel to the two surrounding and stationary mirrors, then you could reflect light on one side of the arm in one direction and one the other side of the mirror for the other side of the arm and generate a rotational force on the arm. Realistically you'd want to use large enough mirrors to get at least thousands of reflections, but assuming you had a source of photons that was more efficient than this (not very difficult), you should have a net gain of energy.
Ok, so does anyone know what the catch is, or is there one? I assume this effect, multiplying a reflective force for light could be verified rather easily.
Now something else to consider is that if there is a catch, it's interesting to consider what such a mechanism would imply about light.
Look up Feynmann's papers and also see the comments of Wilson as it relates to that. wbw[/QUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
If reflected light exerts a pressure on an object, imagine two mirrors with light travelling between them (reflected light exerts double the pressure).
Imagine photons being reflected between them. Would each reflection continue to add more outward force? I have a feeling there's a quantum catch here, but I've never heard of light pressure varying depending on experiment set up.
Anyway, this acceleration could continue indefinitely, assuming the path of the photons was aligned correctly. The light will always travel faster than the mass, so no matter the distance, light will continue to cycle between them.
To make this a more realistic setup, just to show that this could provide a real gain (again assuming no quantum catches) imagine two mirrors with a rotating arm between them. If both sides of this arm had mirrors that were held parallel to the two surrounding and stationary mirrors, then you could reflect light on one side of the arm in one direction and one the other side of the mirror for the other side of the arm and generate a rotational force on the arm. Realistically you'd want to use large enough mirrors to get at least thousands of reflections, but assuming you had a source of photons that was more efficient than this (not very difficult), you should have a net gain of energy.
Ok, so does anyone know what the catch is, or is there one? I assume this effect, multiplying a reflective force for light could be verified rather easily.
Now something else to consider is that if there is a catch, it's interesting to consider what such a mechanism would imply about light.
Look up Feynmann's papers and also see the comments of Wilson as it relates to that. wbw[/QUOTE]
Hi Precursor562 and StevenA,
I see you have found "perpetual motion".... You do mechanical work and it can be done as often as you like without the expenditure of any energy since it is experimentally known that the energy of photons does not usually "leak away" in reflections.
I see you have found "perpetual motion".... You do mechanical work and it can be done as often as you like without the expenditure of any energy since it is experimentally known that the energy of photons does not usually "leak away" in reflections.
QUOTE (StevenA Posted on Today at 10:52 PM+)
I believe what happens is that for a reflection, the light wave reflects before the particle component ever gets there.
For example, if the wave function drops to 0, a particle will never be detected there. If you look at the mirror as reversing the wave function 180 degs, then you could have a perfect phase cancellation of the wave on the immediate surface of the mirror and the photon would never physically reach that point.
For example, if the wave function drops to 0, a particle will never be detected there. If you look at the mirror as reversing the wave function 180 degs, then you could have a perfect phase cancellation of the wave on the immediate surface of the mirror and the photon would never physically reach that point.
This makes sense to me. I also think this clearly distinguishes the wavelike nature of quanta from their particle aspects. They never show these two separate aspects simultaneously. In the quantum state a photon is not able to be "seen" (photon to particle energy exchange process), therefore you can say nothing about its actions. As a propagating "quanta" of light it is unable to "age" and thus enter into dynamic processes of energy or momentum exchange. What they do involve themselves in is wavelike behavior. They can spread, diffract, interfere, tunnel etc. In all these operations the photons do not exchange anything with the rest of the universe other than "geometry". If the photon cannot experience time then it can't experience a change in momentum... impulse which must occur over a short period of time. It also cannot change its energy since that would result in a rate of transfer of energy. Finally... after many zero sum unseen "optical" maneuvers... the single photon will engage in a single quantum demolition event that "precipitates" the photon from its unobserved quantum state... For me it also drops out of higher dimensional "stringy space". I will ignore that part of this for now.
To "see" what is happening this must occur inside your eye, at the back of your eye in the retina. The receptors are designed to absorb at particular frequencies and thus partake in a chemical energy process. Equally this could be a Phosphide Screen which emits a flash of scattered light. It is then that this interference phenomena is observed for the single photon in the eye's "Camera Obscura". The wave function collapsing after its long journey to be observed. A number of these events make up the "picture" of the external world. Other photons are still traveling through "empty" space unobserved as invisible waves. Look into the night sky and "out there" in that darkness it is filled with so many photons you cannot ever see because they travel totally invisibly as "quanta". A few photons are required to see those specks of light in the sky... the stars. You know that "out there" near the earth, vast quantities of photons are streaming from the sun and are passing through the earth's shadow. you can't ever see them because they will never reach your eye. What we know of the external Universe beyond the eye is a pattern of these photons of different frequencies that have crossed the vast distances of the universe without ever losing any energy until the very moment you saw them.
A rose you might "see" in your garden is an "inverted image" on your retina activating receptors through absorption and giving up their energy after a focusing by the lens system in front of your retina. Some photons will "dissipate" their energy in the aqueous humor and others will dissipate their energy inside the lens. You will never see the information these damaged photons had encoded in them because there is no optical "ordering" in those regions of the eye. These few will become "scattered" light... secondary emissions that contain no information of the original source (noise).
We will see light as if it was from a long way off but is only an image in the eye. The information the photons are carrying are quantum qubits from the source... where they originally came from... maybe from a distant star. Without that information ... the phase and frequency... we would not know just how the world really looks at all. If mirrors intercepted these phenomena the information of the source is retained... this includes the phase... any increase or decrease in the phase from the source "en-route" would mix up this "perfect" picture. This instantly implies that the photons can't linger in an atom along the way to the Earth or to your eye or risk losing this valuable qubit of information if it is to retain a perfect cohesion in time and space... the "image". Quantum physics deemphasize this phase aspect of this process in order to gain simplicity. IMHO it is "oversimplified". All synchronized photons arrive on the one wavefront usually in perfect relative phase, even over the distance of galaxies. When you consider just how short the wavelength of a average photon is, this is an incredible spatial "synchronization". The image is for all close examination ... perfect and it really does not matter how far it travels since photons cannot "destructively" interfere with each other and many can exist in the one place in space at the same time exercising Bose-Einstein Statistics. The qubits are the "information".
Cheers
To "see" what is happening this must occur inside your eye, at the back of your eye in the retina. The receptors are designed to absorb at particular frequencies and thus partake in a chemical energy process. Equally this could be a Phosphide Screen which emits a flash of scattered light. It is then that this interference phenomena is observed for the single photon in the eye's "Camera Obscura". The wave function collapsing after its long journey to be observed. A number of these events make up the "picture" of the external world. Other photons are still traveling through "empty" space unobserved as invisible waves. Look into the night sky and "out there" in that darkness it is filled with so many photons you cannot ever see because they travel totally invisibly as "quanta". A few photons are required to see those specks of light in the sky... the stars. You know that "out there" near the earth, vast quantities of photons are streaming from the sun and are passing through the earth's shadow. you can't ever see them because they will never reach your eye. What we know of the external Universe beyond the eye is a pattern of these photons of different frequencies that have crossed the vast distances of the universe without ever losing any energy until the very moment you saw them.
A rose you might "see" in your garden is an "inverted image" on your retina activating receptors through absorption and giving up their energy after a focusing by the lens system in front of your retina. Some photons will "dissipate" their energy in the aqueous humor and others will dissipate their energy inside the lens. You will never see the information these damaged photons had encoded in them because there is no optical "ordering" in those regions of the eye. These few will become "scattered" light... secondary emissions that contain no information of the original source (noise).
We will see light as if it was from a long way off but is only an image in the eye. The information the photons are carrying are quantum qubits from the source... where they originally came from... maybe from a distant star. Without that information ... the phase and frequency... we would not know just how the world really looks at all. If mirrors intercepted these phenomena the information of the source is retained... this includes the phase... any increase or decrease in the phase from the source "en-route" would mix up this "perfect" picture. This instantly implies that the photons can't linger in an atom along the way to the Earth or to your eye or risk losing this valuable qubit of information if it is to retain a perfect cohesion in time and space... the "image". Quantum physics deemphasize this phase aspect of this process in order to gain simplicity. IMHO it is "oversimplified". All synchronized photons arrive on the one wavefront usually in perfect relative phase, even over the distance of galaxies. When you consider just how short the wavelength of a average photon is, this is an incredible spatial "synchronization". The image is for all close examination ... perfect and it really does not matter how far it travels since photons cannot "destructively" interfere with each other and many can exist in the one place in space at the same time exercising Bose-Einstein Statistics. The qubits are the "information".
Cheers
Well I'm not really into wave theory but rather more into particle theory. Where in the case of light traveling in photon pairs. The pairs have a bond and as they travel they do so in a wave like path. Literally moving up and down vertically while the other literally moves back and forth horizontally. One is at its peak while the other crosses paths so they're at odds in their travel but are parallel.
The photons get absorbed by the atom. This is in the sense that the photon pair no longer exists and the energy contained within the photons now belong to the atom. The atom then creates a new photon pair (using the energy it contains) and sends them out. So the collision of the first photon pair exerts a force. The emission of a new photon pair exerts a force once again. Kinda like how a car hitting a wall exerts a force on the wall and how a rocket receives a force by releasing hot expanding gas.
The photons get absorbed by the atom. This is in the sense that the photon pair no longer exists and the energy contained within the photons now belong to the atom. The atom then creates a new photon pair (using the energy it contains) and sends them out. So the collision of the first photon pair exerts a force. The emission of a new photon pair exerts a force once again. Kinda like how a car hitting a wall exerts a force on the wall and how a rocket receives a force by releasing hot expanding gas.
Thank you all for the responses, I don't have much time now, so I'll have to response more and go and read Feymann's paper later, but I quickly wanted to add a couple comments:
QUOTE (Precursor562+)
The emission of a new photon pair exerts a force once again. Kinda like how a car hitting a wall exerts a force on the wall and how a rocket receives a force by releasing hot expanding gas.
I believe that without these two force being complimentary, you still have the potential for perpentual motion. And if the forces are complimentary you have another problem conserving momentum as emitting a photon would need to pull you in the direction you emitted it in order to compensate for the recoil absorbing it.
So for the momentum to cancel you'd have a laser jump forward when emitting a photon and then if it struck something else, that also would be pushed forward so a laser could potentially accelerate in one direction, but a laser could be built symmetrically and should have no preference for one direction versus another, so this seems highly unlikely as well.
I believe that without these two force being complimentary, you still have the potential for perpentual motion. And if the forces are complimentary you have another problem conserving momentum as emitting a photon would need to pull you in the direction you emitted it in order to compensate for the recoil absorbing it.
So for the momentum to cancel you'd have a laser jump forward when emitting a photon and then if it struck something else, that also would be pushed forward so a laser could potentially accelerate in one direction, but a laser could be built symmetrically and should have no preference for one direction versus another, so this seems highly unlikely as well.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
This makes sense to me. I also think this clearly distinguishes the wavelike nature of quanta from their particle aspects. They never show these two separate aspects simultaneously. In the quantum state a photon is not able to be "seen" (photon to particle energy exchange process), therefore you can say nothing about its actions. As a propagating "quanta" of light it is unable to "age" and thus enter into dynamic processes of energy or momentum exchange. What they do involve themselves in is wavelike behavior. They can spread, diffract, interfere, tunnel etc. In all these operations the photons do not exchange anything with the rest of the universe other than "geometry". If the photon cannot experience time then it can't experience a change in momentum... impulse which must occur over a short period of time. It also cannot change its energy since that would result in a rate of transfer of energy. Finally... after many zero sum unseen "optical" maneuvers... the single photon will engage in a single quantum demolition event that "precipitates" the photon from its unobserved quantum state... For me it also drops out of higher dimensional "stringy space". I will ignore that part of this for now.
