How come emitted photons instantaneously travel at the speed of light.
Hi Yor_on, do you believe you proposed an acceptable answer among these?
Acceleration is just a mass thing ..... photons are massless.
This crackpot suggests that they're embedded into an electrons wave-state just as an electron is woven into the wave-state of the universe.
I also currently favour the notion: it's the affect of these mutually interactive wavefronts which determine 'light-speed'.
This crackpot suggests that they're embedded into an electrons wave-state just as an electron is woven into the wave-state of the universe.
I also currently favour the notion: it's the affect of these mutually interactive wavefronts which determine 'light-speed'.
p.s ..... where's the "photons are wavicles" vote option? 
Can't a guy have some fun without party crackers 
How can this be called fun!
Only a demented @#%% could see any fun in this!
The answer should be The Matrix. The knowledge of those so called physics students are so low nowadays that i'm seriously thinking of emigrating... Again!
Only a demented @#%% could see any fun in this!
The answer should be The Matrix. The knowledge of those so called physics students are so low nowadays that i'm seriously thinking of emigrating... Again!
Oh sh**. One leaves the room for a minute and... Look at this.
I'm disappointed, oh yes i am. i have to admit that i forgot the wavicles. I'm sorry fivedoughnut. Is that's what you meant too Enthalpy? That i forgot the correct answer. Ah well. As we say in Sweden. There is always no time as long as you find time. But i wont give up on this, and to you ET, to you i can only say -Go Home...
I'm disappointed, oh yes i am. i have to admit that i forgot the wavicles. I'm sorry fivedoughnut. Is that's what you meant too Enthalpy? That i forgot the correct answer. Ah well. As we say in Sweden. There is always no time as long as you find time. But i wont give up on this, and to you ET, to you i can only say -Go Home...
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 2 2007, 01:57 AM)
How come emitted photons instantaneously travel at the speed of light.
Because they're basically formed by the light wave, just transformed by the spreading through the Aether foam into shape of the less or more dense blobs, i.e. wave packets of energy, because the vacuum becomes more dense after introducing of energy by the same way, like the soap foam shaken.
Because they're basically formed by the light wave, just transformed by the spreading through the Aether foam into shape of the less or more dense blobs, i.e. wave packets of energy, because the vacuum becomes more dense after introducing of energy by the same way, like the soap foam shaken.
Jesze.. I was going to answer that penetrating observation but somehow i got stuck in that green hole. If i hadn't fallen of my chair nobody knows how long i would been remained. Your Giff's are a danger to humanity my man.
Can anyone with knowledge, list all the methods by which a photon is created? (Don't be too general)
Hello all
Photons are energy moved/cycled through space by time varying electric and magnetic fields. Any action that results in a change from a higher energy state to a lower energy state has the possibility of generating a photon. The "possibility" is heavily dependent on the duration (in time) of the "action".
Photons are energy moved/cycled through space by time varying electric and magnetic fields. Any action that results in a change from a higher energy state to a lower energy state has the possibility of generating a photon. The "possibility" is heavily dependent on the duration (in time) of the "action".
How about this then?
" Light is a form of propagating harmonic undulation of an electromagnetic (EM) stress gradient in the cosmic medium. "
it sure got a nice ring to it. And i think he writes well.
http://spie.org/x8515.xml?highlight=x2404
" Light is a form of propagating harmonic undulation of an electromagnetic (EM) stress gradient in the cosmic medium. "
it sure got a nice ring to it. And i think he writes well.
http://spie.org/x8515.xml?highlight=x2404
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 2 2007, 10:44 PM)
http://spie.org/x8515.xml?highlight=x2404
"Physicist Sir Roger Penrose recently underscored the lack of reality in our current theories about how the world works. Mathematics is not physics ... Mathematics and science are not the same thing. When a tool proves unsuitable, it is better to invent another rather than to force an interpretation on nature."
Oh yeah, baby...
A photon is physically a discrete event, like a particle. The wave function doesn't actually exist when a photon is detected, just as an individual die doesn't roll a 3.2 So a photon can be physically seen as a discrete particle.
The wave function is a statistical relationship that's only detected when multiple photons are present (you can't create a statistical relationship from a single event).
So, for example, if we roll 2 6 sided dice (yes, I used to be a gamer) and add the values together we find that getting a sum of 2 or 12 are much less likely than values near 7. If we passed a straight line through the various probabilities, we'd find it had a triangular shape (if we summed up a few more die rolls it would begin to look like a typical gaussian/bell curve).
The key point here is that the triangle shape of the probabilities distributions isn't inherent in any of the dice themselves but in the manner in which they're measured, just as a single photon can't be physically detected as a wave, we create correlations between multiple photons and then find there are cyclic characteristics to their detection, but those cycles can be seen as imposed by our methods of measurement. In other words, mass and space appear to have the cyclic, wavelike, statistical features that are constructed from the detections of multiple discrete events (photons). To me, it appears the particular properties of inertia (as this defines both mass and space) have periodic (wavelike) properties associated with spacial locations and this is likely what allows something to be detected as being in one location or another. The particular energy/frequency/wavelength of a photon would then depend not upon a property inherent to the photon but instead upon exactly how it was detected in space (in many ways this could be seen as the equivalent of the photon possessing an inherent frequency component if we have additional dimensions to space). So I recommend interpreting a photon as equivalent to detecting a discrete particle and then the wave features arise from the interaction with the mass detecting the photon - the wave function is in the detector (mass/space/inertia), not the photon (raw information uncorrelated with mass/space/inertia).
This is also why photons could be seen as not internally aging - the interpretation of a photon is made in the detector and not inherent in the photon. A single photon can't age because it only provides the equivalent of a yes or no value. Time is a secondary calculation made from this information that requires relationships between multiple photons to be determined. This correlation arises within the non-linearities present in mass and so the detecting mass determines what the relative properties of the photon appear to be. (An atomic orbital has a spectral bias that can't "see" all frequencies so the properties of the detector are as significant as those imagined to be inherent in the photon itself)
"Physicist Sir Roger Penrose recently underscored the lack of reality in our current theories about how the world works. Mathematics is not physics ... Mathematics and science are not the same thing. When a tool proves unsuitable, it is better to invent another rather than to force an interpretation on nature."
Oh yeah, baby...
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 2 2007, 10:44 PM)
...can anyone with knowledge, list all the methods by which a photon is created?..
The light is always spreading in photons. While the moving charge has no mechanism, how to generate photons, the formation of photons is the consequence of the spreading of the light through vacuum foam.
The light is always spreading in photons. While the moving charge has no mechanism, how to generate photons, the formation of photons is the consequence of the spreading of the light through vacuum foam.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 2 2007, 07:50 PM)
The light is always spreading in photons.
Light is photons, so how can photons be spreading in photons?
Light is photons, so how can photons be spreading in photons?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 2 2007, 10:55 PM)
Light is photons, so how can photons be spreading in photons?
The light is wave, spreading through inhomogeneous environment. These inhomogeneities are "packeting" the continuous light wave due the interference.
The light is wave, spreading through inhomogeneous environment. These inhomogeneities are "packeting" the continuous light wave due the interference.
Zephir! When are you going to remove that green hole from my room!!!
I keep falling into it.
Awwh God, now there's another.
I keep falling into it.
Awwh God, now there's another.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 2 2007, 11:01 PM)
... remove that green hole from my room!!! ...I keep falling into it....
This is not hole, just a dense star. It's harmless.
This is not hole, just a dense star. It's harmless.
can photons be something that isn't really there? I know another inane/insane idea.
But what if time is different than we normally think. What if it's like a four up to whatever dimensional net with a very tight mesh. And what we perceive as space and time is nothing more than a function/expression, you know photons like cracks viewing into ?
And now i will sing a song ;()
Perhaps i should go to bed :)
But what if time is different than we normally think. What if it's like a four up to whatever dimensional net with a very tight mesh. And what we perceive as space and time is nothing more than a function/expression, you know photons like cracks viewing into ?
And now i will sing a song ;()
Perhaps i should go to bed :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 2 2007, 11:17 PM)
can photons be something that isn't really there?
This is how the gamma ray photons appear while passing through spark chamber. It's evident, they appear quite real.
This is how the gamma ray photons appear while passing through spark chamber. It's evident, they appear quite real.
Maxwells wave equation says that the speed at which a photon can propogate is limited by the ability of electric and magnetic fields to propogate through a vacuum.
I'm tempted to say that photons are always produced acceleration of electric charges (Remembering that even anihilating an electron/positron pair involves bring them to an abrupt and sudden halt).
The greater the accelerations involved, the higher the energy of the photon.
Think of it this way, an increasing electric field (or magnetic field) that has just been turned on, propogates outwards at the speed of light. There's no acceleration involved.
A photon propogates outward at the speed of light because it gains it's momentum from the em-fields present, and it has zero rest mass, so it requires zero impulse to accelerate. So the photon accelerates to it's maximum speed in zero time because it has zero rest mass, and zero impulse, but is given momentum.
I'm tempted to say that photons are always produced acceleration of electric charges (Remembering that even anihilating an electron/positron pair involves bring them to an abrupt and sudden halt).
The greater the accelerations involved, the higher the energy of the photon.
Think of it this way, an increasing electric field (or magnetic field) that has just been turned on, propogates outwards at the speed of light. There's no acceleration involved.
A photon propogates outward at the speed of light because it gains it's momentum from the em-fields present, and it has zero rest mass, so it requires zero impulse to accelerate. So the photon accelerates to it's maximum speed in zero time because it has zero rest mass, and zero impulse, but is given momentum.
Hello Zephir, yor_on, et al.
Umm this picture
is of cosmic rays -fast moving particles- and not gamma rays. The jpg clearly states cosmicrays.jpg
yor_on
The statement
Umm this picture
is of cosmic rays -fast moving particles- and not gamma rays. The jpg clearly states cosmicrays.jpg
yor_on
The statement
QUOTE
" Light is a form of propagating harmonic undulation of an electromagnetic (EM) stress gradient in the cosmic medium. "
does have a nice ring to it but what is undulating and how is the light energy being moved through space. Is the varying intensity E field stationary or is it moving at the speed of light? This is the question that must be answered and understood by all that wish to understand EM radiation.
I did go to sleep, the danger of being on this forum is loosing track of time. And you may take that in whatever way you like ;). Trippy you said " A photon propagates outward at the speed of light because it gains it's momentum from the em-fields present," If that is right it implies a time of acceleration, no? The smallest 'instant time we know of as far as i know is (and i do hope i spell his name right here ;) Plank. Nothing behind that is measurable (I'm not saying that we can measure Plank time) and in quantum physics everything i knew of moves in 'discrete jumps' there are no smoooth acceleration of 'states', right? So my guess then, if we can't measure that acceleration it either has to be, or smaller than, plank size or it's something 'out of this world'. That is if Photons have an acceleration. Montec what is a static EM field? Do you know any EM field being 'unchanging'? or are you defining static as belonging to a persistent type of 'particles' vawe's that shows up again and again in our studies? Not that they stay the same, nota bena. Just that we have labeled them as, when in this state, belonging to..
BTW Zephir, You promise that they're harmless?.
BTW Zephir, You promise that they're harmless?.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 2 2007, 08:01 PM)
The light is wave, spreading through inhomogeneous environment. These inhomogeneities are "packeting" the continuous light wave due the interference.
Zephir, I'm talking about individual photons. Not 'light', as in, a general multitude of photons with a wavelength of visible light.
Light does not 'spread'. It travels in straight lines and is either absorbed or reflected off of surfaces. It's why you can see dim surfaces which are not directly lighted, because some light has reflected from surfaces which have been directly lighted, but that not all the light has reflected off.
I've no idea what you are referring to, when you speak of an 'inhomogeneous environment'. You'll have to clarify.
Nor do I comprehend what you are referring to, when you speak of 'packeting' of light, due to interference. Again, you'll have to clarify.
I'm guessing they're both simple things which I do know, but are just confusing because of the way you said them. Average people don't use words like inhomogeneous, for instance
Zephir, I'm talking about individual photons. Not 'light', as in, a general multitude of photons with a wavelength of visible light.
Light does not 'spread'. It travels in straight lines and is either absorbed or reflected off of surfaces. It's why you can see dim surfaces which are not directly lighted, because some light has reflected from surfaces which have been directly lighted, but that not all the light has reflected off.
I've no idea what you are referring to, when you speak of an 'inhomogeneous environment'. You'll have to clarify.
Nor do I comprehend what you are referring to, when you speak of 'packeting' of light, due to interference. Again, you'll have to clarify.
I'm guessing they're both simple things which I do know, but are just confusing because of the way you said them. Average people don't use words like inhomogeneous, for instance
Hello yor_on, et al.
Light energy (photons) moves at a right angle to both the electric and magnetic fields of an EM wave. This is call the Poynting vector. What I am suggesting is that the electric and magnetic fields are stationary with respect to the Poynting vector direction. The fields can still expand and contract at right angles to the Poynting vector. The time varying electric field generates a time varying magnetic field which in turn generates another time varying electric field and so on. The light energy (photon) is contained in the electric field then the magnetic field and then the electric field and so on. Each cycle will advance the energy through space along the Poynting vector by a distance equal to the 1/4 the wavelength of the light. The collapsing electric field will generate a growing magnetic field at a 1/4 wavelength distance along the Poynting vector. The collapsing magnetic field will generate a growing electric field at a 1/4 wavelength distance along the Poynting vector and so on. Each field vector is rotated by 90 deg. (right hand rule) and so a complete wavelength will take four 90 deg. rotations.
Light energy (photons) moves at a right angle to both the electric and magnetic fields of an EM wave. This is call the Poynting vector. What I am suggesting is that the electric and magnetic fields are stationary with respect to the Poynting vector direction. The fields can still expand and contract at right angles to the Poynting vector. The time varying electric field generates a time varying magnetic field which in turn generates another time varying electric field and so on. The light energy (photon) is contained in the electric field then the magnetic field and then the electric field and so on. Each cycle will advance the energy through space along the Poynting vector by a distance equal to the 1/4 the wavelength of the light. The collapsing electric field will generate a growing magnetic field at a 1/4 wavelength distance along the Poynting vector. The collapsing magnetic field will generate a growing electric field at a 1/4 wavelength distance along the Poynting vector and so on. Each field vector is rotated by 90 deg. (right hand rule) and so a complete wavelength will take four 90 deg. rotations.
It sounds interesting, but are there weaknesses? Does it work with Einstein's Relativity theories? on the wikipedia i found this " For example, the Poynting vector near an ideally conducting wire is parallel to the wire axis - so electric energy is flowing in space outside of the wire. The Poynting vector becomes tilted toward wire for a resistive wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire. " Sounds ( now you gonna hate me ;) similar to what Tesla described in his experiments.
Just a question.. isn't this going a bit to far? Can you really patent a cosmological theory.Even without proof.To what purpose??? http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891310-description.html
Found it when i was goggling for some information.
Just a question.. isn't this going a bit to far? Can you really patent a cosmological theory.Even without proof.To what purpose??? http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891310-description.html
Found it when i was goggling for some information.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 4 2007, 01:10 AM)
I did go to sleep, the danger of being on this forum is loosing track of time. And you may take that in whatever way you like . Trippy you said " A photon propagates outward at the speed of light because it gains it's momentum from the em-fields present," If that is right it implies a time of acceleration, no? The smallest 'instant time we know of as far as i know is (and i do hope i spell his name right here Plank. Nothing behind that is measurable (I'm not saying that we can measure Plank time) and in quantum physics everything i knew of moves in 'discrete jumps' there are no smoooth acceleration of 'states', right? So my guess then, if we can't measure that acceleration it either has to be, or smaller than, plank size or it's something 'out of this world'. That is if Photons have an acceleration. Montec what is a static EM field? Do you know any EM field being 'unchanging'? or are you defining static as belonging to a persistent type of 'particles' vawe's that shows up again and again in our studies? Not that they stay the same, nota bena. Just that we have labeled them as, when in this state, belonging to..
Right, so to start off with, we have a photon with zero rest mass.
An electron makes a discrete jump (say a Hydrogen atom, 2s¹ → 1s¹).
Because the electron's jump is quantized, all of it's energy is released in one 'go', so the photon makes a discrete jump from having no momentum, to having momentum. Because it has zero rest mass, it requires zero impulse to accelerate, so it's velocity makes a discrete jump from 0 to c.
Does this discrete jump happen over the course of a planck second? I don't know.
But, if you think of the HUP, the Photon can populate two states wrt it's velocity (at least under normal conditions) 0, and c (I suppose you could say it's speed has two quantized states) so if it's not one, it must be the other (just like if the electron is not in one shell, it must be in the other).
I suppose you could say that that's just my take on it based on what I know about QM, but it seems to make sense to me.
. Trippy you said " A photon propagates outward at the speed of light because it gains it's momentum from the em-fields present," If that is right it implies a time of acceleration, no? The smallest 'instant time we know of as far as i know is (and i do hope i spell his name right here Plank. Nothing behind that is measurable (I'm not saying that we can measure Plank time) and in quantum physics everything i knew of moves in 'discrete jumps' there are no smoooth acceleration of 'states', right? So my guess then, if we can't measure that acceleration it either has to be, or smaller than, plank size or it's something 'out of this world'. That is if Photons have an acceleration. Montec what is a static EM field? Do you know any EM field being 'unchanging'? or are you defining static as belonging to a persistent type of 'particles' vawe's that shows up again and again in our studies? Not that they stay the same, nota bena. Just that we have labeled them as, when in this state, belonging to.. Right, so to start off with, we have a photon with zero rest mass.
An electron makes a discrete jump (say a Hydrogen atom, 2s¹ → 1s¹).
Because the electron's jump is quantized, all of it's energy is released in one 'go', so the photon makes a discrete jump from having no momentum, to having momentum. Because it has zero rest mass, it requires zero impulse to accelerate, so it's velocity makes a discrete jump from 0 to c.
Does this discrete jump happen over the course of a planck second? I don't know.
But, if you think of the HUP, the Photon can populate two states wrt it's velocity (at least under normal conditions) 0, and c (I suppose you could say it's speed has two quantized states) so if it's not one, it must be the other (just like if the electron is not in one shell, it must be in the other).
I suppose you could say that that's just my take on it based on what I know about QM, but it seems to make sense to me.
Hello yor_on, et al.
The energy (photons) still moves at the speed of light. The 2D E and M fields are stationary with respect to the Poynting vector so light is independent of the source. The permittivity and permeability govern the speed at which light travels. Since each succeeding field is governed by the present field then refraction and interference effects can take place. I see no problem fitting this idea into observable effects.
The patent is for a device to convert the hypothetical "neutrino light" into visible light. Don't know if it will work or not.
QUOTE
Does it work with Einstein's Relativity theories?
The energy (photons) still moves at the speed of light. The 2D E and M fields are stationary with respect to the Poynting vector so light is independent of the source. The permittivity and permeability govern the speed at which light travels. Since each succeeding field is governed by the present field then refraction and interference effects can take place. I see no problem fitting this idea into observable effects.
The patent is for a device to convert the hypothetical "neutrino light" into visible light. Don't know if it will work or not.
Nicce Trippy, the jumps made are an instant transit, right? from 'A' to 'B' but with no immediate 'state' between. Woops, wrong there, on the other hand you're describing it as a vawe when you explain that it can be at two positions simultaneously right? I'm treating it as a particle when i ask this question. So why does it do like that, it seems to me as if there might be something hiding behind it all when the universe present us with such a behavior? In the macroscopic world one would call such a thing 'Teleportation'.
Oh, so there was a device hidden there, I just went 'F@@££k' Now the Americans patents the Universe too :). I mean all this sh** of patenting ideas as property, and the way people/companies are allowed to patent genes scares the sh*t out of me too. And how MS threatens Linux and those that want to use it comercially. While we may not have any dot painted on our foreheads yet that may still come as an electronic legal barrier preventing ideas to develop, if you get my drift. And i definitely have to try to understand Poynting vectors. Somewhere i read that it was a 'great unifying theory'. Does that still count?
BTW: even if one treat it as wave it 'materialises' only at 'B' in case of energized, so the question still stands i think
Oh, so there was a device hidden there, I just went 'F@@££k' Now the Americans patents the Universe too :). I mean all this sh** of patenting ideas as property, and the way people/companies are allowed to patent genes scares the sh*t out of me too. And how MS threatens Linux and those that want to use it comercially. While we may not have any dot painted on our foreheads yet that may still come as an electronic legal barrier preventing ideas to develop, if you get my drift. And i definitely have to try to understand Poynting vectors. Somewhere i read that it was a 'great unifying theory'. Does that still count?
BTW: even if one treat it as wave it 'materialises' only at 'B' in case of energized, so the question still stands i think
I'm sorry, had to write this.
" In an amazing technical tour de force Lindner et al (2005) have extended the idea of the spatial double slit experiment to an investigation of time. In the double slit experiment in time electrons are produced in an inert gas by extremely short laser pulses. The pulses stimulate a single atom and there is a probability of this atom releasing an electron at each oscillation of the pulse. The apparatus is described by Paulus et al (2003). The probability of an electron being ejected to the left or right of the apparatus can be adjusted by adjusting the optical pulse. Pulses can be applied with a duration of a few femtoseconds and these create 'slits' extending over an interval of about 500 attoseconds (500 x 10-18 seconds). A single electron has a probability of being emitted at each of the slits. The probability of the single electron going in a particular direction after both slits have been created depends upon the interaction of the probabilities of being emitted in a particular direction at each single slit. As expected, an interference pattern was generated as a result of single electrons interfering with themselves across different times. This experiment is remarkable because it provides direct evidence that time exists in a similar fashion to the way that space exists. It is consistent with Feynman's theory of Quantum Electrodynamics where all possible paths, both in time and space, interact to produce the final trajectory of a particle and consistent with modern Special Relativity, on which QED is based, where the trajectories of particles occur in an extended four dimensional space-time. "
If i get this right this experiment are saying that the 'electrons' communicates over time? (macroscopically timetravels) Does that imply that both light and electro magnetics and time are of the same substance? And if it does then not only does photons move in discreet jumps, furthermore it seems that time does. I found another experiment earlier wherein someone had tried to find out if time was continuous as a flow or 'discrete'. As i remember it there was no evidence found that time 'flowed'. so if all those forces move in discrete jumps, what is it that 'lies between them'? and if time is a property (field) it seems to beat in the same rytm, but yet somehow allows communication between 'states'??? The timearrow pointing in 'both' directions at the same ( sorry :) 'time'?
" In an amazing technical tour de force Lindner et al (2005) have extended the idea of the spatial double slit experiment to an investigation of time. In the double slit experiment in time electrons are produced in an inert gas by extremely short laser pulses. The pulses stimulate a single atom and there is a probability of this atom releasing an electron at each oscillation of the pulse. The apparatus is described by Paulus et al (2003). The probability of an electron being ejected to the left or right of the apparatus can be adjusted by adjusting the optical pulse. Pulses can be applied with a duration of a few femtoseconds and these create 'slits' extending over an interval of about 500 attoseconds (500 x 10-18 seconds). A single electron has a probability of being emitted at each of the slits. The probability of the single electron going in a particular direction after both slits have been created depends upon the interaction of the probabilities of being emitted in a particular direction at each single slit. As expected, an interference pattern was generated as a result of single electrons interfering with themselves across different times. This experiment is remarkable because it provides direct evidence that time exists in a similar fashion to the way that space exists. It is consistent with Feynman's theory of Quantum Electrodynamics where all possible paths, both in time and space, interact to produce the final trajectory of a particle and consistent with modern Special Relativity, on which QED is based, where the trajectories of particles occur in an extended four dimensional space-time. "
If i get this right this experiment are saying that the 'electrons' communicates over time? (macroscopically timetravels) Does that imply that both light and electro magnetics and time are of the same substance? And if it does then not only does photons move in discreet jumps, furthermore it seems that time does. I found another experiment earlier wherein someone had tried to find out if time was continuous as a flow or 'discrete'. As i remember it there was no evidence found that time 'flowed'. so if all those forces move in discrete jumps, what is it that 'lies between them'? and if time is a property (field) it seems to beat in the same rytm, but yet somehow allows communication between 'states'??? The timearrow pointing in 'both' directions at the same ( sorry :) 'time'?