I believe we see things rather similarly. My view is that events that create time could be seen as the ultimate fundamental unit of the universe, and because these are discrete events, everything observed is finite and composed of discrete units.
What we see on a human scale is the wavelike and continuous approximations of a fundamentally discrete universe. In a sense, a reflection could be interpreted as the edge of an observable universe (at least at whatever wavelength or associated energy the reflection occurs for, not all wavelengths give the same view of things).
So the waves can move instantaneously because they aren't tangible, nor can the actual continuous wavelike property of light be physically detected ... it's ultimately a particle.
The quantum confusions come in by showing our wavelike and continuous views don't truly match the underlying physical properties of space. So when we place an object in the patch of a beam, the waves correlate with approximations of the errors between our macroscopic understanding of space and the microscopic reality. We can make errors in judgement instantly and so waves can appear to travel instantly. We can also misunderstand time by approximating it with rates and so when something deviates from an approximate rate we can interprete this as a warp in time or space etc.
I'd love to post more but I've got to take the family out
Oh well, have fun. I think there's more to this than meets the eye ... or maybe it's in imagining there's more than meets the eye. (Just kidding but when there's a mismatch, I'd recommend going with physical senses and tangibles first before constructing intangible spaces)
I believe we see things rather similarly. My view is that events that create time could be seen as the ultimate fundamental unit of the universe, and because these are discrete events, everything observed is finite and composed of discrete units.
What we see on a human scale is the wavelike and continuous approximations of a fundamentally discrete universe. In a sense, a reflection could be interpreted as the edge of an observable universe (at least at whatever wavelength or associated energy the reflection occurs for, not all wavelengths give the same view of things).
So the waves can move instantaneously because they aren't tangible, nor can the actual continuous wavelike property of light be physically detected ... it's ultimately a particle.
The quantum confusions come in by showing our wavelike and continuous views don't truly match the underlying physical properties of space. So when we place an object in the patch of a beam, the waves correlate with approximations of the errors between our macroscopic understanding of space and the microscopic reality. We can make errors in judgement instantly and so waves can appear to travel instantly. We can also misunderstand time by approximating it with rates and so when something deviates from an approximate rate we can interprete this as a warp in time or space etc.
I'd love to post more but I've got to take the family out
Oh well, have fun. I think there's more to this than meets the eye ... or maybe it's in imagining there's more than meets the eye.
(Just kidding but when there's a mismatch, I'd recommend going with physical senses and tangibles first before constructing intangible spaces)
Hi StevenA and Precursor562,
I guess I am trying to provide the minimum of information that is needed to solve this problem. If you think about it for an instant it takes time to absorb a photon and then re-emit it. This would place that "renewed" photon at least on the next wavefront leaving from the "station". This would change the optical path length and through Feynman Many-paths integration methods would probably cancel or interfere with the wave effect propagating from other expanding "light shells". This "delayed" photon can never get back to its correct place in time and space since light is the maximum velocity for any disturbance and this photon can't adjust its phase to compensate. It is stuck on the next wavefront. That is sort of the "nuts and bolts" of photon phase.
Speaking of the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment", and now I am getting far more complicated here, the emission and absorption of a photon that happens in time as we see it is an expression of a single event.
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully
This is because a single photon "has no life of its own". It does not suffer time between the emission and absorption process and because it also undergoes extreme "length contraction", everything . The only time a photon can experience is while in the actual process of that emission and absorption which actually takes a finite time to occur.
Short diversion here... You might ask why does a photon take any time to be emitted or absorbed? Consider the extreme case of a dipole antenna one light year long being excited from its midpoint by a EM oscillating field. The frequency of this field is the time it takes for one cycle and this is a year. In that time the electric field lines of the centers of charge on this line pass each other twice "snipping off" the field lines into "loops", just outside the evanescent zone of the transmitter. The photon "created" from this example process is physically huge and takes 1/2 a year to form. In the process of creation there are no photons "launched" as yet. Once launched they cannot "return" and are forced to propagate outwards in an expanding shell as an event at the speed of light on a wavefront. The "absorption" process is assumed to be something similar. In that "birthing" process proto-photons experience "forces" and thus time. This is why electromagnetism is so powerful in that short near-field range. It is also why magnets are very powerful too since they are EM oscillating fields with periods so long we cannot measure them. These "virtual photons" and I suppose the real photons are the exchange forces of our Universe that drive those currents of electrons around circuits. They can never leave the source in these non-emitters since the energy is below the work function of the systems as explained by the photoelectric effect.
Getting back to the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment", the photon then coasts according to our time at the speed of light toward its final destination. If you consider that one event process... nothing changes at all regards to time. Entangled photon's fate is "fixed" and nothing anyone can do can change it, that includes anything you can think to do in the future. The event of emission and absorption and the "long" timeless trip of the single photon is a frozen moment that knows the future about the configuration of all interacting matter as long as a single photon "continues". The "event".... this is the qubit... knows beforehand .... before it arrives at its final destination... everything that will happen everywhere it will be... the position of every obstacle and orifice and the thickness of all materials it will tunnel through possibly right across the intervening space which may be many light years away... and you cannot change its fate. It is like a crooked roulette wheel... everything is fixed.
This single instant in time, carrying the qubit of information, as a single "event" now needs to paint itself through the universe at the finite speed of light starting from the "causative" end and terminating at the "effects" end as an immutable changeless layer. Wherever the photon will go and wherever it diffracts, tunnels, refracts or ultimately is absorbed is all decided the moment it is emitted. Events happen to even entangled photons in the future that affect the events that have happened to the long "dead", absorbed or entangled photons that were in the same bosonic state (on that one wavefront). This is not conjecture this is an experimental fact. It is possible that others may interpret this differently but I am unable to see that any other explanation explains all the facts of this "delicious" experiment. The next instant in time with a different event, even if from the same physical place, is a layer over this original event so they cannot interfere with each other or "mix". What we are psychologically unable to accept is the play of the passage of time which is simply the speed at which this event propagates from the "cause" to the "effect"..... We are unable to change the past because from our temporal perspective we cannot fundamentally modify any of these events once they are "initiated".
If this is not the way others out there see it ... please feel free to respond with a good explanation. We elves do not bite.
Cheers
I guess I am trying to provide the minimum of information that is needed to solve this problem. If you think about it for an instant it takes time to absorb a photon and then re-emit it. This would place that "renewed" photon at least on the next wavefront leaving from the "station". This would change the optical path length and through Feynman Many-paths integration methods would probably cancel or interfere with the wave effect propagating from other expanding "light shells". This "delayed" photon can never get back to its correct place in time and space since light is the maximum velocity for any disturbance and this photon can't adjust its phase to compensate. It is stuck on the next wavefront. That is sort of the "nuts and bolts" of photon phase.
Speaking of the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment", and now I am getting far more complicated here, the emission and absorption of a photon that happens in time as we see it is an expression of a single event.
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully
This is because a single photon "has no life of its own". It does not suffer time between the emission and absorption process and because it also undergoes extreme "length contraction", everything . The only time a photon can experience is while in the actual process of that emission and absorption which actually takes a finite time to occur.
Short diversion here... You might ask why does a photon take any time to be emitted or absorbed? Consider the extreme case of a dipole antenna one light year long being excited from its midpoint by a EM oscillating field. The frequency of this field is the time it takes for one cycle and this is a year. In that time the electric field lines of the centers of charge on this line pass each other twice "snipping off" the field lines into "loops", just outside the evanescent zone of the transmitter. The photon "created" from this example process is physically huge and takes 1/2 a year to form. In the process of creation there are no photons "launched" as yet. Once launched they cannot "return" and are forced to propagate outwards in an expanding shell as an event at the speed of light on a wavefront. The "absorption" process is assumed to be something similar. In that "birthing" process proto-photons experience "forces" and thus time. This is why electromagnetism is so powerful in that short near-field range. It is also why magnets are very powerful too since they are EM oscillating fields with periods so long we cannot measure them. These "virtual photons" and I suppose the real photons are the exchange forces of our Universe that drive those currents of electrons around circuits. They can never leave the source in these non-emitters since the energy is below the work function of the systems as explained by the photoelectric effect.
Getting back to the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment", the photon then coasts according to our time at the speed of light toward its final destination. If you consider that one event process... nothing changes at all regards to time. Entangled photon's fate is "fixed" and nothing anyone can do can change it, that includes anything you can think to do in the future. The event of emission and absorption and the "long" timeless trip of the single photon is a frozen moment that knows the future about the configuration of all interacting matter as long as a single photon "continues". The "event".... this is the qubit... knows beforehand .... before it arrives at its final destination... everything that will happen everywhere it will be... the position of every obstacle and orifice and the thickness of all materials it will tunnel through possibly right across the intervening space which may be many light years away... and you cannot change its fate. It is like a crooked roulette wheel... everything is fixed.
This single instant in time, carrying the qubit of information, as a single "event" now needs to paint itself through the universe at the finite speed of light starting from the "causative" end and terminating at the "effects" end as an immutable changeless layer. Wherever the photon will go and wherever it diffracts, tunnels, refracts or ultimately is absorbed is all decided the moment it is emitted. Events happen to even entangled photons in the future that affect the events that have happened to the long "dead", absorbed or entangled photons that were in the same bosonic state (on that one wavefront). This is not conjecture this is an experimental fact. It is possible that others may interpret this differently but I am unable to see that any other explanation explains all the facts of this "delicious" experiment. The next instant in time with a different event, even if from the same physical place, is a layer over this original event so they cannot interfere with each other or "mix". What we are psychologically unable to accept is the play of the passage of time which is simply the speed at which this event propagates from the "cause" to the "effect"..... We are unable to change the past because from our temporal perspective we cannot fundamentally modify any of these events once they are "initiated".
If this is not the way others out there see it ... please feel free to respond with a good explanation.
We elves do not bite.Cheers
Hello StevenA,
Some comments & questions on Good Elf's last post. Maybe the points will shed light on your question. (pun/no pun)
On absorption/re-emission: we have nothing to offer as evidence as to suggest this is the same photon going out that came in.
We have nothing to describe the state of the absorbing atom during this period. There is no hard data on whether the electron gains velocity or mass to allow this energy safe harbor.
It takes consciousness to experience time; we have nothing to suggest that a photon has consciousness.
This "harbor" time is NOT the same every time for a given energy.
Essentially, all of the above, and the fact that we can NOT measure the photon while "in flight", means we can not measure it during the "other time" that it "exists" either.
Sadly, this means the photon is never measurable, or as I prefer, never exists.
All we can do is take measurements of electron states before and after an energetic exchange with another electron. This energetic exchange is resonance, the 2 electrons must have the same frequency (ground state) in order for this to happen.