I hate this but i remembered wrong. The conclusion was the opposite,that there was no evidence that time was 'discrete' . It's lucky that there was no bathtub involved. I would probably have drowned (instead of shouting 'Eureka' , aah you know, that guy, he with the beard. No not him, he was a prophet.The other one:) On the other hand they weren't down to Planck time. So maybe?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 4 2007, 02:42 PM)
Nicce Trippy, the jumps made are an instant transit, right? from 'A' to 'B' but with no immediate 'state' between. Woops, wrong there, on the other hand you're describing it as a vawe when you explain that it can be at two positions simultaneously right? I'm treating it as a particle when i ask this question.
This is exactly what i'm saying, but again, bare in mind that the rest mass of a photon is zero so it's impulse is also zero it really is that system.
As for the wave/particle thing, no, I'm not dealing with it as a wave, or a particle.
Think of it this way - a particle has a probability of being in either state, so in that respect a particle can look like a wave. That's what the wave function means.
Well, sorta.
I never really understood why people found this idea so hard to cope with.
This is exactly what i'm saying, but again, bare in mind that the rest mass of a photon is zero so it's impulse is also zero it really is that system.
As for the wave/particle thing, no, I'm not dealing with it as a wave, or a particle.
Think of it this way - a particle has a probability of being in either state, so in that respect a particle can look like a wave. That's what the wave function means.
Well, sorta.
I never really understood why people found this idea so hard to cope with.
Its a rare pleasure to read your posts guys and gals.
"Think of it this way - a particle has a probability of being in either state, so in that respect a particle can look like a wave. That's what the wave function means."
Trippy I always though of it that way, as a probability field, but i also always felt that there should be something underlaying. I found this guy Dr. Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna. So i thought i was out of order ;)
" In the beginning was the bit " http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html
It's kind of exiting even though he doesn't address the question what his 'bit's' originally are.
"Think of it this way - a particle has a probability of being in either state, so in that respect a particle can look like a wave. That's what the wave function means."
Trippy I always though of it that way, as a probability field, but i also always felt that there should be something underlaying. I found this guy Dr. Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna. So i thought i was out of order ;)
" In the beginning was the bit " http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html
It's kind of exiting even though he doesn't address the question what his 'bit's' originally are.
What a load of ...
It's all virtual!
It's all virtual!
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 2 2007, 11:43 AM)
Can anyone with knowledge, list all the methods by which a photon is created? (Don't be too general)
A photon is the misinterpretation of the light's wave-displacement.
Light's wave-elongation is an entropy phenomenon.
You can see the hydrodynamical entropy analogy (waves moving towards equilibrium) when a pebble reach the surface of the water.
Se the explanations with experiments on my web-site at
http://www.theuniphysics.info
Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
A photon is the misinterpretation of the light's wave-displacement.
Light's wave-elongation is an entropy phenomenon.
You can see the hydrodynamical entropy analogy (waves moving towards equilibrium) when a pebble reach the surface of the water.
Se the explanations with experiments on my web-site at
http://www.theuniphysics.info
Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
Sounds ok, and now for some Swedish, shysst Ingvar ;)
As for the 'bit_theory' it sound's awfully alike the 'universal computer' doesn't it.
With a programmer as God, guess if he made some 'bugs' :)
I'm gonna read your theory, suddenly there seems like there is a lot of interesting reading to be done.
Woop's Man, Arthur, is gonna Love you.
And if you're right, that would be very cool :)
So you're saying that there are no black holes?
And no dark matter? The way you treat waves are new to me.
And that because of the density of CO2 molecule changes/follows the temperature and pressure surrounding it in the Ocean (as a consequence of that) it will continue to sink to the bottom? (And therefore the ocean can take up much more CO2 than we believed before?) Am I getting it right? The 'heat sink' is the whole ocean or? I thought that that already was a proven fact? But what about the acidifying of the ocean's then? Isn't that proof for the Ocean becoming saturated or?
As for the 'bit_theory' it sound's awfully alike the 'universal computer' doesn't it.
With a programmer as God, guess if he made some 'bugs' :)
I'm gonna read your theory, suddenly there seems like there is a lot of interesting reading to be done.
Woop's Man, Arthur, is gonna Love you.
And if you're right, that would be very cool :)
So you're saying that there are no black holes?
And no dark matter? The way you treat waves are new to me.
And that because of the density of CO2 molecule changes/follows the temperature and pressure surrounding it in the Ocean (as a consequence of that) it will continue to sink to the bottom? (And therefore the ocean can take up much more CO2 than we believed before?) Am I getting it right? The 'heat sink' is the whole ocean or? I thought that that already was a proven fact? But what about the acidifying of the ocean's then? Isn't that proof for the Ocean becoming saturated or?
Ingvar you say that "I have compared the waves' symmetry of extending lengths with their covered distances and derived a new entropy law formula. As energy in waves of water and light behaves comparable, the size of the galaxies' redshifted spectral-lines can consequently be computed by Hubble's as Doppler-measured velocity/distance-parameter brought into my entropy equation for wave-displacement/distance that reveals a surprising famous but misinterpreted constant, that is the definition of the ENTROPY-CONSTANT that proves that energy is neither quantified or discrete, and reveals the cause and size of THE REDSHIFTS/DISTANCE RATIO: " Can you describe it (the entropy constant) and show me where you got it, and how you apply it to the redshift of our galaxies?
And if you say that the 'Big Bang' doesn't exist, then what are your thoughts about the creation of our universe and whether it's growing shrinking or stable?
This is very contra to all existing physic's, you are going to need a lot of good experiment's before you can expect people to accept your theory i'm afraid. But you already know that :)
So, tell me?
And if you say that the 'Big Bang' doesn't exist, then what are your thoughts about the creation of our universe and whether it's growing shrinking or stable?
This is very contra to all existing physic's, you are going to need a lot of good experiment's before you can expect people to accept your theory i'm afraid. But you already know that :)
So, tell me?
Hi Yor_on,
Complex thread... I am only going to answer the first question.
The reason why a photon is "born" traveling at the speed of light is because photons carry momentum and no mass. Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum... and it equals p = h / λ. If it simultaneously has no rest mass it then must be traveling at the speed of light to retain this momentum.
In actual fact there is a different formula for energy when things begin to travel near the speed of light and it is ...
While photons have no rest mass then it can still have energy by way of this formula. By way of substitution of E = hf and m0 = 0 you can arrive at the equation above of p = h / λ.
Consider if it was "born" standing still but having this momentum it would instantly dissipate it since it has no velocity. Lets say that its velocity was 1/2 C and it had this momentum with no mass... since momentum is p = mv and E = pC for photons then even if v = 1/2 C, the product it can never be more than zero.
Once again the velocity must instantly increase to C where it is limited by the laws of physics and causality in our Universe and that is where it stays, on the "edge" of the light cone. I guess it can be understood by invoking Newtons Law to it and saying that force F = Ma where M=Mass and a = acceleration. Since the photon has no mass any application of force results in infinite acceleration. It is assumed that the creation of the photon involves some sort of applied force this will result in an infinite velocity every time. In the rest frame of the photon (this is the frame where the photon should experience time) it experiences an "infinite velocity" but at the expense of infinite time dilation and length contraction. In this state the photon "thinks" it is traveling an infinite distance in a zero time... provided it was never intercepted by an absorber... however external observers like us will only be able to record a finite velocity of C for the same photon. This is just Special Relativity.
So it all centers on the rather elegant equation above for the energy of a particle that is arrived at in a "less elegant" way...
Here is the way it is arrived at...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../relmom.html#c4
This is a "trick" but it seems to work in providing a way to view the photons energy separate from the energy of "other particles" which is expressed this way below and substituting in m0 = 0 and V = C has otherwise "disastrous consequences".
For me this must be expressing the fact that mass and or velocity has a Complex Form in a complex plane. In that way relationships like this may exist and be applicable to the general equation above.
A parting comment about this "trick". Both expressions of momentum and energy are correct for relativistic particles in general and in some way must also apply to photons.
I would also draw your attention to the value of the product pC which is the energy of a photon. Clearly this is a very useful quantity in Relativity. The quantity pC is an energy while the momentum of any particle is apparently proportional to this quantity. This is a different unit and is not an energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...debrog2.html#c2
I guess this "means something" very subtle. I feel we do not get this subtlety and it could be hiding something "important".
Cheers
Complex thread... I am only going to answer the first question.
The reason why a photon is "born" traveling at the speed of light is because photons carry momentum and no mass. Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum... and it equals p = h / λ. If it simultaneously has no rest mass it then must be traveling at the speed of light to retain this momentum.
In actual fact there is a different formula for energy when things begin to travel near the speed of light and it is ...
While photons have no rest mass then it can still have energy by way of this formula. By way of substitution of E = hf and m0 = 0 you can arrive at the equation above of p = h / λ.
Consider if it was "born" standing still but having this momentum it would instantly dissipate it since it has no velocity. Lets say that its velocity was 1/2 C and it had this momentum with no mass... since momentum is p = mv and E = pC for photons then even if v = 1/2 C, the product it can never be more than zero.
Once again the velocity must instantly increase to C where it is limited by the laws of physics and causality in our Universe and that is where it stays, on the "edge" of the light cone. I guess it can be understood by invoking Newtons Law to it and saying that force F = Ma where M=Mass and a = acceleration. Since the photon has no mass any application of force results in infinite acceleration. It is assumed that the creation of the photon involves some sort of applied force this will result in an infinite velocity every time. In the rest frame of the photon (this is the frame where the photon should experience time) it experiences an "infinite velocity" but at the expense of infinite time dilation and length contraction. In this state the photon "thinks" it is traveling an infinite distance in a zero time... provided it was never intercepted by an absorber... however external observers like us will only be able to record a finite velocity of C for the same photon. This is just Special Relativity.
So it all centers on the rather elegant equation above for the energy of a particle that is arrived at in a "less elegant" way...
Here is the way it is arrived at...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../relmom.html#c4
This is a "trick" but it seems to work in providing a way to view the photons energy separate from the energy of "other particles" which is expressed this way below and substituting in m0 = 0 and V = C has otherwise "disastrous consequences".
For me this must be expressing the fact that mass and or velocity has a Complex Form in a complex plane. In that way relationships like this may exist and be applicable to the general equation above.
A parting comment about this "trick". Both expressions of momentum and energy are correct for relativistic particles in general and in some way must also apply to photons.
I would also draw your attention to the value of the product pC which is the energy of a photon. Clearly this is a very useful quantity in Relativity. The quantity pC is an energy while the momentum of any particle is apparently proportional to this quantity. This is a different unit and is not an energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...debrog2.html#c2
I guess this "means something" very subtle. I feel we do not get this subtlety and it could be hiding something "important".
Cheers
Sorry, just to see if i get it this one. And I'm not doubting ( questioning just a tiny winy maybe :) any of this , I'm just trying to see if I can understand it. Thanks GoodElf
"The reason why a photon is "born" traveling at the speed of light is because photons carry momentum and no mass."
And the proof for that is
" if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum " I trust you on this :( nice of me, ain't it, what i in fact say here is that i don't know the math to either prove or disprove it. But you do :) but afterwards you say something strange
" In actual fact there is a different formula for energy when things begin to travel near the speed of light and it is ..." You mean that you have two different formulas describing the same phenomena from two different perspectives? Giving the same answer too? Why?
" While photons have no rest mass then it can still have energy by way of this formula " That seems perfectly acceptable as we get constant proof from daily life.
"Consider if it was "born" standing still but having this momentum it would instantly dissipate it since it has no velocity" How do you think here? As a unmoving wave it can't exist? If it's a wave that is true (as far as i know of waves) as an unmoving (frozen?) wave seems to be a contradiction in terms. There was some experiment though where they 'froze' light which when disappeared, and when they 'woke it up' it appeared (moved) again, right? According to this, shouldn't that light have been gone 4-ever (in that experiment i talked about) then? But what if it's a 'locality' of energy quanta residing in our perception (spacetime) instead? For myself i do find waves and 'probability field's' to be easier to imagine. Even though that leads to all kinds of strange possibilities. Or am I missing the point here?