On a second note, let me ask about a "photon" with a frequency of less than or = One. What is the meaning of this? Can you justify its' existence? Anyone here ever heard about a Electro-Magnetic wave being measured at that rate? What would that do to the f/c = w inverse relationship? Don't forget, we have to maintain constant velocity, c = meters over time, and c = f * w . Can c = w/f ? Or is it more accurate to say that f and w change places (definitions)?
T.Roc
Some comments & questions on Good Elf's last post. Maybe the points will shed light on your question. (pun/no pun)
On absorption/re-emission: we have nothing to offer as evidence as to suggest this is the same photon going out that came in.
We have nothing to describe the state of the absorbing atom during this period. There is no hard data on whether the electron gains velocity or mass to allow this energy safe harbor.
It takes consciousness to experience time; we have nothing to suggest that a photon has consciousness.
This "harbor" time is NOT the same every time for a given energy.
Essentially, all of the above, and the fact that we can NOT measure the photon while "in flight", means we can not measure it during the "other time" that it "exists" either.
Sadly, this means the photon is never measurable, or as I prefer, never exists.
All we can do is take measurements of electron states before and after an energetic exchange with another electron. This energetic exchange is resonance, the 2 electrons must have the same frequency (ground state) in order for this to happen.
On a second note, let me ask about a "photon" with a frequency of less than or = One. What is the meaning of this? Can you justify its' existence? Anyone here ever heard about a Electro-Magnetic wave being measured at that rate? What would that do to the f/c = w inverse relationship? Don't forget, we have to maintain constant velocity, c = meters over time, and c = f * w . Can c = w/f ? Or is it more accurate to say that f and w change places (definitions)?
T.Roc
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 07:00 AM)
Speaking of the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment", and now I am getting far more complicated here, the emission and absorption of a photon that happens in time as we see it is an expression of a single event.
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully
This is because a single photon "has no life of its own". It does not suffer time between the emission and absorption process and because it also undergoes extreme "length contraction", everything . The only time a photon can experience is while in the actual process of that emission and absorption which actually takes a finite time to occur.
Short diversion here... You might ask why does a photon take any time to be emitted or absorbed? Consider the extreme case of a dipole antenna one light year long being excited from its midpoint by a EM oscillating field. The frequency of this field is the time it takes for one cycle and this is a year. In that time the electric field lines of the centers of charge on this line pass each other twice "snipping off" the field lines into "loops", just outside the evanescent zone of the transmitter. The photon "created" from this example process is physically huge and takes 1/2 a year to form. In the process of creation there are no photons "launched" as yet. Once launched they cannot "return" and are forced to propagate outwards in an expanding shell as an event at the speed of light on a wavefront. The "absorption" process is assumed to be something similar. In that "birthing" process proto-photons experience "forces" and thus time. This is why electromagnetism is so powerful in that short near-field range. It is also why magnets are very powerful too since they are EM oscillating fields with periods so long we cannot measure them. These "virtual photons" and I suppose the real photons are the exchange forces of our Universe that drive those currents of electrons around circuits. They can never leave the source in these non-emitters since the energy is below the work function of the systems as explained by the photoelectric effect.
...
I much enjoyed reading this.
The idea that absorbtion and emission can take time but that the travel of a photon has timeless characteristics seems to agree with many observations, including time dilation at light speed, under relativity (at least some aspect of the photon is frozen in time travelling at light speed)
In another way this also appears obvious from quantum mechanics simply because you can't detect a photon without disturbing it, so if you detect it, then at least some aspect of absorbtion has taken and place and so if you were to envision this as a midpoint in a longer original path, that it would have travelled if you hadn't measured it, then as in the twin slits experiment, you find that the original path is now destroyed.
In the case of quantum mechanics, time only occurs as discrete events and motion through space alone doesn't create these.
So the only tangible times for the path of a photon are during emission, when it detectably alters the "from" location and upon absorbtion when it affects things at the "to" location (though in some cases the "from" and "to" locations can appear swapped in a reversal of cause and effect and I'll ignore the "funky" interactions that appear to be able to destroy or create something from nothing)
In many ways, it seems, a path is constructed in some potentially faster than light speed manner (group delays can be much faster than light) and after this has averaged the necessary delay for a speed of light connection between two points, a "burst" of information occurs that again could be interpreted as faster than light, though there's no easy way to detangle these two components. At least not without a clearer perspective on how motion within a single dimension occurs (we see a mish mash of multiple dimensions on macroscales though I believe discrete motions within a specific dimension aren't inherently limited to this other than probabilistically)
But anyway, I really enjoyed your description of the 3 components emission, travel and absorbtion and it seems very analogous to creating a magnetic bubble(likely with toroidal characteristics) in a space acting as a super conductor and then being detected by "breaking" this bubble and absorbing the information/energy.
(I'm getting some interesting ideas from this for my more abstract ideas ... it could be a wave collapse is associated with an exchange of two "quarks" between points. The phase component of light has faster than light characteristics which could be a literal and physical perpendicular motion relative to what we see as the wavefronts, imagine two quarks spiralling out, perpendicular to the wavefronts from two separate atoms and being swapped if they encounter each other. If they spiral out 180 degs apart, then they wouldn't encounter each other and hence no "photonic event" or wave collapse associated with these two quarks would occur and if this spiralling had a specific universal alignment, we wouldn't see wavefronts as a physical spiral because distance measurements each way would have a 180 deg phase shift and cancel the observed spiral ... just thoughts)
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlon O. Scully
This is because a single photon "has no life of its own". It does not suffer time between the emission and absorption process and because it also undergoes extreme "length contraction", everything . The only time a photon can experience is while in the actual process of that emission and absorption which actually takes a finite time to occur.
Short diversion here... You might ask why does a photon take any time to be emitted or absorbed? Consider the extreme case of a dipole antenna one light year long being excited from its midpoint by a EM oscillating field. The frequency of this field is the time it takes for one cycle and this is a year. In that time the electric field lines of the centers of charge on this line pass each other twice "snipping off" the field lines into "loops", just outside the evanescent zone of the transmitter. The photon "created" from this example process is physically huge and takes 1/2 a year to form. In the process of creation there are no photons "launched" as yet. Once launched they cannot "return" and are forced to propagate outwards in an expanding shell as an event at the speed of light on a wavefront. The "absorption" process is assumed to be something similar. In that "birthing" process proto-photons experience "forces" and thus time. This is why electromagnetism is so powerful in that short near-field range. It is also why magnets are very powerful too since they are EM oscillating fields with periods so long we cannot measure them. These "virtual photons" and I suppose the real photons are the exchange forces of our Universe that drive those currents of electrons around circuits. They can never leave the source in these non-emitters since the energy is below the work function of the systems as explained by the photoelectric effect.
...
I much enjoyed reading this.
The idea that absorbtion and emission can take time but that the travel of a photon has timeless characteristics seems to agree with many observations, including time dilation at light speed, under relativity (at least some aspect of the photon is frozen in time travelling at light speed)
In another way this also appears obvious from quantum mechanics simply because you can't detect a photon without disturbing it, so if you detect it, then at least some aspect of absorbtion has taken and place and so if you were to envision this as a midpoint in a longer original path, that it would have travelled if you hadn't measured it, then as in the twin slits experiment, you find that the original path is now destroyed.
In the case of quantum mechanics, time only occurs as discrete events and motion through space alone doesn't create these.
So the only tangible times for the path of a photon are during emission, when it detectably alters the "from" location and upon absorbtion when it affects things at the "to" location (though in some cases the "from" and "to" locations can appear swapped in a reversal of cause and effect and I'll ignore the "funky" interactions that appear to be able to destroy or create something from nothing)
In many ways, it seems, a path is constructed in some potentially faster than light speed manner (group delays can be much faster than light) and after this has averaged the necessary delay for a speed of light connection between two points, a "burst" of information occurs that again could be interpreted as faster than light, though there's no easy way to detangle these two components. At least not without a clearer perspective on how motion within a single dimension occurs (we see a mish mash of multiple dimensions on macroscales though I believe discrete motions within a specific dimension aren't inherently limited to this other than probabilistically)
But anyway, I really enjoyed your description of the 3 components emission, travel and absorbtion and it seems very analogous to creating a magnetic bubble(likely with toroidal characteristics) in a space acting as a super conductor and then being detected by "breaking" this bubble and absorbing the information/energy.
(I'm getting some interesting ideas from this for my more abstract ideas ... it could be a wave collapse is associated with an exchange of two "quarks" between points. The phase component of light has faster than light characteristics which could be a literal and physical perpendicular motion relative to what we see as the wavefronts, imagine two quarks spiralling out, perpendicular to the wavefronts from two separate atoms and being swapped if they encounter each other. If they spiral out 180 degs apart, then they wouldn't encounter each other and hence no "photonic event" or wave collapse associated with these two quarks would occur and if this spiralling had a specific universal alignment, we wouldn't see wavefronts as a physical spiral because distance measurements each way would have a 180 deg phase shift and cancel the observed spiral ... just thoughts)
QUOTE (TRoc+)
On absorption/re-emission: we have nothing to offer as evidence as to suggest this is the same photon going out that came in.
We have nothing to describe the state of the absorbing atom during this period. There is no hard data on whether the electron gains velocity or mass to allow this energy safe harbor.
It takes consciousness to experience time; we have nothing to suggest that a photon has consciousness.
This "harbor" time is NOT the same every time for a given energy.
Essentially, all of the above, and the fact that we can NOT measure the photon while "in flight", means we can not measure it during the "other time" that it "exists" either.
Sadly, this means the photon is never measurable, or as I prefer, never exists.
All we can do is take measurements of electron states before and after an energetic exchange with another electron. This energetic exchange is resonance, the 2 electrons must have the same frequency (ground state) in order for this to happen.
Yes, this seems the reality. It's not so much that a photon doesn't exist, but that we can't detect it in any physical form other than as a change in a measured energy. So for example, the image of it travelling through space as wave etc. could be seen as a mental assumption that may not correlate well with the physical events and associated energies detected ... given a doubt, I believe we both agree that conflicts between the two in defining an objective reality should be in favor of the physically detected energies.
So without being hypocritical, I'd have to say that if we truly do measure energy being delivered from light reflections, then there's either something wrong with the idea of conservation of energy or there's an unrecognized loss (at least from my understanding) occuring in the system, if not from the photon, then from somewhere else.
We have nothing to describe the state of the absorbing atom during this period. There is no hard data on whether the electron gains velocity or mass to allow this energy safe harbor.
It takes consciousness to experience time; we have nothing to suggest that a photon has consciousness.
This "harbor" time is NOT the same every time for a given energy.
Essentially, all of the above, and the fact that we can NOT measure the photon while "in flight", means we can not measure it during the "other time" that it "exists" either.
Sadly, this means the photon is never measurable, or as I prefer, never exists.
All we can do is take measurements of electron states before and after an energetic exchange with another electron. This energetic exchange is resonance, the 2 electrons must have the same frequency (ground state) in order for this to happen.
Yes, this seems the reality. It's not so much that a photon doesn't exist, but that we can't detect it in any physical form other than as a change in a measured energy. So for example, the image of it travelling through space as wave etc. could be seen as a mental assumption that may not correlate well with the physical events and associated energies detected ... given a doubt, I believe we both agree that conflicts between the two in defining an objective reality should be in favor of the physically detected energies.