" Once again the velocity must instantly increase to C where it is limited by the laws of physics and causality in our Universe and that is where it stays, on the "edge" of the light cone " beautifully put GoodElf :)
As for the photons ability to travel as far as it like in zero time seen from its own 'time bubble' that i understand as a consequence of it having zero mass while moving at 'c'.
" but at the expense of infinite time dilation and length contraction " are you saying that it contracts to something of infinitesimal length. It should, shouldn't it, so have anyone succeeded in giving the possible length? In reality i suppose, if it had mass that it would fall into itself as a black hole but as it is massless it can exist. But why does it have any length at all as it's moving at the 'light cone' (liked that one :). Or are it length less?
" Since the photon has no mass any application of force results in infinite acceleration " are there any Math for this? like if i hit it with a bat will result in the same propulsion as if i shot it out from a cannon? The amount of energy applied doesn't matter as it's massless?
"he quantity pC is an energy while the momentum of any particle is apparently proportional to this quantity. This is a different unit and is not an energy."
So we have the photon, there is a energy (PC) to it, that are proportional to its momentum (velocity)? So slowing down its momentum transforms into ? energy. Like?
I will definitely have to think more about this, and all of this are the 'standard model' of how its supposed to work, right? Nice one. I know it's a lot of nitpicking here but i need to do it :)
"The reason why a photon is "born" traveling at the speed of light is because photons carry momentum and no mass."
And the proof for that is
" if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum " I trust you on this :( nice of me, ain't it, what i in fact say here is that i don't know the math to either prove or disprove it. But you do :) but afterwards you say something strange
" In actual fact there is a different formula for energy when things begin to travel near the speed of light and it is ..." You mean that you have two different formulas describing the same phenomena from two different perspectives? Giving the same answer too? Why?
" While photons have no rest mass then it can still have energy by way of this formula " That seems perfectly acceptable as we get constant proof from daily life.
"Consider if it was "born" standing still but having this momentum it would instantly dissipate it since it has no velocity" How do you think here? As a unmoving wave it can't exist? If it's a wave that is true (as far as i know of waves) as an unmoving (frozen?) wave seems to be a contradiction in terms. There was some experiment though where they 'froze' light which when disappeared, and when they 'woke it up' it appeared (moved) again, right? According to this, shouldn't that light have been gone 4-ever (in that experiment i talked about) then? But what if it's a 'locality' of energy quanta residing in our perception (spacetime) instead? For myself i do find waves and 'probability field's' to be easier to imagine. Even though that leads to all kinds of strange possibilities. Or am I missing the point here?
" Once again the velocity must instantly increase to C where it is limited by the laws of physics and causality in our Universe and that is where it stays, on the "edge" of the light cone " beautifully put GoodElf :)
As for the photons ability to travel as far as it like in zero time seen from its own 'time bubble' that i understand as a consequence of it having zero mass while moving at 'c'.
" but at the expense of infinite time dilation and length contraction " are you saying that it contracts to something of infinitesimal length. It should, shouldn't it, so have anyone succeeded in giving the possible length? In reality i suppose, if it had mass that it would fall into itself as a black hole but as it is massless it can exist. But why does it have any length at all as it's moving at the 'light cone' (liked that one :). Or are it length less?
" Since the photon has no mass any application of force results in infinite acceleration " are there any Math for this? like if i hit it with a bat will result in the same propulsion as if i shot it out from a cannon? The amount of energy applied doesn't matter as it's massless?
"he quantity pC is an energy while the momentum of any particle is apparently proportional to this quantity. This is a different unit and is not an energy."
So we have the photon, there is a energy (PC) to it, that are proportional to its momentum (velocity)? So slowing down its momentum transforms into ? energy. Like?
I will definitely have to think more about this, and all of this are the 'standard model' of how its supposed to work, right? Nice one. I know it's a lot of nitpicking here but i need to do it :)
Greetings all,
There seem to be two separate questions posed in your poll, yor on.
1. What is a photon (wave, particle, ...)?
2. How come a photon has instant speed?
1. At a specific frequency or wavelength, the smallest quantity of electromagnetic (transverse E M) energy that can be detected is called a photon. Hence a photon is a quantum of transverse EM energy that can be treated as a particle in some ways and a wave in others. It is interesting to note that all photon detection methods use particles that absorb discrete and specific EM energy quanta because of their energy state, so our understanding of photons as quanta is flavored by indirect evidence.
The transverse E and M fields of a photon are not 90 degrees out of phase as Montec describes, but are in phase according to my studies. I've forgotten the proof of this relationship that was taught to me long ago.
2. Like others have answered, having no rest mass allows a photon to immediately travel at c in the direction of its Poynting vector. That's interesting, always in the same direction. The speed c is the rate of reaction of null space to the presence of a varying E or M field, and since a photon is purely E and M energy it immediately moves at c because space reacts to its presence. I think of a photon's instant momentum in a fixed direction as the equivalent of a Lorentz transform of its internal frame of reference. In other words, the presence of transverse E and M fields creates a moving frame of reference for the energy.
There seem to be two separate questions posed in your poll, yor on.
1. What is a photon (wave, particle, ...)?
2. How come a photon has instant speed?
1. At a specific frequency or wavelength, the smallest quantity of electromagnetic (transverse E M) energy that can be detected is called a photon. Hence a photon is a quantum of transverse EM energy that can be treated as a particle in some ways and a wave in others. It is interesting to note that all photon detection methods use particles that absorb discrete and specific EM energy quanta because of their energy state, so our understanding of photons as quanta is flavored by indirect evidence.
The transverse E and M fields of a photon are not 90 degrees out of phase as Montec describes, but are in phase according to my studies. I've forgotten the proof of this relationship that was taught to me long ago.
2. Like others have answered, having no rest mass allows a photon to immediately travel at c in the direction of its Poynting vector. That's interesting, always in the same direction. The speed c is the rate of reaction of null space to the presence of a varying E or M field, and since a photon is purely E and M energy it immediately moves at c because space reacts to its presence. I think of a photon's instant momentum in a fixed direction as the equivalent of a Lorentz transform of its internal frame of reference. In other words, the presence of transverse E and M fields creates a moving frame of reference for the energy.
Nice one to :)
Are you thinking that space is what's giving the 'photon' its instant veilocity. Some kind of 'repellent' flux in space?
" It is interesting to note that all photon detection methods use particles that absorb discrete and specific EM energy quanta because of their energy state, so our understanding of photons as quanta is flavored by indirect evidence." Totally so..
There are no 'indirect' evidence to what a 'photon' might be then?
Are you thinking that space is what's giving the 'photon' its instant veilocity. Some kind of 'repellent' flux in space?
" It is interesting to note that all photon detection methods use particles that absorb discrete and specific EM energy quanta because of their energy state, so our understanding of photons as quanta is flavored by indirect evidence." Totally so..
There are no 'indirect' evidence to what a 'photon' might be then?
QUOTE
Photons, Wave or was it a particle or?
A photon is physically a discrete event, like a particle. The wave function doesn't actually exist when a photon is detected, just as an individual die doesn't roll a 3.2 So a photon can be physically seen as a discrete particle.
The wave function is a statistical relationship that's only detected when multiple photons are present (you can't create a statistical relationship from a single event).
So, for example, if we roll 2 6 sided dice (yes, I used to be a gamer) and add the values together we find that getting a sum of 2 or 12 are much less likely than values near 7. If we passed a straight line through the various probabilities, we'd find it had a triangular shape (if we summed up a few more die rolls it would begin to look like a typical gaussian/bell curve).
The key point here is that the triangle shape of the probabilities distributions isn't inherent in any of the dice themselves but in the manner in which they're measured, just as a single photon can't be physically detected as a wave, we create correlations between multiple photons and then find there are cyclic characteristics to their detection, but those cycles can be seen as imposed by our methods of measurement. In other words, mass and space appear to have the cyclic, wavelike, statistical features that are constructed from the detections of multiple discrete events (photons). To me, it appears the particular properties of inertia (as this defines both mass and space) have periodic (wavelike) properties associated with spacial locations and this is likely what allows something to be detected as being in one location or another. The particular energy/frequency/wavelength of a photon would then depend not upon a property inherent to the photon but instead upon exactly how it was detected in space (in many ways this could be seen as the equivalent of the photon possessing an inherent frequency component if we have additional dimensions to space). So I recommend interpreting a photon as equivalent to detecting a discrete particle and then the wave features arise from the interaction with the mass detecting the photon - the wave function is in the detector (mass/space/inertia), not the photon (raw information uncorrelated with mass/space/inertia).
This is also why photons could be seen as not internally aging - the interpretation of a photon is made in the detector and not inherent in the photon. A single photon can't age because it only provides the equivalent of a yes or no value. Time is a secondary calculation made from this information that requires relationships between multiple photons to be determined. This correlation arises within the non-linearities present in mass and so the detecting mass determines what the relative properties of the photon appear to be. (An atomic orbital has a spectral bias that can't "see" all frequencies so the properties of the detector are as significant as those imagined to be inherent in the photon itself)
This is enjoyable StevenA
"it appears the particular properties of inertia (as this defines both mass and space) have periodic (wavelike) properties associated with spacial locations and this is likely what allows something to be detected as being in one location or another. The particular energy/frequency/wavelength of a photon would then depend not upon a property inherent to the photon but instead upon exactly how it was detected in space (in many ways this could be seen as the equivalent of the photon possessing an inherent frequency component if we have additional dimensions to space)."
It get's my imagination grinding (So what if it's a litle rusty, it's there! Well, somewhere :)
So the wave phenomena is the interaction with the 'observer'? Otherwise undisturbed, so to say, it's a 'discrete event' aka particle? And nothing to do with any hidden parameters of space? And thanks for giving that nice description of statistic evidence.
The best thing with this is that the viewpoints from you get me ideas and also possibly will help me understand some physics before h'm laid down to whatever :)
"it appears the particular properties of inertia (as this defines both mass and space) have periodic (wavelike) properties associated with spacial locations and this is likely what allows something to be detected as being in one location or another. The particular energy/frequency/wavelength of a photon would then depend not upon a property inherent to the photon but instead upon exactly how it was detected in space (in many ways this could be seen as the equivalent of the photon possessing an inherent frequency component if we have additional dimensions to space)."
It get's my imagination grinding (So what if it's a litle rusty, it's there! Well, somewhere :)
So the wave phenomena is the interaction with the 'observer'? Otherwise undisturbed, so to say, it's a 'discrete event' aka particle? And nothing to do with any hidden parameters of space? And thanks for giving that nice description of statistic evidence.
The best thing with this is that the viewpoints from you get me ideas and also possibly will help me understand some physics before h'm laid down to whatever :)
" A single photon can't age because it only provides the equivalent of a yes or no value. Time is a secondary calculation made from this information that requires relationships between multiple photons to be determined " ?
I thought that the photons ability to travel as far as it like in zero time, seen from its own 'time bubble', was a consequence of it having zero mass while moving at 'c'.
And if it moves at 'c' what are it's contraction, it follows gravity right? Or is it its masslessness that frees it from that? Because at 'c' the contraction should make it almost disappear or? and if slowed down through a medium it should 'grow' or and when standstill be almost a infinite (as if disapearing perhaps :).
And StevenA, what do you think about the 'bit_theory'? Your views seems to share a litle of the way that Swiss guy thinks. A 'bit' With two propertied yes/no.
I thought that the photons ability to travel as far as it like in zero time, seen from its own 'time bubble', was a consequence of it having zero mass while moving at 'c'.
And if it moves at 'c' what are it's contraction, it follows gravity right? Or is it its masslessness that frees it from that? Because at 'c' the contraction should make it almost disappear or? and if slowed down through a medium it should 'grow' or and when standstill be almost a infinite (as if disapearing perhaps :).