So without being hypocritical, I'd have to say that if we truly do measure energy being delivered from light reflections, then there's either something wrong with the idea of conservation of energy or there's an unrecognized loss (at least from my understanding) occuring in the system, if not from the photon, then from somewhere else.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
On a second note, let me ask about a "photon" with a frequency of less than or = One. What is the meaning of this? Can you justify its' existence? Anyone here ever heard about a Electro-Magnetic wave being measured at that rate? What would that do to the f/c = w inverse relationship? Don't forget, we have to maintain constant velocity, c = meters over time, and c = f * w . Can c = w/f ? Or is it more accurate to say that f and w change places (definitions)?
There are two views of this that I can think of:
1) If time occurs as discrete events, then frequency (and associated wavelength if they're defined as reciprocal components, which seems an approximation for limited applications) would necessarily be discrete - you either count 1 of something or 2 etc. and you wouldn't have a frequency count of 3.237... in a physical sense, but instead only as a mathematical abstract of ratios.
2) In theory all finite waves could be described in terms of a fourier series, so in theory, even a half wave could be described as a sum of complete sinusoidal cycles of various frequencies. So in this case it could be that a half cycle could be equated to a series of physical components that, as a system, act to provide a half cycle wave. In this case you could create characteristics of such impulse events or fractional relationships by using various ratios of different subcomponents or particles to mimic it.
It could be that this is how virtual particles operate. You have a certain spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes and depending on how you break them up and approximate the new energy spectrums, they can appear as different groups of particles .... just thoughts.
There are two views of this that I can think of:
1) If time occurs as discrete events, then frequency (and associated wavelength if they're defined as reciprocal components, which seems an approximation for limited applications) would necessarily be discrete - you either count 1 of something or 2 etc. and you wouldn't have a frequency count of 3.237... in a physical sense, but instead only as a mathematical abstract of ratios.
2) In theory all finite waves could be described in terms of a fourier series, so in theory, even a half wave could be described as a sum of complete sinusoidal cycles of various frequencies. So in this case it could be that a half cycle could be equated to a series of physical components that, as a system, act to provide a half cycle wave. In this case you could create characteristics of such impulse events or fractional relationships by using various ratios of different subcomponents or particles to mimic it.
It could be that this is how virtual particles operate. You have a certain spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes and depending on how you break them up and approximate the new energy spectrums, they can appear as different groups of particles .... just thoughts.
StevenA, GE, ..
I don't mean to split hairs, but whenever I see "photons" being described, I see the contradictions and confusion that the many-theories-patched-into-Standard-Theory have caused us.
About the eyes, I agree that several "photons" are necessary to active (energize) an image; one won't work. Finding one "photon" is itself, a debate waiting to happen, as Good Elf would attest.
I believe that he inclines towards the idea that we can not have just one "photon", because of the "packet" nature. Indeed, when looking at a fourier transform, it is hard to disagree with that. However, QM has a few experiments that demand that discreet actions are caused by discreet frequencies. An electron jumps only at a specific f, and values below do nothing, as well as values above, to the limit of the next state jump. This then means that the fourier view creates losses, for the lead, and trailing amounts upon absorb/emit cycle.
About a frequency of <= 1: I am just asking if anyone can provide an electro-magnetic wave with a frequency below the ELF cutoff of 30Hz?
If not, then it is an invalid "gedanken". We can only use our imagined labs to perform valid, real experiments. No elevators, clocks in space, etc. It would seem that we have a lower limit to "photons" time of 1/30 s . (this is ~ triple the "refresh rate" of our eyes) So, the Universe doesn't make us ever wait (long) for a photon to complete a cycle.
Back to radiation pressure to create motion.
Wikipedia:"
You can see there are more gains to achieve; a 6:1 ratio is possible.
What if we devised a solid base with a circle cut out, and mirrors correctly aligned around the whole. Then, on a separate disk (able to spin freely), also aligned with mirrors around it, we put into the whole. The initial light would be reflected off the bases first mirror, and then to the soon to be spinning disk. Every reflection would have to go from base to disk, and back. Momentum transferred from the mass energy of the base, to the kinetic energy of the disk. ??
T.Roc
I don't mean to split hairs, but whenever I see "photons" being described, I see the contradictions and confusion that the many-theories-patched-into-Standard-Theory have caused us.
About the eyes, I agree that several "photons" are necessary to active (energize) an image; one won't work. Finding one "photon" is itself, a debate waiting to happen, as Good Elf would attest.
I believe that he inclines towards the idea that we can not have just one "photon", because of the "packet" nature. Indeed, when looking at a fourier transform, it is hard to disagree with that. However, QM has a few experiments that demand that discreet actions are caused by discreet frequencies. An electron jumps only at a specific f, and values below do nothing, as well as values above, to the limit of the next state jump. This then means that the fourier view creates losses, for the lead, and trailing amounts upon absorb/emit cycle.
About a frequency of <= 1: I am just asking if anyone can provide an electro-magnetic wave with a frequency below the ELF cutoff of 30Hz?
If not, then it is an invalid "gedanken". We can only use our imagined labs to perform valid, real experiments. No elevators, clocks in space, etc. It would seem that we have a lower limit to "photons" time of 1/30 s . (this is ~ triple the "refresh rate" of our eyes) So, the Universe doesn't make us ever wait (long) for a photon to complete a cycle.
Back to radiation pressure to create motion.
Wikipedia:"
QUOTE
If the radiation is directional (in interplanetary space, the overwhelming proportion of the energy flux comes from the Sun alone), the radiation pressure is tripled, to σT4/c; if the body is a perfect reflector, the pressure can be doubled again, to 2σT4/c. "
You can see there are more gains to achieve; a 6:1 ratio is possible.
What if we devised a solid base with a circle cut out, and mirrors correctly aligned around the whole. Then, on a separate disk (able to spin freely), also aligned with mirrors around it, we put into the whole. The initial light would be reflected off the bases first mirror, and then to the soon to be spinning disk. Every reflection would have to go from base to disk, and back. Momentum transferred from the mass energy of the base, to the kinetic energy of the disk. ??
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, StevenA and Precursor562,
Single photon experiments are well known and there are no problems with me about that.
Single photon experiments are well known and there are no problems with me about that.
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Today at 3:03 AM+)
About the eyes, I agree that several "photons" are necessary to active (energize) an image; one won't work. Finding one "photon" is itself, a debate waiting to happen, as Good Elf would attest.
I believe that he inclines towards the idea that we can not have just one "photon", because of the "packet" nature. Indeed, when looking at a fourier transform, it is hard to disagree with that.
I believe that he inclines towards the idea that we can not have just one "photon", because of the "packet" nature. Indeed, when looking at a fourier transform, it is hard to disagree with that.
Single photons indicate that individual photons actually do indeed occur and reflect where the "apparent" contradictions in our present theory exist.
What this strictly implies is as the energy of that photon falls down among the dead men the uncertainty in the band to which it is jumping increases quite rapidly. When you reach zero frequency this band goes "infinite". I have indicated how this process is a continuum of the Special Theory of Relativity... just the low velocity end. As to providing this "special photon" or even particles, it occurs all the time with those "quantum leaps". The "mechanism" is the de Broglie Matter Wave.
You may recall that a dimensionally confined photon is a particle in string theory. A "free photon" is a wave "propagating in a timeless quantum space" as an event. They are the same phenomena seen from different sides of the speed of light and the dimensional "environment" of a "Holographic Universe".
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
All standard model sub-atomic particles can be constructed from "boosts" and "spin" of a single photon... at least in principle.
Cheers
QUOTE
An electron jumps only at a specific f, and values below do nothing, as well as values above, to the limit of the next state jump.
This statement is not true. What is stated is the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship. What this strictly implies is as the energy of that photon falls down among the dead men the uncertainty in the band to which it is jumping increases quite rapidly. When you reach zero frequency this band goes "infinite". I have indicated how this process is a continuum of the Special Theory of Relativity... just the low velocity end. As to providing this "special photon" or even particles, it occurs all the time with those "quantum leaps". The "mechanism" is the de Broglie Matter Wave.
You may recall that a dimensionally confined photon is a particle in string theory. A "free photon" is a wave "propagating in a timeless quantum space" as an event. They are the same phenomena seen from different sides of the speed of light and the dimensional "environment" of a "Holographic Universe".
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
All standard model sub-atomic particles can be constructed from "boosts" and "spin" of a single photon... at least in principle.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
QUOTE (TRoc+)
About the eyes, I agree that several "photons" are necessary to active (energize) an image; one won't work. Finding one "photon" is itself, a debate waiting to happen, as Good Elf would attest.
I believe that he inclines towards the idea that we can not have just one "photon", because of the "packet" nature. Indeed, when looking at a fourier transform, it is hard to disagree with that.
Single photons indicate that individual photons actually do indeed occur and reflect where the "apparent" contradictions in our present theory exist.
Though you're technically correct, I can't speak for TRoc, but I think I know some of what he's thinking about:
1) Photons can appear to have bidirectional effects.
2) A photon is seen as being composed of two quarks.
3) Wavelike characteristics seem to require a photon interact with more volume than the immediate path it took.
All these (1-3) seem to imply a photon is not a fundamental unit but has a substructure, which of course is already assumed to exist.
4) The energy of a photon appears quantized (at least for atomic spectra and background radiation). In this case, can a photon exist as a single quanta, or is the minimum 2 or 3 etc.? (I recognize the wavelength would be so long and energy levels so low, it's likely almost impossible to do experimental tests at this level)
This last one is just for curiousity. I've been wondering what the wavelength of a single quanta could be physically associated with. For a resonant model, it would seem related to the width of the universe, but then would it require a time related to the age of the universe to form and if the width or age changes, wouldn't that fundamentally alter relative quanta? I have my doubts about such an infinite and continuous model of underlying space.
I believe that he inclines towards the idea that we can not have just one "photon", because of the "packet" nature. Indeed, when looking at a fourier transform, it is hard to disagree with that.
Single photons indicate that individual photons actually do indeed occur and reflect where the "apparent" contradictions in our present theory exist.
Though you're technically correct, I can't speak for TRoc, but I think I know some of what he's thinking about:
1) Photons can appear to have bidirectional effects.
2) A photon is seen as being composed of two quarks.
3) Wavelike characteristics seem to require a photon interact with more volume than the immediate path it took.
All these (1-3) seem to imply a photon is not a fundamental unit but has a substructure, which of course is already assumed to exist.
4) The energy of a photon appears quantized (at least for atomic spectra and background radiation). In this case, can a photon exist as a single quanta, or is the minimum 2 or 3 etc.? (I recognize the wavelength would be so long and energy levels so low, it's likely almost impossible to do experimental tests at this level)
This last one is just for curiousity. I've been wondering what the wavelength of a single quanta could be physically associated with. For a resonant model, it would seem related to the width of the universe, but then would it require a time related to the age of the universe to form and if the width or age changes, wouldn't that fundamentally alter relative quanta? I have my doubts about such an infinite and continuous model of underlying space.