And StevenA, what do you think about the 'bit_theory'? Your views seems to share a litle of the way that Swiss guy thinks. A 'bit' With two propertied yes/no.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 7 2007, 01:29 AM)
Are you thinking that space is what's giving the 'photon' its instant veilocity. Some kind of 'repellent' flux in space?
My thoughts: There is no 'repellent' flux or aether at work. Electromagnetic interactions are defined by the permittivity and permeability of space and Maxwell's equations, plus Coulomb's Law, etcetera. I believe that eventually gravity will be defined by an extension of Maxwell's equations. The Poynting vector and velocity transform of electromagnetic energy, creating a momentum vector, are clues that could lead to a unified field theory.
I assume you meant to say 'direct evidence'. That sort of depends on how you interpret all the evidence. When you generate radio frequency radiation along an antenna, are you generating an expanding EM wave that is then absorbed in discrete packets, or are you generating an expanding cloud of photons that retain their discreteness until absorbed? I'm not certain it makes any difference how you define it, as long as you assume that, if a wave, then the wave resolves into discrete photons as it expands.
My thoughts: There is no 'repellent' flux or aether at work. Electromagnetic interactions are defined by the permittivity and permeability of space and Maxwell's equations, plus Coulomb's Law, etcetera. I believe that eventually gravity will be defined by an extension of Maxwell's equations. The Poynting vector and velocity transform of electromagnetic energy, creating a momentum vector, are clues that could lead to a unified field theory.
QUOTE
There are no 'indirect' evidence to what a 'photon' might be then?
I assume you meant to say 'direct evidence'. That sort of depends on how you interpret all the evidence. When you generate radio frequency radiation along an antenna, are you generating an expanding EM wave that is then absorbed in discrete packets, or are you generating an expanding cloud of photons that retain their discreteness until absorbed? I'm not certain it makes any difference how you define it, as long as you assume that, if a wave, then the wave resolves into discrete photons as it expands.
Hmm :) no, i meant 'indirect' evidence as all 'probing' we do on the photon changes it.That's what i liked about the statistical approach, to me it seemed as 'action from a distance'.
as for your support of the equations i find that ok, but that seems to work in a 'roundabout' way every statement including other statements, but never defining what one really believe it to be. You see, from my point of view i can actually see it/them (the photons). Therefore i deem photons to exist as something 'substantial'. Therefore i also expect them as to be explainable in normal language as something of unique properties, defined in spacetime as a local object with properties of its own. Not only as something, that are given its properties by combinations of mathematical equations.Does that make sense?
as for your support of the equations i find that ok, but that seems to work in a 'roundabout' way every statement including other statements, but never defining what one really believe it to be. You see, from my point of view i can actually see it/them (the photons). Therefore i deem photons to exist as something 'substantial'. Therefore i also expect them as to be explainable in normal language as something of unique properties, defined in spacetime as a local object with properties of its own. Not only as something, that are given its properties by combinations of mathematical equations.Does that make sense?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 7 2007, 04:25 PM)
Hmm no, i meant 'indirect' evidence as all 'probing' we do on the photon changes it.That's what i liked about the statistical approach, to me it seemed as 'action from a distance'.
as for your support of the equations i find that ok, but that seems to work in a 'roundabout' way every statement including other statements, but never defining what one really believe it to be. You see, from my point of view i can actually see it/them (the photons). Therefore i deem photons to exist as something 'substantial'. Therefore i also expect them as to be explainable in normal language as something of unique properties, defined in spacetime as a local object with properties of its own. Not only as something, that are given its properties by combinations of mathematical equations.Does that make sense?
Sorry, I misunderstood. A photon is definitely substantial, unique in properties, and a local object. Hopefully, the link below is stable and will provide a hand-drawn diagram of an idealized photon's structure.
Photon
It is a plane polarized photon consisting of one complete cycle of transverse E and H fields. E is in the horizontal plane and H is in the vertical plane relative to the photon's path. The curves trace the relative magnitude of the fields at each point along the photon's length. I say idealized because mathematically, some prefer to define the wave packet with a formula that extends more than one cycle and includes multiple wavelengths, to make it mathematically localized.
no, i meant 'indirect' evidence as all 'probing' we do on the photon changes it.That's what i liked about the statistical approach, to me it seemed as 'action from a distance'.as for your support of the equations i find that ok, but that seems to work in a 'roundabout' way every statement including other statements, but never defining what one really believe it to be. You see, from my point of view i can actually see it/them (the photons). Therefore i deem photons to exist as something 'substantial'. Therefore i also expect them as to be explainable in normal language as something of unique properties, defined in spacetime as a local object with properties of its own. Not only as something, that are given its properties by combinations of mathematical equations.Does that make sense?
Sorry, I misunderstood. A photon is definitely substantial, unique in properties, and a local object. Hopefully, the link below is stable and will provide a hand-drawn diagram of an idealized photon's structure.
Photon
It is a plane polarized photon consisting of one complete cycle of transverse E and H fields. E is in the horizontal plane and H is in the vertical plane relative to the photon's path. The curves trace the relative magnitude of the fields at each point along the photon's length. I say idealized because mathematically, some prefer to define the wave packet with a formula that extends more than one cycle and includes multiple wavelengths, to make it mathematically localized.
Tried your link :(
Not working.
Otherwise you strike me as a guy that thinks :)
Not working.
Otherwise you strike me as a guy that thinks :)
Is it two waves intersecting each other?
A photon is a locality in spacetime consisting of two intersected waves.
You will have to guide me trough that one :)
" consisting of one complete cycle of transverse E and H fields. "
What exactly are E and H, are they independent, or are they expressions of each other?
If they are independent i will feel confused. If they're not i will feel unsatisfied :) Cause then it also will feel as a 'roundabout' description. :( If you see my drift. One needing the other, unable to exist without support. That will not satisfy my curiosity I'm afraid :) But I'm guessing here, so please tell me how it should be understood.
Om the other hand it's getting late. Perhaps I will understand it better after I've slept. Still, it's very good of you to go to the effort of explaining :)
A photon is a locality in spacetime consisting of two intersected waves.
You will have to guide me trough that one :)
" consisting of one complete cycle of transverse E and H fields. "
What exactly are E and H, are they independent, or are they expressions of each other?
If they are independent i will feel confused. If they're not i will feel unsatisfied :) Cause then it also will feel as a 'roundabout' description. :( If you see my drift. One needing the other, unable to exist without support. That will not satisfy my curiosity I'm afraid :) But I'm guessing here, so please tell me how it should be understood.
Om the other hand it's getting late. Perhaps I will understand it better after I've slept. Still, it's very good of you to go to the effort of explaining :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 7 2007, 09:57 PM)
Is it two waves intersecting each other?
Not intersecting each other but accompanying each other. They both move in the same direction at the same speed.
E is an electric field and H is a magnetic field. In electromagnetic radiation both are always present, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel. They are not independent, rather they are interdependent; neither can exist without the other. The relationship between them is mathematically represented via Maxwell's equations. This is basic classical electromagnetic physics that is strongly supported by both theory and experiment.
I found this interactive Java diagram that might help. It gives a nice representation of a continuous electromagnetic wave (which can be thought of as a train of photons, one after the other).
One problem I had to deal with in developing a particle theory (a different topic of another thread) was that there exists no description in physics, that I could find, which defines the cross-sectional strength of the E and H fields of a photon away from the axis of propagation. The diagrams above (mine and the java example) only give a representation of the direction and strength of E and H on the axis of propagation, not to one side or the other. It turns out the cross-sectional model of a photon's field strength may be critical to understanding how an electron and positron can be formed from one photon in pair production and what their structures are like.
Not intersecting each other but accompanying each other. They both move in the same direction at the same speed.
QUOTE
What exactly are E and H, are they independent, or are they expressions of each other?
E is an electric field and H is a magnetic field. In electromagnetic radiation both are always present, at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel. They are not independent, rather they are interdependent; neither can exist without the other. The relationship between them is mathematically represented via Maxwell's equations. This is basic classical electromagnetic physics that is strongly supported by both theory and experiment.
I found this interactive Java diagram that might help. It gives a nice representation of a continuous electromagnetic wave (which can be thought of as a train of photons, one after the other).
One problem I had to deal with in developing a particle theory (a different topic of another thread) was that there exists no description in physics, that I could find, which defines the cross-sectional strength of the E and H fields of a photon away from the axis of propagation. The diagrams above (mine and the java example) only give a representation of the direction and strength of E and H on the axis of propagation, not to one side or the other. It turns out the cross-sectional model of a photon's field strength may be critical to understanding how an electron and positron can be formed from one photon in pair production and what their structures are like.
regallow This is very nice :)
If a photon is a combination of electric and magnetic force, can one split those two? There are no electric fields existing without magnetic fields created is there? So the photon is a 'container' of those two. But how can you be sure? You wrote ..
" which defines the cross-sectional strength of the E and H fields of a photon away from the axis of propagation. " That's seems a interesting question i think and what it falls down to is, if there is any possible way to contain 'one' photon and touch it 'with a stick' to see how it behaves :). Also I dearly would like to know if there are any length associated to the photon when it travels at 'C'. And if/how it changes while being 'slowed down' by different methods,, but while slowed down it should start to 'age' also it.. i don't know , should it build up or lose energy? If it's massless? But the way its described makes it very similar to an electron, no? Why then are there any argument considering an electrons highest speed f ex?
Woops: if you slow it down and it follows Einstein's ideas it should expand, right, seen from an observer, and that it would do whichever way one chooses to look at it, particle/wave? Or might it be that I'm bicycling in the blue yonder here :)
If a photon is a combination of electric and magnetic force, can one split those two? There are no electric fields existing without magnetic fields created is there? So the photon is a 'container' of those two. But how can you be sure? You wrote ..
" which defines the cross-sectional strength of the E and H fields of a photon away from the axis of propagation. " That's seems a interesting question i think and what it falls down to is, if there is any possible way to contain 'one' photon and touch it 'with a stick' to see how it behaves :). Also I dearly would like to know if there are any length associated to the photon when it travels at 'C'. And if/how it changes while being 'slowed down' by different methods,, but while slowed down it should start to 'age' also it.. i don't know , should it build up or lose energy? If it's massless? But the way its described makes it very similar to an electron, no? Why then are there any argument considering an electrons highest speed f ex?
Woops: if you slow it down and it follows Einstein's ideas it should expand, right, seen from an observer, and that it would do whichever way one chooses to look at it, particle/wave? Or might it be that I'm bicycling in the blue yonder here :)
Another strange thing i can't stop thinking about. When you slow down light it should age right? Then if it's not 'immortal' it should break down somewhere, if we could keep it under observation as in a cloud chamber f ex. And from the comparison of momentum/velocity in time we might know the energy of a single photon? And if it doesn't break down, would that mean that it exist outside of gravity? A photon follows spacetime right, which implies that it follows gravity even though it's supposed to be massless? And gravity and Time seems to me to be very closely bound. Awwh, i don't know..
The claim about that 'cloud chamber?' experiment was that they 'froze' a light beam thereby making it disappear, and then claiming to be able to resurrect it again?
How can that be? At 'C' as i understand it the photon is not aging, but at any speed under 'C'? Probably I'm missing something shamefully simple here :)
The claim about that 'cloud chamber?' experiment was that they 'froze' a light beam thereby making it disappear, and then claiming to be able to resurrect it again?
How can that be? At 'C' as i understand it the photon is not aging, but at any speed under 'C'? Probably I'm missing something shamefully simple here :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 8 2007, 10:18 AM)
If a photon is a combination of electric and magnetic force, can one split those two? There are no electric fields existing without magnetic fields created is there? So the photon is a 'container' of those two.
You've got to be careful about the specific circumstances being analyzed. A photon is 'EM energy in motion' and consists of both electric and magnetic fields.
The static electric field of a charged sphere is not energy in motion and there is no accompanying magnetic field. Put the sphere in motion without changing its static charge, and the movement of the electric field creates a magnetic field proportional to the time rate of change of the electric field, thus 90 degrees out of phase. Change the sphere's charge, and a magnetic field will be generated while the charge is changing, then the magnetic field will disappear when the charge becomes static again. A changing electric field creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Move a magnet and you will create an accompanying electric field.