Hi TRoc, StevenA and Precursor562,
QUOTE (StevenA Posted on Today at 8:34 PM+)
This last one is just for curiousity. I've been wondering what the wavelength of a single quanta could be physically associated with. For a resonant model, it would seem related to the width of the universe, but then would it require a time related to the age of the universe to form and if the width or age changes, wouldn't that fundamentally alter relative quanta? I have my doubts about such an infinite and continuous model of underlying space.
I realize that it would be hard to accept. If a particle is a persistent soliton, then considering this particle we cannot see its "matter waves" embracing all space. what we do see is a tunneling of matter waves from within the evanescent zone of a particle into the external environment which is our common 3D "bosonic void" of spacetime. If this was a reciprocal space relative to our current Universe then properties of this apparent external matter wave to the particle surface disappear quickly with distance. This is because the advanced and retarded potentials effectively cancel throughout spacetime almost globally except in the region where the particle and the "residual" matter waves are found. The behavior of the matter wave is similar to any other electromagnetic disturbance except it is usually at a vastly higher frequency than the apparent interference effect that we are able to notice when we see this in the diffraction of electrons or other particles. It is most certainly the same as electromagnetism since the physics is a kind of electromagnetism confined to the influence of particle fields. You may realize this already since QCD is an extension of QED to the next level. It is clear that the force carriers in these smaller realms cannot penetrate our world very far since they carry mass so the range is very restricted "outside the geometry that they originate from". In a Holographic interpretation of the Universe the different levels of this structure are different levels of abstraction but representing identical phenomena as seen from an external perspective. Effectively a conformal mapping from one realm to the next.
Regarding what these matter waves really mean read this...
Regarding what these matter waves really mean read this...
QUOTE (Short piece on Least Action by Edwin F. Taylor+)
"The least action command for the stone follows seamlessly in the limiting case of large mass! from a conceptually simple approach to quantum mechanics devised by Feynman more than half a century ago... Nature’s three-word command to the electron is Explore all paths! Here again path is understood to mean world line. Feynman’s approach is well documented. In brief, Feynman tells us how to evaluate the contribution of each alternative world line to the probability that a particle emitted at event A will be detected at a later event B. The key point is that as the mass of a particle increases, the set of world lines between A and B that contribute significantly to the probability of detection at B shrinks to a narrow pencil around the world line of least action. In the limit of large mass this pencil contracts seamlessly to the single world line predicted by the principle of least action. Newtonian mechanics becomes an obvious special case of quantum mechanics see Fig. 1!. Using the Feynman approach, students can wield the power of quantum mechanics earlier in their careers than is possible when they start with the Schrodinger equation."
A Call to Action: Edwin F. Taylor
The de Broglie relationships are given by this equation from Wikipedia...
To illustrate this point consider the De Broglie Relationship above for a particle. Lets make the most elementary assumption (and mistake) that space and higher dimensions are connected "linearly". Then now lets say that a particle executes transverse simple harmonic motion due to trapping of this particle (confinement) in higher dimensions. Put another way lets say it "bobs up and down on the spot with a regular frequency". Now lets "translate" this particle in space from one point to another. This bobbing up and down now becomes a truncated wave motion. The faster the particle moves the longer the apparent wavelength of the particle. Woops you say... De Broglie insists (and experiment) that the wavelength shortens not lengthens. OK... lets say the internal space is non-linear but a reciprocal space where distances are 1/distance yet remaining connected with our spacetime of distance and time in 10 (or 11) dimensions. We substitute these internal dimensions into the formula and we immediately see the relationship now works. The faster the particle moves the wavelength in our space is shortened. This is simply because the internal space "tunnels" into our space in the "near field".
If we consider a particle or a photon as this "wave packet object", then it will classically extend both forward and backward in time (the central maxima of the wave packet being the most likely place to find this "particle"). A quick look at this Java applet indicates "spreading" and the extension of the wave packet classically "to the ends of the Universe" excepting that the confluence of waves from the past and the future lead to a local maxima and a cancellation elsewhere.
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cywon/Quantum.html
Where these ends of the Universe are is simply the outside of the hypersurface. This surface may be exceedingly small and communicates via dynamic strings on the surface of the D6 brane. It is assumed that the future waves and the past waves are dynamically canceled. The idea is extended here if you wish to look...
Double slit experiment, Quantum consciousness: Good Elf
In the case of a photon quantum level overlapping due to the Heisenberg Relationships then it is possible for the photon to be "dragged into that common state of all similar propagating monochromatic photons" as a common traveling bosonic state... a kind of spontaneous quantum coherence through rearrangement of the internal mutual energy of all photons in the one Bose-Einstein Statistical wavefront occupying that narrow uncertainty in bandwidth and occupying a minimum of least action. This is why simple monochromatic light can be used to create holograms and was used for this purpose before practical optical lasers were invented. This is the photon (or low velocity sorted electron beam) equivalent of the Bose-Einstein Condensate... a single quantum state where all photons occupy the same physical space and time on a single wavefront as many other similar "operationally entangled" photon "particles". The main difference is this "stuff" is traveling at the speed of light. Electrons are obviously a much lower velocity analog of this process.
Cheers
A Call to Action: Edwin F. Taylor
The de Broglie relationships are given by this equation from Wikipedia...
To illustrate this point consider the De Broglie Relationship above for a particle. Lets make the most elementary assumption (and mistake) that space and higher dimensions are connected "linearly". Then now lets say that a particle executes transverse simple harmonic motion due to trapping of this particle (confinement) in higher dimensions. Put another way lets say it "bobs up and down on the spot with a regular frequency". Now lets "translate" this particle in space from one point to another. This bobbing up and down now becomes a truncated wave motion. The faster the particle moves the longer the apparent wavelength of the particle. Woops you say... De Broglie insists (and experiment) that the wavelength shortens not lengthens. OK... lets say the internal space is non-linear but a reciprocal space where distances are 1/distance yet remaining connected with our spacetime of distance and time in 10 (or 11) dimensions. We substitute these internal dimensions into the formula and we immediately see the relationship now works. The faster the particle moves the wavelength in our space is shortened. This is simply because the internal space "tunnels" into our space in the "near field".
If we consider a particle or a photon as this "wave packet object", then it will classically extend both forward and backward in time (the central maxima of the wave packet being the most likely place to find this "particle"). A quick look at this Java applet indicates "spreading" and the extension of the wave packet classically "to the ends of the Universe" excepting that the confluence of waves from the past and the future lead to a local maxima and a cancellation elsewhere.
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cywon/Quantum.html
Where these ends of the Universe are is simply the outside of the hypersurface. This surface may be exceedingly small and communicates via dynamic strings on the surface of the D6 brane. It is assumed that the future waves and the past waves are dynamically canceled. The idea is extended here if you wish to look...
Double slit experiment, Quantum consciousness: Good Elf
In the case of a photon quantum level overlapping due to the Heisenberg Relationships then it is possible for the photon to be "dragged into that common state of all similar propagating monochromatic photons" as a common traveling bosonic state... a kind of spontaneous quantum coherence through rearrangement of the internal mutual energy of all photons in the one Bose-Einstein Statistical wavefront occupying that narrow uncertainty in bandwidth and occupying a minimum of least action. This is why simple monochromatic light can be used to create holograms and was used for this purpose before practical optical lasers were invented. This is the photon (or low velocity sorted electron beam) equivalent of the Bose-Einstein Condensate... a single quantum state where all photons occupy the same physical space and time on a single wavefront as many other similar "operationally entangled" photon "particles". The main difference is this "stuff" is traveling at the speed of light. Electrons are obviously a much lower velocity analog of this process.
Cheers
Hi TRoc, StevenA and Precursor562,
An interesting question has cropped up elsewhere in the forum... this has led to a few additional comments to the preceding.
Stimulated emission,, how did Einstein discover it ?
It is a very deep idea and Einstein seems to currently have the last word on it.
An interesting question has cropped up elsewhere in the forum... this has led to a few additional comments to the preceding.
Stimulated emission,, how did Einstein discover it ?
It is a very deep idea and Einstein seems to currently have the last word on it.
QUOTE (Coherence in Stimulated Emission+)
In 1917 Albert Einstein published an extraordinary piece of analysis which is generally accepted as the foundation of laser physics. This article, "Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung" (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation), Physika Zeitschrift, Volume 18 (1917), pp 121-128, is also notable for first introducing the concept (but not the name) of the photon. In this article Einstein argues that in the interaction of matter and radiation there must be, in addition to the processes of absorption and spontaneous emission, a third process of stimulated emission. If stimulated emission exists then he can derive the Planck distribution for blackbody radiation and without it the same argument implies the empirically invalid Wien distribution.
But, in addition to establishing the existence of the process of stimulated emission, Einstein also asserts that the radiation produced in stimulated emission is identical in all relevant aspects to the incident radiation. This is a truly remarkable result. It seems to represent some very deep property of the physical world. The sense of marvel this result elicits is captured in a remark made by Einstein himself in a letter to Michael Angelo Besso in November 1916,
"A splendid light has dawned on me about the absorption and emission of radiation."
[..] There are full quantum mechanical treatments of the interaction of a field and an atom, but these treatments use a second quantization characterization of the field which precludes any possible difference between the photons of the incident radiation and the emitted radiation. Thus the full quantum mechanical treatment of field-atom interaction is not sufficiently sophisticated enough to analyze matters of phase shifts between incident and emitted radiation.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/stimem.htm
This adds another consciousness to the discussion and another position to consider.
Cheers
But, in addition to establishing the existence of the process of stimulated emission, Einstein also asserts that the radiation produced in stimulated emission is identical in all relevant aspects to the incident radiation. This is a truly remarkable result. It seems to represent some very deep property of the physical world. The sense of marvel this result elicits is captured in a remark made by Einstein himself in a letter to Michael Angelo Besso in November 1916,
"A splendid light has dawned on me about the absorption and emission of radiation."
[..] There are full quantum mechanical treatments of the interaction of a field and an atom, but these treatments use a second quantization characterization of the field which precludes any possible difference between the photons of the incident radiation and the emitted radiation. Thus the full quantum mechanical treatment of field-atom interaction is not sufficiently sophisticated enough to analyze matters of phase shifts between incident and emitted radiation.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/stimem.htm
This adds another consciousness to the discussion and another position to consider.
Cheers
I just posted a comment on another thread that might have some similarities with this idea of spontaneous emission, but in terms of a photon being similar to a shared orbital of two quarks between different particles.
In this case individual quarks in the exchange neither represent an electron (2 quark), nor mass (an observation of "spacetime" created by a sequence of 2 quarks interacting with a third witness ... 2 quarks "looking" at each other is a timeless exchange as each only sees the other) and so faster than light effects can occur without the necessity of a physical momentum either.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8863&hl=
Also because the two quarks in an exchange don't necessarily need to be physically attached during the entire time, as the "wave collapse" occurs when they interact and exchange information, then an associated wavelength can exist between them and multiple paths can appear to have a simultaneous impact on whether the final "photonic interaction" or exchange occurs.