The length of a photon traveling at c is considered to be its wavelength in free (or null) space. A photon's group velocity or speed will drop below c when it encounters a region with refractive index greater than one, the index of free space. A change in the refractive index implies a change in the permittivity or permeability of space and is due to the presence of other energy. Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down. When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does.
The length of a photon traveling at c is considered to be its wavelength in free (or null) space. A photon's group velocity or speed will drop below c when it encounters a region with refractive index greater than one, the index of free space. A change in the refractive index implies a change in the permittivity or permeability of space and is due to the presence of other energy. Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down. When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does.
But the way its described makes it very similar to an electron, no? Why then are there any argument considering an electrons highest speed f ex?
Rest mass, the concept which some areas of physics tend to ignore today. A photon has no rest mass as AlphaNumeric pointed out, and that allows it to move at c. An electron has rest mass (mass at rest) and it would take an infinite amount of energy to get it to move at c. So the limit to an electron's highest speed is c, but don't wait around for it to happen.
That's a good thought, but in fact the opposite happens. It shrinks. A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally.
That's a good thought, but in fact the opposite happens. It shrinks. A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally.
Another strange thing i can't stop thinking about. When you slow down light it should age right? Then if it's not 'immortal' it should break down somewhere, if we could keep it under observation as in a cloud chamber f ex. And from the comparison of momentum/velocity in time we might know the energy of a single photon? And if it doesn't break down, would that mean that it exist outside of gravity? A photon follows spacetime right, which implies that it follows gravity even though it's supposed to be massless? And gravity and Time seems to me to be very closely bound. Awwh, i don't know..
Photons don't appear to age moving at c; why should they age when you slow them down? Perhaps you subscribe to a 'tired light' theory? There is no evidence I'm aware of that the laws of thermodynamics are broken by photons over time.
A photon does react to gravity while it is affected by it. One perspective says that spacetime itself is curved due to gravity and photons follow the resulting curvature of space. Another perspective doesn't curve space itself but just identifies the forces that cause a photon's path to curve. A photon has relativistic mass which is what interacts with gravity. Relativistic mass follows from the equations that AlphaNumeric gave.
It isn't a cloud chamber but a Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms. Essentially, the condensate and controlling laser create a very large refractive index which can slow down a stream of photons to nearly zero speed. The photons are squeezed into a small distance in the process but don't lose their information. Once the refractive index is reduced by laser adjustments, the original photon stream resumes its journey. Here is an early article on it: Slowed light.
You've got to be careful about the specific circumstances being analyzed. A photon is 'EM energy in motion' and consists of both electric and magnetic fields.
The static electric field of a charged sphere is not energy in motion and there is no accompanying magnetic field. Put the sphere in motion without changing its static charge, and the movement of the electric field creates a magnetic field proportional to the time rate of change of the electric field, thus 90 degrees out of phase. Change the sphere's charge, and a magnetic field will be generated while the charge is changing, then the magnetic field will disappear when the charge becomes static again. A changing electric field creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Move a magnet and you will create an accompanying electric field.
QUOTE
Also I dearly would like to know if there are any length associated to the photon when it travels at 'C'. And if/how it changes while being 'slowed down' by different methods,, but while slowed down it should start to 'age' also it.. i don't know , should it build up or lose energy? If it's massless?
The length of a photon traveling at c is considered to be its wavelength in free (or null) space. A photon's group velocity or speed will drop below c when it encounters a region with refractive index greater than one, the index of free space. A change in the refractive index implies a change in the permittivity or permeability of space and is due to the presence of other energy. Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down. When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also I dearly would like to know if there are any length associated to the photon when it travels at 'C'. And if/how it changes while being 'slowed down' by different methods,, but while slowed down it should start to 'age' also it.. i don't know , should it build up or lose energy? If it's massless? |
The length of a photon traveling at c is considered to be its wavelength in free (or null) space. A photon's group velocity or speed will drop below c when it encounters a region with refractive index greater than one, the index of free space. A change in the refractive index implies a change in the permittivity or permeability of space and is due to the presence of other energy. Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down. When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does.
But the way its described makes it very similar to an electron, no? Why then are there any argument considering an electrons highest speed f ex?
Rest mass, the concept which some areas of physics tend to ignore today. A photon has no rest mass as AlphaNumeric pointed out, and that allows it to move at c. An electron has rest mass (mass at rest) and it would take an infinite amount of energy to get it to move at c. So the limit to an electron's highest speed is c, but don't wait around for it to happen.
QUOTE
Woops: if you slow it down and it follows Einstein's ideas it should expand, right, seen from an observer, and that it would do whichever way one chooses to look at it, particle/wave? Or might it be that I'm bicycling in the blue yonder here
That's a good thought, but in fact the opposite happens. It shrinks. A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Woops: if you slow it down and it follows Einstein's ideas it should expand, right, seen from an observer, and that it would do whichever way one chooses to look at it, particle/wave? Or might it be that I'm bicycling in the blue yonder here |
That's a good thought, but in fact the opposite happens. It shrinks. A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally.
Another strange thing i can't stop thinking about. When you slow down light it should age right? Then if it's not 'immortal' it should break down somewhere, if we could keep it under observation as in a cloud chamber f ex. And from the comparison of momentum/velocity in time we might know the energy of a single photon? And if it doesn't break down, would that mean that it exist outside of gravity? A photon follows spacetime right, which implies that it follows gravity even though it's supposed to be massless? And gravity and Time seems to me to be very closely bound. Awwh, i don't know..
Photons don't appear to age moving at c; why should they age when you slow them down? Perhaps you subscribe to a 'tired light' theory? There is no evidence I'm aware of that the laws of thermodynamics are broken by photons over time.
A photon does react to gravity while it is affected by it. One perspective says that spacetime itself is curved due to gravity and photons follow the resulting curvature of space. Another perspective doesn't curve space itself but just identifies the forces that cause a photon's path to curve. A photon has relativistic mass which is what interacts with gravity. Relativistic mass follows from the equations that AlphaNumeric gave.
QUOTE
The claim about that 'cloud chamber?' experiment was that they 'froze' a light beam thereby making it disappear, and then claiming to be able to resurrect it again?
How can that be? At 'C' as i understand it the photon is not aging, but at any speed under 'C'? Probably I'm missing something shamefully simple here
How can that be? At 'C' as i understand it the photon is not aging, but at any speed under 'C'? Probably I'm missing something shamefully simple here
It isn't a cloud chamber but a Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms. Essentially, the condensate and controlling laser create a very large refractive index which can slow down a stream of photons to nearly zero speed. The photons are squeezed into a small distance in the process but don't lose their information. Once the refractive index is reduced by laser adjustments, the original photon stream resumes its journey. Here is an early article on it: Slowed light.
A most splendid explanation :)
As for the rest mass of the electron that makes perfect sense to me. My problem with 'aging' comes from my view that a photon doesn't age while traveling at 'C' due to its absolute speed creating that relativistic effect of 'no time' seen from the photons perspective.
If that view was correct then i thought that when you, by introducing 'slowing down' also would introduce 'age' into the photon as it wouldn't be 'protected' by its speed any more, so to say. But i seem to be wrong there? So how does this 'agelessness' get explained? No Mass?
Awh " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally." Now, why did you have to say that :) All my ideas gone to dust... But How do we know that? theory proved by experimentation or is it the 'best explanation'? ( by shrinking longitudinally you mean that it shortens in time, and as we exist in time it will appear shorter without in 'reality' being so? Or do you mean, it really get shorter and there are no 'hidden vectors'? )
" A photon has relativistic mass which is what interacts with gravity. Relativistic mass follows from the equations that AlphaNumeric gave. " Now this gives me something resembling a headache (there must be some brain tissue left then :) How can something without mass have relativistic mass? If there is no mass inherent why should it 'bend' Isn't it so that it always follow a straight line, and it is spacetime that bends? There is something here that i can't put my thumb on..
I agree, sloppy to write 'cloud chamber' but, at least i put in a (? :). I was somewhat tired when i wrote that. That's the main problem with being on this forum, one forget to go to sleep, there is always one question more :). Now, you say that " The photons are squeezed into a small distance in the process but don't lose their information. " That makes me very curious to how you think there? And btw: considering that i seem to be wrong in my conclusion of how photons can have 'notime' at 'C' the rest falls in place i guess.
But only 'guess' I will have to reread all again I'm afraid :) To see if this feeble mind can process it (in time, that is :) I hope I don't sound too pretentious, i want to understand as much as I'm capable of, that's all. And yeah some of my questions may seem, ah well, you know :)
And hey, thanks for the link, that was a better one than the one i had.
As for the rest mass of the electron that makes perfect sense to me. My problem with 'aging' comes from my view that a photon doesn't age while traveling at 'C' due to its absolute speed creating that relativistic effect of 'no time' seen from the photons perspective.
If that view was correct then i thought that when you, by introducing 'slowing down' also would introduce 'age' into the photon as it wouldn't be 'protected' by its speed any more, so to say. But i seem to be wrong there? So how does this 'agelessness' get explained? No Mass?
Awh " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally." Now, why did you have to say that :) All my ideas gone to dust... But How do we know that? theory proved by experimentation or is it the 'best explanation'? ( by shrinking longitudinally you mean that it shortens in time, and as we exist in time it will appear shorter without in 'reality' being so? Or do you mean, it really get shorter and there are no 'hidden vectors'? )
" A photon has relativistic mass which is what interacts with gravity. Relativistic mass follows from the equations that AlphaNumeric gave. " Now this gives me something resembling a headache (there must be some brain tissue left then :) How can something without mass have relativistic mass? If there is no mass inherent why should it 'bend' Isn't it so that it always follow a straight line, and it is spacetime that bends? There is something here that i can't put my thumb on..
I agree, sloppy to write 'cloud chamber' but, at least i put in a (? :). I was somewhat tired when i wrote that. That's the main problem with being on this forum, one forget to go to sleep, there is always one question more :). Now, you say that " The photons are squeezed into a small distance in the process but don't lose their information. " That makes me very curious to how you think there? And btw: considering that i seem to be wrong in my conclusion of how photons can have 'notime' at 'C' the rest falls in place i guess.
But only 'guess' I will have to reread all again I'm afraid :) To see if this feeble mind can process it (in time, that is :) I hope I don't sound too pretentious, i want to understand as much as I'm capable of, that's all. And yeah some of my questions may seem, ah well, you know :)
And hey, thanks for the link, that was a better one than the one i had.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 8 2007, 03:46 PM)
My problem with 'aging' comes from my view that a photon doesn't age while traveling at 'C' due to its absolute speed creating that relativistic effect of 'no time' seen from the photons perspective.
If that view was correct then i thought that when you, by introducing 'slowing down' also would introduce 'age' into the photon as it wouldn't be 'protected' by its speed any more, so to say. But i seem to be wrong there? So how does this 'agelessness' get explained? No Mass?
You make an interesting connection, using relativity to explain the timelessness of a photon at c. Aging of a photon slowed below c has not been observed, at least in a way that the physics community can accept. If it aged and lost energy, where does the energy go? Energy is conserved. If energy disappears, then it must affect space itself and should change the permittivity and / or permeability of space. There's no obvious evidence of that, but there are attempts to use that concept to explain the cosmological expansion. My mind is open to the possibility.
The slowing of photons in a Bose-Einstein condensate is great proof that the length of the photons is shortened. A stream of photons becomes greatly compacted lengthwise. No hidden vectors, no alternate reality needed
The slowing of photons in a Bose-Einstein condensate is great proof that the length of the photons is shortened. A stream of photons becomes greatly compacted lengthwise. No hidden vectors, no alternate reality needed
" A photon has relativistic mass which is what interacts with gravity. Relativistic mass follows from the equations that AlphaNumeric gave. " Now this gives me something resembling a headache (there must be some brain tissue left then How can something without mass have relativistic mass? If there is no mass inherent why should it 'bend' Isn't it so that it always follow a straight line, and it is spacetime that bends? There is something here that i can't put my thumb on..
When a particle such as an electron is at rest, it has 'rest mass', literally the mass at rest. When you accelerate it, it gains momentum. It's rest mass is still what it was at rest, but the added momentum means it will behave as if its mass has increased. The relativistic mass of the particle is the total of rest mass and the added mass effect due to momentum. The relativistic formula given by AlphaNumeric is used to quantify the relativistic mass. A photon has no rest mass but it does have momentum, hence it has relativistic mass. Mass due to momentum and rest mass behave identically when a moving particle interacts with something else, including gravity.
Again, the Bose-Einstein condensate trap used to slow photons is proof that the photons are squeezed into a small space and retain their identities, since a signal in the photon stream (such as varying intervals between photons) before it enters the condensate is conserved when the stream emerges. And the original stream is longer than the condensate is wide, showing the photons are shortened in length.
You ask some very good questions. I hope I'm reasonably clear and am trying to be as accurate as possible.
If that view was correct then i thought that when you, by introducing 'slowing down' also would introduce 'age' into the photon as it wouldn't be 'protected' by its speed any more, so to say. But i seem to be wrong there? So how does this 'agelessness' get explained? No Mass?
You make an interesting connection, using relativity to explain the timelessness of a photon at c. Aging of a photon slowed below c has not been observed, at least in a way that the physics community can accept. If it aged and lost energy, where does the energy go? Energy is conserved. If energy disappears, then it must affect space itself and should change the permittivity and / or permeability of space. There's no obvious evidence of that, but there are attempts to use that concept to explain the cosmological expansion. My mind is open to the possibility.
QUOTE
Awh " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally." Now, why did you have to say that All my ideas gone to dust... But How do we know that? theory proved by experimentation or is it the 'best explanation'? ( by shrinking longitudinally you mean that it shortens in time, and as we exist in time it will appear shorter without in 'reality' being so? Or do you mean, it really get shorter and there are no 'hidden vectors'? )
All my ideas gone to dust... But How do we know that? theory proved by experimentation or is it the 'best explanation'? ( by shrinking longitudinally you mean that it shortens in time, and as we exist in time it will appear shorter without in 'reality' being so? Or do you mean, it really get shorter and there are no 'hidden vectors'? ) The slowing of photons in a Bose-Einstein condensate is great proof that the length of the photons is shortened. A stream of photons becomes greatly compacted lengthwise. No hidden vectors, no alternate reality needed
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Awh " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally." Now, why did you have to say that All my ideas gone to dust... But How do we know that? theory proved by experimentation or is it the 'best explanation'? ( by shrinking longitudinally you mean that it shortens in time, and as we exist in time it will appear shorter without in 'reality' being so? Or do you mean, it really get shorter and there are no 'hidden vectors'? ) |
The slowing of photons in a Bose-Einstein condensate is great proof that the length of the photons is shortened. A stream of photons becomes greatly compacted lengthwise. No hidden vectors, no alternate reality needed
" A photon has relativistic mass which is what interacts with gravity. Relativistic mass follows from the equations that AlphaNumeric gave. " Now this gives me something resembling a headache (there must be some brain tissue left then
How can something without mass have relativistic mass? If there is no mass inherent why should it 'bend' Isn't it so that it always follow a straight line, and it is spacetime that bends? There is something here that i can't put my thumb on.. When a particle such as an electron is at rest, it has 'rest mass', literally the mass at rest. When you accelerate it, it gains momentum. It's rest mass is still what it was at rest, but the added momentum means it will behave as if its mass has increased. The relativistic mass of the particle is the total of rest mass and the added mass effect due to momentum. The relativistic formula given by AlphaNumeric is used to quantify the relativistic mass. A photon has no rest mass but it does have momentum, hence it has relativistic mass. Mass due to momentum and rest mass behave identically when a moving particle interacts with something else, including gravity.
QUOTE
Now, you say that " The photons are squeezed into a small distance in the process but don't lose their information. " That makes me very curious to how you think there? And btw: considering that i seem to be wrong in my conclusion of how photons can have 'notime' at 'C' the rest falls in place i guess.
Again, the Bose-Einstein condensate trap used to slow photons is proof that the photons are squeezed into a small space and retain their identities, since a signal in the photon stream (such as varying intervals between photons) before it enters the condensate is conserved when the stream emerges. And the original stream is longer than the condensate is wide, showing the photons are shortened in length.
You ask some very good questions. I hope I'm reasonably clear and am trying to be as accurate as possible.
You mean that when the photon is slowed down in the Bose-Einstein condensate its length is slowed down in time and therefore it is 'compressed' "into a small distance in the process but don't lose the(ir) information." fascinating. So how can it hold its continuum, the photon i mean? If one think about it as a wave it just stretches out, no? but seen as a particle it will have a 'shell'. How does it contain it self?
" A change in the refractive index implies a change in the permittivity or permeability of space and is due to the presence of other energy. "
Sound's reasonable to me, at least if one think of it as a 'self contained field' meeting other fields
"-----Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down.---------"
I need to know more (as always :)
" When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does. "
By that you mean that while the wave becomes shorter in time the frequency by which it passes a chosen point in space remains the same, no? So, while sending out a white light beam meeting a 'substance', the reflection of that said light will have undergone a transformation in both wavelength and in energy this doesn't happen here?
BTW: the link to " Electromagnetic Wave Propagation " was also very nice.
" A change in the refractive index implies a change in the permittivity or permeability of space and is due to the presence of other energy. "
Sound's reasonable to me, at least if one think of it as a 'self contained field' meeting other fields
"-----Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down.---------"
I need to know more (as always :)
" When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does. "
By that you mean that while the wave becomes shorter in time the frequency by which it passes a chosen point in space remains the same, no? So, while sending out a white light beam meeting a 'substance', the reflection of that said light will have undergone a transformation in both wavelength and in energy this doesn't happen here?
BTW: the link to " Electromagnetic Wave Propagation " was also very nice.
" If it aged and lost energy, where does the energy go?" That is an extremely good question Sir :) I didn't think that long I'm afraid. But does it have to lose energy by aging? Couldn't it lose it to the 'process' slowing it down?
" Energy is conserved. If energy disappears, then it must affect space itself and should change the permittivity and / or permeability of space. "
If it would lose energy to space and if we assume that the photon is of Planck size, what would the size of that lost energy be? And now I'm flying at a relativistic height of two meters under the ground :) You give me as many new questions as that you answer... Sh** :)
PS: I mean that in a most happy way :)
BTW: i still don't see this concept clearly " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally. "
Do you have any link with lots and lots of words and not to much mathematic :)
" Energy is conserved. If energy disappears, then it must affect space itself and should change the permittivity and / or permeability of space. "
If it would lose energy to space and if we assume that the photon is of Planck size, what would the size of that lost energy be? And now I'm flying at a relativistic height of two meters under the ground :) You give me as many new questions as that you answer... Sh** :)
PS: I mean that in a most happy way :)
BTW: i still don't see this concept clearly " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally. "
Do you have any link with lots and lots of words and not to much mathematic :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 8 2007, 06:06 PM)
So how can it hold its continuum, the photon i mean? If one think about it as a wave it just stretches out, no? but seen as a particle it will have a 'shell'. How does it contain it self?
Wow, more questions. Am I being tested???
Treating them as waves, or wave packets, is probably best here. There is no shell to be concerned about.
Perhaps its best to ignore that statement of mine. My memory of those treatments of refraction is vague and I might be leading you astray.
Perhaps its best to ignore that statement of mine. My memory of those treatments of refraction is vague and I might be leading you astray.
" When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does. "
By that you mean that while the wave becomes shorter in time the frequency by which it passes a chosen point in space remains the same, no?
Yes.
I don't understand the situation you describe. Could you rephrase, please?
I don't understand the situation you describe. Could you rephrase, please?
" If it aged and lost energy, where does the energy go?" That is an extremely good question Sir I didn't think that long I'm afraid. But does it have to lose energy by aging? Couldn't it lose it to the 'process' slowing it down?
Photons don't lose energy when they are slowed below c in a refractive environment, or at least they don't lose it permanently. They emerge from the refractive environment with the same energy they had going in. I'll probably regret this, because it will open up more questions, but here's an interesting article that seems to imply we don't really know if the momentum of a photon changes in a refractive substance. If we don't know that, then we don't really know what happens to its energy. There are no experiments that show they lose energy through aging, whether traveling at c or at a slower speed.
I hope I don't misinterpret what you mean here. First off, what Planck size are you referring to? If it's the Planck length, then how are you using it, as the wavelength? A photon of Planck wavelength would be enormously energetic because its frequency would be very large. I think you meant to portray a photon of minimum energy in Planck terms instead, and asked what happens when it loses some energy. Sorry, I don't believe in Planck limitations of length or time or whatever. I believe in a continuum of length and time, not in quantized bits of them. And there's no evidence that photons lose energy to space. If I'm wrong and these minimum quanta do exist and a photon of absolute minimum energy were to lose energy, it should cease to exist. But its energy would have to accounted for in 'the system.'
I hope I don't misinterpret what you mean here. First off, what Planck size are you referring to? If it's the Planck length, then how are you using it, as the wavelength? A photon of Planck wavelength would be enormously energetic because its frequency would be very large. I think you meant to portray a photon of minimum energy in Planck terms instead, and asked what happens when it loses some energy. Sorry, I don't believe in Planck limitations of length or time or whatever. I believe in a continuum of length and time, not in quantized bits of them. And there's no evidence that photons lose energy to space. If I'm wrong and these minimum quanta do exist and a photon of absolute minimum energy were to lose energy, it should cease to exist. But its energy would have to accounted for in 'the system.'
BTW: i still don't see this concept clearly " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally. "
Do you have any link with lots and lots of words and not to much mathematic
The only link I came up with is this, which shows the wavelength change as light enters water from air. You have to click on 2 in the diagram to see the change occur.
Wow, more questions. Am I being tested???
Treating them as waves, or wave packets, is probably best here. There is no shell to be concerned about.
QUOTE
"-----Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down.---------"
I need to know more (as always
I need to know more (as always
Perhaps its best to ignore that statement of mine. My memory of those treatments of refraction is vague and I might be leading you astray.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "-----Note this is my perspective and is not entirely in line with certain quantum theory views which assume no speed reduction of photons but more collisions and absorptions that have a net effect of slowing the photon down.---------" I need to know more (as always |
Perhaps its best to ignore that statement of mine. My memory of those treatments of refraction is vague and I might be leading you astray.
" When it slows down, the photon's group wavelength shrinks while its frequency remains the same. Its energy does not change but its speed does. "
By that you mean that while the wave becomes shorter in time the frequency by which it passes a chosen point in space remains the same, no?
Yes.
QUOTE
So, while sending out a white light beam meeting a 'substance', the reflection of that said light will have undergone a transformation in both wavelength and in energy this doesn't happen here?
I don't understand the situation you describe. Could you rephrase, please?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, while sending out a white light beam meeting a 'substance', the reflection of that said light will have undergone a transformation in both wavelength and in energy this doesn't happen here? |
I don't understand the situation you describe. Could you rephrase, please?
" If it aged and lost energy, where does the energy go?" That is an extremely good question Sir
I didn't think that long I'm afraid. But does it have to lose energy by aging? Couldn't it lose it to the 'process' slowing it down?Photons don't lose energy when they are slowed below c in a refractive environment, or at least they don't lose it permanently. They emerge from the refractive environment with the same energy they had going in. I'll probably regret this, because it will open up more questions, but here's an interesting article that seems to imply we don't really know if the momentum of a photon changes in a refractive substance. If we don't know that, then we don't really know what happens to its energy. There are no experiments that show they lose energy through aging, whether traveling at c or at a slower speed.
QUOTE
If it would lose energy to space and if we assume that the photon is of Planck size, what would the size of that lost energy be?