(Oops, I just started reading the article you posted Good Elf, and realized I was thinking of spontaneous emission and not stimulated emission. I'll continue reading it, but I've wondered about why no phase lag occurs during this ... you'd tend to assume such events would incur a small delay and so some phase lag should occur over time. I don't know if stimulated emission actually does incur some phase delay during the process ... if it doesn't, that adds some interesting considerations)
In this case individual quarks in the exchange neither represent an electron (2 quark), nor mass (an observation of "spacetime" created by a sequence of 2 quarks interacting with a third witness ... 2 quarks "looking" at each other is a timeless exchange as each only sees the other) and so faster than light effects can occur without the necessity of a physical momentum either.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8863&hl=
Also because the two quarks in an exchange don't necessarily need to be physically attached during the entire time, as the "wave collapse" occurs when they interact and exchange information, then an associated wavelength can exist between them and multiple paths can appear to have a simultaneous impact on whether the final "photonic interaction" or exchange occurs.
(Oops, I just started reading the article you posted Good Elf, and realized I was thinking of spontaneous emission and not stimulated emission. I'll continue reading it, but I've wondered about why no phase lag occurs during this ... you'd tend to assume such events would incur a small delay and so some phase lag should occur over time. I don't know if stimulated emission actually does incur some phase delay during the process ... if it doesn't, that adds some interesting considerations)
Here's a couple quotes from that article:
There's a catch though. If this is the case, an emitter, unless the physical process is different than stimulated emission, would need to jump forward when emitting a photon and the detector would be pushed back. This would allow for motion in a single direction and violate the idea of equal and opposite forces.
Of course a few possibilities are: 1) reflections may not operate via. the same mechanism as stimulated emissions 2) because reflections reverse the wave function, this could invert a component and cancel the wave function along the immediate surface of the mirror - at least dependent on the incident angle and then polarize the force so that no future momentum would exist in that direction, like a vector product with the surface ... these seems likely because reflections off metal polarize light, though a pure reflection doesn't appear to do this, so there must be a difference in that a pure reflection doesn't absorb some component of the energy, 3) a reflection could be seen by a specific wavelength as the "edge" of its associated universe and so the wave is pushing against - nothing. If any edges existed to the universe, they would likely appear as reflections.
There's a catch though. If this is the case, an emitter, unless the physical process is different than stimulated emission, would need to jump forward when emitting a photon and the detector would be pushed back. This would allow for motion in a single direction and violate the idea of equal and opposite forces.
Of course a few possibilities are: 1) reflections may not operate via. the same mechanism as stimulated emissions 2) because reflections reverse the wave function, this could invert a component and cancel the wave function along the immediate surface of the mirror - at least dependent on the incident angle and then polarize the force so that no future momentum would exist in that direction, like a vector product with the surface ... these seems likely because reflections off metal polarize light, though a pure reflection doesn't appear to do this, so there must be a difference in that a pure reflection doesn't absorb some component of the energy, 3) a reflection could be seen by a specific wavelength as the "edge" of its associated universe and so the wave is pushing against - nothing. If any edges existed to the universe, they would likely appear as reflections.
Semiclassical analysis of the interaction of an atom with a field predicts that the stimulated radiation lags in phase from the incident radiation by 270o. It would be quite significant if the stimulated emission differed from the incident photon in any way. This is because one way of rationalizing the duplication of the characteristics of the incident photon in the emitted photon is that the field is quantized and the number of photons is a proper quantum number for the quantized field. Thus the effect of a field-atom interaction would be to increase or decrease the quantum number of the field depending upon whether the interaction is an absorption or an emission. This approach would be in terms of the framework of second quantization and its annihilation and creation operators. But if the emitted photon differs from the incident photon in any way the second quantization framework would have to be considerably modified.
The semiclassical analysis from which the phase shift is derived involves a quantum mechanical formulation of the atom and a classical characterization of the field. The oscillating electrical and magnetic field create a dipole moment in the atom which interacts with the electromagnetic fields. The strongest torque on the dipole occurs when the direction of the dipole is perpendicular to the direction of the electrical field. Thus the 270o lag (or a 90o lead) of the emitted radiation results from this effect.
(just some rambling on this)
Wouldn't it be interesting if the delay time for a photon was exactly a 90 deg phase lag at each point, emitter and detector, with a 180 deg phase shift in space and possibly some integer multiple of 360 degs during the trip?
Or another possibility would be a 90 deg phase shift at emission and absorption points, for a 180 deg reversal, but with a feedback path providing a seconday inversion for a total 360 reinforcement along the path. In this case wavelengths could be in terms of 180 deg phase shifts, as this delay would apply both directions and maintain a 360 reinforcement over the path.
Let's assume for a second that light speed was effectively infinite. No matter what the velocity, if such a classical view of the field were true, then we'd have these various phase shifts in time and you could still interprete relative ratios of phase delays as distances ...
/mode ramble off
(Yes, sometimes my posts are too abstract)
QUOTE
[..] for the case of incident radiation, the magnitude of the transferred momentum is the same [as in the case of absorption], but it is in the opposite direction.
but at that point he offers no proof. There is analysis later in the paper on a number of topics and then Einstein states :
Most important, however, appears to me the result about the momentum transferred to the molecule by incoming and outgoing radiation. If one of our hypotheses were altered, the result would be a violation of equation (12); it appears hardly possible, except by way of our hypotheses, to be in agreement with this relationship which is demanded by thermodynamics. We may therefore consider the following as pretty much proven. If, through an emission process, the molcule suffers a radiant loss of energy of magnitude h without the action of an outside agency, then this process, too, is a directed one.
but at that point he offers no proof. There is analysis later in the paper on a number of topics and then Einstein states :
Most important, however, appears to me the result about the momentum transferred to the molecule by incoming and outgoing radiation. If one of our hypotheses were altered, the result would be a violation of equation (12); it appears hardly possible, except by way of our hypotheses, to be in agreement with this relationship which is demanded by thermodynamics. We may therefore consider the following as pretty much proven. If, through an emission process, the molcule suffers a radiant loss of energy of magnitude h without the action of an outside agency, then this process, too, is a directed one.
There's a catch though. If this is the case, an emitter, unless the physical process is different than stimulated emission, would need to jump forward when emitting a photon and the detector would be pushed back. This would allow for motion in a single direction and violate the idea of equal and opposite forces.
Of course a few possibilities are: 1) reflections may not operate via. the same mechanism as stimulated emissions 2) because reflections reverse the wave function, this could invert a component and cancel the wave function along the immediate surface of the mirror - at least dependent on the incident angle and then polarize the force so that no future momentum would exist in that direction, like a vector product with the surface ... these seems likely because reflections off metal polarize light, though a pure reflection doesn't appear to do this, so there must be a difference in that a pure reflection doesn't absorb some component of the energy, 3) a reflection could be seen by a specific wavelength as the "edge" of its associated universe and so the wave is pushing against - nothing. If any edges existed to the universe, they would likely appear as reflections.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [..] for the case of incident radiation, the magnitude of the transferred momentum is the same [as in the case of absorption], but it is in the opposite direction. but at that point he offers no proof. There is analysis later in the paper on a number of topics and then Einstein states : Most important, however, appears to me the result about the momentum transferred to the molecule by incoming and outgoing radiation. If one of our hypotheses were altered, the result would be a violation of equation (12); it appears hardly possible, except by way of our hypotheses, to be in agreement with this relationship which is demanded by thermodynamics. We may therefore consider the following as pretty much proven. If, through an emission process, the molcule suffers a radiant loss of energy of magnitude h without the action of an outside agency, then this process, too, is a directed one. |
There's a catch though. If this is the case, an emitter, unless the physical process is different than stimulated emission, would need to jump forward when emitting a photon and the detector would be pushed back. This would allow for motion in a single direction and violate the idea of equal and opposite forces.
Of course a few possibilities are: 1) reflections may not operate via. the same mechanism as stimulated emissions 2) because reflections reverse the wave function, this could invert a component and cancel the wave function along the immediate surface of the mirror - at least dependent on the incident angle and then polarize the force so that no future momentum would exist in that direction, like a vector product with the surface ... these seems likely because reflections off metal polarize light, though a pure reflection doesn't appear to do this, so there must be a difference in that a pure reflection doesn't absorb some component of the energy, 3) a reflection could be seen by a specific wavelength as the "edge" of its associated universe and so the wave is pushing against - nothing. If any edges existed to the universe, they would likely appear as reflections.
Semiclassical analysis of the interaction of an atom with a field predicts that the stimulated radiation lags in phase from the incident radiation by 270o. It would be quite significant if the stimulated emission differed from the incident photon in any way. This is because one way of rationalizing the duplication of the characteristics of the incident photon in the emitted photon is that the field is quantized and the number of photons is a proper quantum number for the quantized field. Thus the effect of a field-atom interaction would be to increase or decrease the quantum number of the field depending upon whether the interaction is an absorption or an emission. This approach would be in terms of the framework of second quantization and its annihilation and creation operators. But if the emitted photon differs from the incident photon in any way the second quantization framework would have to be considerably modified.
The semiclassical analysis from which the phase shift is derived involves a quantum mechanical formulation of the atom and a classical characterization of the field. The oscillating electrical and magnetic field create a dipole moment in the atom which interacts with the electromagnetic fields. The strongest torque on the dipole occurs when the direction of the dipole is perpendicular to the direction of the electrical field. Thus the 270o lag (or a 90o lead) of the emitted radiation results from this effect.
(just some rambling on this)
Wouldn't it be interesting if the delay time for a photon was exactly a 90 deg phase lag at each point, emitter and detector, with a 180 deg phase shift in space and possibly some integer multiple of 360 degs during the trip?
Or another possibility would be a 90 deg phase shift at emission and absorption points, for a 180 deg reversal, but with a feedback path providing a seconday inversion for a total 360 reinforcement along the path. In this case wavelengths could be in terms of 180 deg phase shifts, as this delay would apply both directions and maintain a 360 reinforcement over the path.
Let's assume for a second that light speed was effectively infinite. No matter what the velocity, if such a classical view of the field were true, then we'd have these various phase shifts in time and you could still interprete relative ratios of phase delays as distances ...
/mode ramble off
(Yes, sometimes my posts are too abstract)
Hi StevenA,
QUOTE (StevenA Posted on Yesterday at 1:01 AM+)
There's a catch though. If this is the case, an emitter, unless the physical process is different than stimulated emission, would need to jump forward when emitting a photon and the detector would be pushed back. This would allow for motion in a single direction and violate the idea of equal and opposite forces.
Some of my ideas have come from a Russian Book by L. Tarasov "This Amazingly Symmetrical World". From reading it I developed the idea that the way the LASER actually worked is that all the stimulated photons formed a "Bosonic Wave" which contain all those photons that have "joined in a single bosonic state", they now all occupy the same space and the same phase (after some spontaneous coherence as described)... as this wave sweeps bye other atoms it "sucks" the available photons... the atoms then recoil through conservation of momentum... like picking a cherry from a branch, the branch recoils. This is the spacetime they exist in... the wave disturbs it but does not "ruffle" it. The emission of the photon is another thing altogether, it is a particle event. From this idea the tree is "stripped of cherries" and it rebounds depending on the individual geometries. The photon can only travel at the speed of light and it is simply "hitching a ride" with other photons.
The reflection does not stimulate any emissions it is just a continuation of the single lone emission. That is no problem to me. A change in polarization is not an energy change so it is also just geometry of the space.
The reflection does not stimulate any emissions it is just a continuation of the single lone emission. That is no problem to me. A change in polarization is not an energy change so it is also just geometry of the space.
QUOTE (StevenA Posted on Yesterday at 1:01 AM+)
If any edges existed to the universe, they would likely appear as reflections.
Quite right. They may not be as simple as that though since the individual photons cannot reach the "edge of the Universe" by parallel transport. This wall is only susceptible to tunneling or other resonance phenomena like in other quantum systems. Otherwise our Univese will leak energy into other dimensions and we do not see this in any obvious way (conservation of momentum and energy laws. I will not debate the gravity leak issue here. The edge of our Universe is "everywhere" and even closer than your nose right now in "hyperspace".
Cheers
Cheers
StevenA, Good Elf etc,
I see photons as embedded daugher wavicles 'existing' on wavefronts of their parental (4-D electro-positronic wavicles)...It's their parents 'export' wave propagation in which they're 'riding'.... until captured by another electro-positronic 'import' wavefront where they're either harmonically integrated(absorption) or bounced (reflection) in similar fashion by 'export' expulsion.
I see photons as embedded daugher wavicles 'existing' on wavefronts of their parental (4-D electro-positronic wavicles)...It's their parents 'export' wave propagation in which they're 'riding'.... until captured by another electro-positronic 'import' wavefront where they're either harmonically integrated(absorption) or bounced (reflection) in similar fashion by 'export' expulsion.
Hi fivedoughnut,
Ur... you lost me there. Please don't drop into a jargon that none of us can possibly understand. "4-D electro-positronic wavicles"? Does this have any real meaning or is this some kind of gross ridicule? OK... maybe I oversimplified that last explanation for stimulated emission but you don't need to get sarcastic... I think that "cherry picking" analogy explains the phase relationship of the stimulated photons in a comprehensible way. 
Cheers
Ur... you lost me there. Please don't drop into a jargon that none of us can possibly understand. "4-D electro-positronic wavicles"? Does this have any real meaning or is this some kind of gross ridicule?
OK... maybe I oversimplified that last explanation for stimulated emission but you don't need to get sarcastic... I think that "cherry picking" analogy explains the phase relationship of the stimulated photons in a comprehensible way. Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 3 2006, 02:10 PM)
Hi fivedoughnut,
Ur... you lost me there. Please don't drop into a jargon that none of us can possibly understand. "4-D electro-positronic wavicles"? Does this have any real meaning or is this some kind of gross ridicule? OK... maybe I oversimplified that last explanation for stimulated emission but you don't need to get sarcastic... I think that "cherry picking" analogy explains the phase relationship of the stimulated photons in a comprehensible way.
Cheers
......
Sorry Cobber .....I thought you'd be a little more familiar with my stuff.
No sarcasm intended....I was actually trying (for once) to be serious.
My Stuff
Ur... you lost me there. Please don't drop into a jargon that none of us can possibly understand. "4-D electro-positronic wavicles"? Does this have any real meaning or is this some kind of gross ridicule?
OK... maybe I oversimplified that last explanation for stimulated emission but you don't need to get sarcastic... I think that "cherry picking" analogy explains the phase relationship of the stimulated photons in a comprehensible way. Cheers
......
Sorry Cobber
.....I thought you'd be a little more familiar with my stuff.No sarcasm intended....I was actually trying (for once) to be serious.
My Stuff
Hey, I know a way to test this thing first hand and simple and see if mainstream views and NASA et. all are wasting their time.
Few people dispute that an absorbed photon imparts energy and a momentum on an object, but the question is whether or not a reflection delivers twice as much momentum or no momentum.
Ok, here's the simple test ...
This kinetic energy should be detectable as heat, so we can do something wild like place a dark sheet of paper in the sunlight and a mirror next to it (calibrate the angles precisely and assure the radiant energy is the same etc).
If the dark sheet of paper gets warm, we can assume it absorbed some of this energy.
If the mirror becomes hotter than the dark paper, then we can know additional energy was imparted by a reflection compared to absorption.
If the mirror is colder though, we can rather safely assume the world isn't going to blow up through various reflective mechanisms that matter has.
(Damn, sometimes I even surprise myself!)
Ok, now I'll admit that if the force occured perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the reflection then there wouldn't be a lateral component to it and it might be more like a uniform compressive force, but let's say instead the "mirror" was actually a mirrored ball that you placed next to a black ball. In this way forces would exist from all directions and not interact in a purely parallel manner.
But I mean in entire seriousness this should be obvious for Rockwell and mainstream science yet why is there a claim that double the momentum is imparted on virtually everything I've read (except ironically for sites which would likely be concidered pseudo science)? Wouldn't this supposed effect be tested? How could something so simple and in a way totally permeating in influence be likely just plain wrong, or is reliance on abstract mathematics too persistant?
Is there evidence this has actually been tested?
Few people dispute that an absorbed photon imparts energy and a momentum on an object, but the question is whether or not a reflection delivers twice as much momentum or no momentum.
Ok, here's the simple test ...
This kinetic energy should be detectable as heat, so we can do something wild like place a dark sheet of paper in the sunlight and a mirror next to it (calibrate the angles precisely and assure the radiant energy is the same etc
).If the dark sheet of paper gets warm, we can assume it absorbed some of this energy.
If the mirror becomes hotter than the dark paper, then we can know additional energy was imparted by a reflection compared to absorption.
If the mirror is colder though, we can rather safely assume the world isn't going to blow up through various reflective mechanisms that matter has.
(Damn, sometimes I even surprise myself!)
Ok, now I'll admit that if the force occured perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the reflection then there wouldn't be a lateral component to it and it might be more like a uniform compressive force, but let's say instead the "mirror" was actually a mirrored ball that you placed next to a black ball. In this way forces would exist from all directions and not interact in a purely parallel manner.
But I mean in entire seriousness this should be obvious for Rockwell and mainstream science yet why is there a claim that double the momentum is imparted on virtually everything I've read (except ironically for sites which would likely be concidered pseudo science)? Wouldn't this supposed effect be tested? How could something so simple and in a way totally permeating in influence be likely just plain wrong, or is reliance on abstract mathematics too persistant?
Is there evidence this has actually been tested?
Now don't leave it at that though ... if a reflected photon does not deliver a momentum, there's a lot of potentially crazy stuff you could anyway.
I've got to run for now, but consider "pushing" a space ship without an opposing force by reflecting a laser off a mirror ...
And if you believe the forces must cancel, then place the mirror at a 45 deg angle ...
Anyway, dang, I've got to go for now but I hope this stimulates a few creativity neurons.
Have fun
I've got to run for now, but consider "pushing" a space ship without an opposing force by reflecting a laser off a mirror ...
And if you believe the forces must cancel, then place the mirror at a 45 deg angle ...
Anyway, dang, I've got to go for now but I hope this stimulates a few creativity neurons.
Have fun
Hi fivedoughnut,
I should never had said anything I have "sunk" into a pit with your theory. 
I should never had said anything
I have "sunk" into a pit with your theory. QUOTE (fivedoughnut Posted on Yesterday at 5:00 PM+)
No sarcasm intended....I was actually trying (for once) to be serious.
Yes... I see now that I am afraid you are right... you are very serious. Your theory is like a internal spiral staircase going around and around but which way we go depends on us understanding it... up and up or down, down and down... 
In some ways it is similar to my theory but obviously "not". The basic idea "eluded me" with those spatial vacuoles. Ummm... what is a "auto-dynamically generated zero space singularity" .... no please... scratch that question. Can you draw a picture please? I read your description and I still can't get any of it. I know this is probably the way the things I say probably appears to others... a very humbling experience for me.
Cheers and a humble apology (you scare me fivedoughnut! He he he)
PS: I would have had a lot more "emoticons" but it would appear I have exceeded my allowed limit.... duh! I have been "dumbstruck".
In some ways it is similar to my theory but obviously "not". The basic idea "eluded me" with those spatial vacuoles. Ummm... what is a "auto-dynamically generated zero space singularity" .... no please... scratch that question. Can you draw a picture please? I read your description and I still can't get any of it. I know this is probably the way the things I say probably appears to others... a very humbling experience for me. QUOTE
"...Nobody told me there'd be days like these...
Strange days, indeed.
Most peculiar, mama!"
(J. Lennon)
Strange days, indeed.
Most peculiar, mama!"
(J. Lennon)
Cheers and a humble apology (you scare me fivedoughnut! He he he)
PS: I would have had a lot more "emoticons" but it would appear I have exceeded my allowed limit.... duh! I have been "dumbstruck".
Good Elf,
What can I say?.....only thanks for trying to understand. Does not say much for my ability to communicate does it?
What can I say?.....only thanks for trying to understand. Does not say much for my ability to communicate does it?
Hi fivedoughnut,
Your theory... I will keep trying to "get it"... so far it is got me baffled. The other theory that I have some serious problems "getting" is Jal's. But he does have a few illustrations. It helps a bit. What I have real problems with is the underlying Physics... that is what is confusing me. I will keep revisiting your "stuff" a few more times in the hope that I can see it through your eyes. It seems to be an enfoldment concept starting with two dimensional low energy photons and gradually increasing the "warp" of spacetime as energy increases until it becomes a "trap" and is now a particle. This bit seems a little like the Topological Photon Idea of Williamson and Van der Mark yet seems to take something from Milo Wolf's concepts too with that energy flow thingy, Milo is no slouch. It seems to take a lot from LQG too. You may have something in common with zephir's AWT concept... is this so?
Cheers
Your theory... I will keep trying to "get it"... so far it is got me baffled. The other theory that I have some serious problems "getting" is Jal's. But he does have a few illustrations. It helps a bit.
What I have real problems with is the underlying Physics... that is what is confusing me. I will keep revisiting your "stuff" a few more times in the hope that I can see it through your eyes. It seems to be an enfoldment concept starting with two dimensional low energy photons and gradually increasing the "warp" of spacetime as energy increases until it becomes a "trap" and is now a particle. This bit seems a little like the Topological Photon Idea of Williamson and Van der Mark yet seems to take something from Milo Wolf's concepts too with that energy flow thingy, Milo is no slouch. It seems to take a lot from LQG too. You may have something in common with zephir's AWT concept... is this so?Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 6 2006, 09:38 AM)
Hi fivedoughnut,
Your theory... I will keep trying to "get it"... so far it is got me baffled. The other theory that I have some serious problems "getting" is Jal's. But he does have a few illustrations. It helps a bit. What I have real problems with is the underlying Physics... that is what is confusing me. I will keep revisiting your "stuff" a few more times in the hope that I can see it through your eyes. It seems to be an enfoldment concept starting with two dimensional low energy photons and gradually increasing the "warp" of spacetime as energy increases until it becomes a "trap" and is now a particle. This bit seems a little like the Topological Photon Idea of Williamson and Van der Mark yet seems to take something from Milo Wolf's concepts too with that energy flow thingy, Milo is no slouch. It seems to take a lot from LQG too. You may have something in common with zephir's AWT concept... is this so?
Cheers
Actually Good Elf, I've just read through my 'stuff' which is an ever evolving
dumping ground for ideas and as such is a shambles. I think what I need to do now is filter out the bits I'm unhappy with and re-integrate the rest into some cohesive framework. My daughter Ramona has told me she can arrange for me to place images in web-space (this has been a major frustration of mine)...pretty dumb guy right as she's only just 12. (kids these days)
Yes, I can see similarities between my present modelling with Milo's / Will' Van' and even some of Zeph's stuff. However 'I don't do' Aether as such.
You most of all people seem to 'resonate' with my way of thinking. We seem to 'see' things very similar i.e, "The edge of the universe is everywhere"....etc
You and Jal should get together, with your concept of inter-dimensional projection via fourier transform, whereby branes act as fourier processors. (liked that idea a lot ) & Jal's simple yet elegant nut's & bolts approach to spacial packing/ geometry...You're both linked by the holographic concept; I however, (of late) have concentrated on the 'mechanics' of electro-magnetism. I think between us we'd have a bloody good overall model...what say you?.
Your theory... I will keep trying to "get it"... so far it is got me baffled. The other theory that I have some serious problems "getting" is Jal's. But he does have a few illustrations. It helps a bit.
What I have real problems with is the underlying Physics... that is what is confusing me. I will keep revisiting your "stuff" a few more times in the hope that I can see it through your eyes. It seems to be an enfoldment concept starting with two dimensional low energy photons and gradually increasing the "warp" of spacetime as energy increases until it becomes a "trap" and is now a particle. This bit seems a little like the Topological Photon Idea of Williamson and Van der Mark yet seems to take something from Milo Wolf's concepts too with that energy flow thingy, Milo is no slouch. It seems to take a lot from LQG too. You may have something in common with zephir's AWT concept... is this so?Cheers
Actually Good Elf, I've just read through my 'stuff' which is an ever evolving
dumping ground for ideas and as such is a shambles. I think what I need to do now is filter out the bits I'm unhappy with and re-integrate the rest into some cohesive framework. My daughter Ramona has told me she can arrange for me to place images in web-space (this has been a major frustration of mine)...pretty dumb guy right
as she's only just 12. (kids these days)Yes, I can see similarities between my present modelling with Milo's / Will' Van' and even some of Zeph's stuff. However 'I don't do' Aether as such.
You most of all people seem to 'resonate' with my way of thinking. We seem to 'see' things very similar i.e, "The edge of the universe is everywhere"....etc
You and Jal should get together, with your concept of inter-dimensional projection via fourier transform, whereby branes act as fourier processors. (liked that idea a lot
) & Jal's simple yet elegant nut's & bolts approach to spacial packing/ geometry...You're both linked by the holographic concept; I however, (of late) have concentrated on the 'mechanics' of electro-magnetism. I think between us we'd have a bloody good overall model...what say you?.
Hi fivedoughnut,
I think it would be a great idea to sort your stuff out and put it together in the most succinct fashion possible. Your own web pages would be a great starting place. This way you will reach a lot more people. You can link to specific images here on the forum. It is almost impossible to actually show what you mean here, directly on the forum, owing to the visual restrictions presently binding everything down.
Great move fivedoughnut. I don't do ether theories either but some aspects of them are "appealing" to some. Those involved in LQG seem to be more intent on pushing their points than the "String Theorists". It appears to me that "Standard String Theory" will not cut it unless they do something with it. I still have a great deal of enthusiasm with it and I see that much of LQG is coming and cherry picking a few ideas of from them and discarding what they do not like. In the end the more dynamic idea will explore more corners to the landscape of real physics and finally arrive.
Cheers
I think it would be a great idea to sort your stuff out and put it together in the most succinct fashion possible. Your own web pages would be a great starting place. This way you will reach a lot more people. You can link to specific images here on the forum. It is almost impossible to actually show what you mean here, directly on the forum, owing to the visual restrictions presently binding everything down.
Great move fivedoughnut. I don't do ether theories either but some aspects of them are "appealing" to some. Those involved in LQG seem to be more intent on pushing their points than the "String Theorists". It appears to me that "Standard String Theory" will not cut it unless they do something with it. I still have a great deal of enthusiasm with it and I see that much of LQG is coming and cherry picking a few ideas of from them and discarding what they do not like. In the end the more dynamic idea will explore more corners to the landscape of real physics and finally arrive.
Cheers
Perpetual motion?
My two cents:
Inertia? The continuance of motion.
We know that if large things are not moving(changing) the small things always are. Electrons have their perpetual motion around the nucleus. What keeps them spinning around the atom?
Continuing motion never gives free energy.
My two cents:
Inertia? The continuance of motion.
We know that if large things are not moving(changing) the small things always are. Electrons have their perpetual motion around the nucleus. What keeps them spinning around the atom?
Continuing motion never gives free energy.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 9 2006, 01:50 AM)
Perpetual motion?
My two cents:
Inertia? The continuance of motion.
We know that if large things are not moving(changing) the small things always are. Electrons have their perpetual motion around the nucleus. What keeps them spinning around the atom?
Continuing motion never gives free energy.
What keeps them spinning around the atom?
Mutual + environmental background inductance / absorption.
My two cents:
Inertia? The continuance of motion.
We know that if large things are not moving(changing) the small things always are. Electrons have their perpetual motion around the nucleus. What keeps them spinning around the atom?
Continuing motion never gives free energy.
What keeps them spinning around the atom?
Mutual + environmental background inductance / absorption.
Hi fivedoughnut,
Twisted Strip Model of the electron
Simplified toroidal structure of the electron in terms of energy flow
Lower dimensional analog of an electron positron pair
In such a "Universe" the trapped photon and the nucleus which is also a similiar series of quantum particles composed of topological photons that have been "boosted" and "spun" into a sub-atomic particle form an "inertial system" much like the planets in orbit around a central sun (are in a stationary gravitational state). The circular motion will continue almost "forever" because little if any energy is radiating away as they would in the "classical" proton - electron rotating charge fields. It is just the dimensional "perspective" of higher string dimensions that "removes the charges". From the "outside" we are seeing it "non-inertially" as electric charges.
String Theory and its explanation for sub-atomic particles composed entirely of photons.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
The standard model of particles composed entirely of D6 branes.
Cheers
QUOTE
What keeps them spinning around the atom?
It is my "belief", and I can't prove this, that electrons around atoms do not sense electric fields. If electrons are indeed "topologically deformed photons", then they have the same attributes as electromagnetic waves and show no "charge". It is only when you wrap them spatially in a certain way do they exhibit "charge"... wrapping all the negative "excursions" of the electric field to the outside of the particle and all the positive "excursions" to the inside of the particle. Of course the words "inside" and "outside" are relatively meaningless when we deal in higher dimensions of String Theory but they do mean a lot to us from our point of view being confined to only three spatial dimensions and time. This "deformed strip" of the EM wave has "tucked" the positive charges deeply within the higher dimensions of the particle, out of the way... while the negative excursions are all wrapped to the outside of this "standing wave". However inside this deformed space this looks just like a propagating EM wave which actually carries no charges at all. The images are from Williamson and Van der Mark's paper...Twisted Strip Model of the electron
Simplified toroidal structure of the electron in terms of energy flow
Lower dimensional analog of an electron positron pair
In such a "Universe" the trapped photon and the nucleus which is also a similiar series of quantum particles composed of topological photons that have been "boosted" and "spun" into a sub-atomic particle form an "inertial system" much like the planets in orbit around a central sun (are in a stationary gravitational state). The circular motion will continue almost "forever" because little if any energy is radiating away as they would in the "classical" proton - electron rotating charge fields. It is just the dimensional "perspective" of higher string dimensions that "removes the charges". From the "outside" we are seeing it "non-inertially" as electric charges.
String Theory and its explanation for sub-atomic particles composed entirely of photons.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
The standard model of particles composed entirely of D6 branes.
Cheers
I saw another post regarding conservation of momentum for a photon reflection and was going to reply to it, but my browser crashed and I couldn't find the post again so I'll just post the comment on this thread:
If a photon has a momentum, m, along an axis of travel then after a reflection, the momentum along this axis is supposed to be altered to -m, with the difference 2m=(m- -(m)) being imparted to the matter providing the reflection.
So the sum of momentums initially are m0(p)=initial momentum of photon, m0(m)=initial momentum of object. Then after a reflection, m1(p)=reflected momentum of photon, m1(m)=momentum of object after reflection.
m0(p)=1, m0(m)=0
Then after the reflection, we're suppose to see:
m1(p)=-1, m1(m)=2
And the sum of these are conserved:
m0(p)+m0(m)=m1(p)+m1(m)
1+0=-1+2
But though the momentum would be conserved in this case, the energy (for non-zero masses) would not be because the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity and so the energy of the photon before and after a reflection is identical as 1^2=-1^2, but for the mass 0^2!=2^2, unless the mass of the object was zero (or alternately infinite, though I won't detail why here unless someone is interested).
e0(p)+e0(m)!=e1(p)+e1(m)
1^2+0^2!=(-1)^2+(mv^2)/2 (where v and m are not 0, which would be true if any radiative force is detected from a reflection)
0<mv^2 (for any m>0, v!=0)
There are many more details (such as a possible reference frame in which both energy and momentum is conserved, but I don't believe such a frame is compatible with Relativity, as well as greater detail on the influences of the specific masses involved), but again I won't bother posting greater details unless someone is interested in seeing them. (A quick example of the paradox would be to attempt to encapsulate a photon within a reflective encolsure and then theoretically have an arbitrarily large outward force generated on this structure if the photon is assumed to travel at light speed and experience multiple reflections, each imparting additional outward momentum to the enclosure - there's a potential catch here regarding uncertainty, though I believe the idea that photons travel through space at a constant velocity is the basis of the problem)
If a photon has a momentum, m, along an axis of travel then after a reflection, the momentum along this axis is supposed to be altered to -m, with the difference 2m=(m- -(m)) being imparted to the matter providing the reflection.
So the sum of momentums initially are m0(p)=initial momentum of photon, m0(m)=initial momentum of object. Then after a reflection, m1(p)=reflected momentum of photon, m1(m)=momentum of object after reflection.
m0(p)=1, m0(m)=0
Then after the reflection, we're suppose to see:
m1(p)=-1, m1(m)=2
And the sum of these are conserved:
m0(p)+m0(m)=m1(p)+m1(m)
1+0=-1+2
But though the momentum would be conserved in this case, the energy (for non-zero masses) would not be because the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity and so the energy of the photon before and after a reflection is identical as 1^2=-1^2, but for the mass 0^2!=2^2, unless the mass of the object was zero (or alternately infinite, though I won't detail why here unless someone is interested).
e0(p)+e0(m)!=e1(p)+e1(m)
1^2+0^2!=(-1)^2+(mv^2)/2 (where v and m are not 0, which would be true if any radiative force is detected from a reflection)
0<mv^2 (for any m>0, v!=0)
There are many more details (such as a possible reference frame in which both energy and momentum is conserved, but I don't believe such a frame is compatible with Relativity, as well as greater detail on the influences of the specific masses involved), but again I won't bother posting greater details unless someone is interested in seeing them. (A quick example of the paradox would be to attempt to encapsulate a photon within a reflective encolsure and then theoretically have an arbitrarily large outward force generated on this structure if the photon is assumed to travel at light speed and experience multiple reflections, each imparting additional outward momentum to the enclosure - there's a potential catch here regarding uncertainty, though I believe the idea that photons travel through space at a constant velocity is the basis of the problem)
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.