I hope I don't misinterpret what you mean here. First off, what Planck size are you referring to? If it's the Planck length, then how are you using it, as the wavelength? A photon of Planck wavelength would be enormously energetic because its frequency would be very large. I think you meant to portray a photon of minimum energy in Planck terms instead, and asked what happens when it loses some energy. Sorry, I don't believe in Planck limitations of length or time or whatever. I believe in a continuum of length and time, not in quantized bits of them. And there's no evidence that photons lose energy to space. If I'm wrong and these minimum quanta do exist and a photon of absolute minimum energy were to lose energy, it should cease to exist. But its energy would have to accounted for in 'the system.'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it would lose energy to space and if we assume that the photon is of Planck size, what would the size of that lost energy be? |
I hope I don't misinterpret what you mean here. First off, what Planck size are you referring to? If it's the Planck length, then how are you using it, as the wavelength? A photon of Planck wavelength would be enormously energetic because its frequency would be very large. I think you meant to portray a photon of minimum energy in Planck terms instead, and asked what happens when it loses some energy. Sorry, I don't believe in Planck limitations of length or time or whatever. I believe in a continuum of length and time, not in quantized bits of them. And there's no evidence that photons lose energy to space. If I'm wrong and these minimum quanta do exist and a photon of absolute minimum energy were to lose energy, it should cease to exist. But its energy would have to accounted for in 'the system.'
BTW: i still don't see this concept clearly " A slowed photon is traveling in an area of space with high energy potential relative to the observer, you. It shrinks longitudinally. "
Do you have any link with lots and lots of words and not to much mathematic
The only link I came up with is this, which shows the wavelength change as light enters water from air. You have to click on 2 in the diagram to see the change occur.
Sorry, Some of my questions leave me in the same dilemma as you perceive, reading them again. Like 'Now, what the F* am I talking about?" I will check them over again and try to make sense of them (if possible :). But you said one thing that made me extremely interested, "I don't believe in Planck limitations of length or time or whatever. I believe in a continuum of length and time, not in quantized bits of them " That is a very large statement and its not one that one would want to make without any 'flesh on the bones' so to speak. I too find those 'discrete jumps' to be counter intuitive, but i feel i have to accept them as nowhere i look i can find alternative solutions. Can you give me some more information about how your conclusion were made?. And yes, Questions that's my forte I'm afraid :) That's why I'm here. Life and the universe and all, I'm not very satisfied with what i know :). And compared to what i understand about quantum physics, most of the guy's on this forum are light year's past me :) .
The question of photons aging, the ideas there was really meant to be taken as two ideas. it's sloppy of me not to formulate them better but sometime my mind goes ahead into that blue yonder :) . As you already explained one of them, i have the other left. 'does it really have to lose energy by aging?' I'm guessing that you are thinking of the laws of entropy as for why that would be an impossibility, no? still aging is in one way decay, but if one think of time, does that always count? It all depends on how you define time i think, and photons i find very strange. That is a very strange concept, i know, but time has always been a 'favorite' of mine, and i can't stop asking about it. And yes, this is pure speculation from my side.
" If it would lose energy to space and if we assume that the photon is of Planck size, what would the size of that lost energy be? And now I'm flying at a relativistic height of two meters under the ground :) " This was also pure speculation, and your answer :)
"What Planck size are you referring to? If it's the Planck length, then how are you using it, as the wavelength? A photon of Planck wavelength would be enormously energetic because its frequency would be very large. I think you meant to portray a photon of minimum energy in Planck terms " Was very illuminating, you are quite right in 'exploding' over that one :) Here you see me stymied, i will need to read a lot more to see this in the right perspective. the question came from my 'want' of knowing the possible size of a photon traveling at 'C'.
The question of photons aging, the ideas there was really meant to be taken as two ideas. it's sloppy of me not to formulate them better but sometime my mind goes ahead into that blue yonder :) . As you already explained one of them, i have the other left. 'does it really have to lose energy by aging?' I'm guessing that you are thinking of the laws of entropy as for why that would be an impossibility, no? still aging is in one way decay, but if one think of time, does that always count? It all depends on how you define time i think, and photons i find very strange. That is a very strange concept, i know, but time has always been a 'favorite' of mine, and i can't stop asking about it. And yes, this is pure speculation from my side.
" If it would lose energy to space and if we assume that the photon is of Planck size, what would the size of that lost energy be? And now I'm flying at a relativistic height of two meters under the ground :) " This was also pure speculation, and your answer :)
"What Planck size are you referring to? If it's the Planck length, then how are you using it, as the wavelength? A photon of Planck wavelength would be enormously energetic because its frequency would be very large. I think you meant to portray a photon of minimum energy in Planck terms " Was very illuminating, you are quite right in 'exploding' over that one :) Here you see me stymied, i will need to read a lot more to see this in the right perspective. the question came from my 'want' of knowing the possible size of a photon traveling at 'C'.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 9 2007, 11:43 AM)
But you said one thing that made me extremely interested, "I don't believe in Planck limitations of length or time or whatever. I believe in a continuum of length and time, not in quantized bits of them " That is a very large statement and its not one that one would want to make without any 'flesh on the bones' so to speak. I too find those 'discrete jumps' to be counter intuitive, but i feel i have to accept them as nowhere i look i can find alternative solutions. Can you give me some more information about how your conclusion were made?.
You have nothing to apologize for; you are doing what we should all do more often - ask questions until we're satisfied with the answers.
Somebody sometime derived the "Base Planck units" of length, mass, time, charge, and temperature from the speed of light in free space, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and the permittivity of free space so that certain equations were made simpler. It's essentially a substitution of variables. So far, so good. I don't care for it but I can accept that others find it convenient.
Then somebody made a logical assumption that the Planck units might be the true base units of length, mass, time, charge, and temperature. If they are truly the base units, AND if everything they measure comes in integer (quantized) values of those units, then there must exist a minimum length, mass, time, charge, and temperature consisting of one Planck unit of each. This idea ties in beautifully with quantum physics, but I don't accept that everything is quantized. To me, this concept is purely mathematical and I don't know of any experimental evidence to support the concept of quantized Planck units. If I'm ignorant of supporting evidence, somebody will likely point it out.
My perspective is similar to Einstein's, who believed in continuous field theories. From his book "Relativity, The Special and the General Theory", at the end of a section on his generalized theory of gravity: "In conformity with the present form of the quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurement attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realised only by such a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."
That was in 1961. I am in the extreme minority still holding to field theory as fundamental. Quantum mechanics certainly simplifies some aspects of physics, but I believe it has been taken to extremes where it doesn't belong (string theories, QCD, quantum gravity, the structure of protons, ...). Certain properties are quantized in that they always appear in integer multiples of a base value, such as charge and spin. If we identify physical models using waves and fields that account for those quantized properties, then we demonstrate the link between quantum and field physics and the proper domain for each. That's the main goal behind my modeling of electrons, protons, and their antiparticles as presented in this thread.
Be careful with what you accept here. Remain questioning. This is an open forum and lots of weird theories are presented by their believers as fact.
Be careful with what you accept here. Remain questioning. This is an open forum and lots of weird theories are presented by their believers as fact.
...'does it really have to lose energy by aging?' I'm guessing that you are thinking of the laws of entropy as for why that would be an impossibility, no? still aging is in one way decay, but if one think of time, does that always count? It all depends on how you define time i think, and photons i find very strange. That is a very strange concept, i know, but time has always been a 'favorite' of mine, and i can't stop asking about it. And yes, this is pure speculation from my side.
Let me generalize a bit, it might help my thought process. The concept of time might come in handy that way. Let's assume photons 'age'. How do we know they age? Something has to be different between the presentation of an old photon and a newly generated one. Since photons are quite simple in structure (presumably), if they change, they change in velocity, wavelength, or frequency, with a corresponding shift in energy and momentum (leading to Hubble's redshift?). Or they split into multiple photons of less energy that sum to the original value (no evidence of that). Or space long ago or a long distance away does not have the same properties as space now here, and it isn't the photons that have changed but space itself. Or Planck's constant isn't constant but changes over time (no evidence of that). Or time isn't proceeding at the same rate as it did long ago or far away.
From your response, perhaps you think time isn't proceeding at the same rate now as long ago? Let's analyze that a bit. If the universe is expanding and was once very dense, relativity would imply that the clock rate in the early universe was slow compared to today's rate. The speed of light in the early universe, in today's terms, would have been slower due to the early high density. A photon born in the early universe and traveling since would speed up and appear to have a smaller frequency (since the units of time today are briefer, it would take more time for one cycle of the photon to pass one point in space). It would appear to have less energy. That all assumes nothing has happened to change the units of length, or that if the units of length have changed the photon's wavelength has changed proportionally. Is this what you are suggesting? There should be others on this forum with a background in this area of study, and they could assist with information from reputable studies.
You have nothing to apologize for; you are doing what we should all do more often - ask questions until we're satisfied with the answers.
Somebody sometime derived the "Base Planck units" of length, mass, time, charge, and temperature from the speed of light in free space, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and the permittivity of free space so that certain equations were made simpler. It's essentially a substitution of variables. So far, so good. I don't care for it but I can accept that others find it convenient.
Then somebody made a logical assumption that the Planck units might be the true base units of length, mass, time, charge, and temperature. If they are truly the base units, AND if everything they measure comes in integer (quantized) values of those units, then there must exist a minimum length, mass, time, charge, and temperature consisting of one Planck unit of each. This idea ties in beautifully with quantum physics, but I don't accept that everything is quantized. To me, this concept is purely mathematical and I don't know of any experimental evidence to support the concept of quantized Planck units. If I'm ignorant of supporting evidence, somebody will likely point it out.
My perspective is similar to Einstein's, who believed in continuous field theories. From his book "Relativity, The Special and the General Theory", at the end of a section on his generalized theory of gravity: "In conformity with the present form of the quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurement attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realised only by such a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."
That was in 1961. I am in the extreme minority still holding to field theory as fundamental. Quantum mechanics certainly simplifies some aspects of physics, but I believe it has been taken to extremes where it doesn't belong (string theories, QCD, quantum gravity, the structure of protons, ...). Certain properties are quantized in that they always appear in integer multiples of a base value, such as charge and spin. If we identify physical models using waves and fields that account for those quantized properties, then we demonstrate the link between quantum and field physics and the proper domain for each. That's the main goal behind my modeling of electrons, protons, and their antiparticles as presented in this thread.
QUOTE
...And compared to what i understand about quantum physics, most of the guy's on this forum are light year's past me .
. Be careful with what you accept here. Remain questioning. This is an open forum and lots of weird theories are presented by their believers as fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...And compared to what i understand about quantum physics, most of the guy's on this forum are light year's past me . |
Be careful with what you accept here. Remain questioning. This is an open forum and lots of weird theories are presented by their believers as fact.
...'does it really have to lose energy by aging?' I'm guessing that you are thinking of the laws of entropy as for why that would be an impossibility, no? still aging is in one way decay, but if one think of time, does that always count? It all depends on how you define time i think, and photons i find very strange. That is a very strange concept, i know, but time has always been a 'favorite' of mine, and i can't stop asking about it. And yes, this is pure speculation from my side.
Let me generalize a bit, it might help my thought process. The concept of time might come in handy that way. Let's assume photons 'age'. How do we know they age? Something has to be different between the presentation of an old photon and a newly generated one. Since photons are quite simple in structure (presumably), if they change, they change in velocity, wavelength, or frequency, with a corresponding shift in energy and momentum (leading to Hubble's redshift?). Or they split into multiple photons of less energy that sum to the original value (no evidence of that). Or space long ago or a long distance away does not have the same properties as space now here, and it isn't the photons that have changed but space itself. Or Planck's constant isn't constant but changes over time (no evidence of that). Or time isn't proceeding at the same rate as it did long ago or far away.
From your response, perhaps you think time isn't proceeding at the same rate now as long ago? Let's analyze that a bit. If the universe is expanding and was once very dense, relativity would imply that the clock rate in the early universe was slow compared to today's rate. The speed of light in the early universe, in today's terms, would have been slower due to the early high density. A photon born in the early universe and traveling since would speed up and appear to have a smaller frequency (since the units of time today are briefer, it would take more time for one cycle of the photon to pass one point in space). It would appear to have less energy. That all assumes nothing has happened to change the units of length, or that if the units of length have changed the photon's wavelength has changed proportionally. Is this what you are suggesting? There should be others on this forum with a background in this area of study, and they could assist with information from reputable studies.
What is meant in regards to the use of the term 'ageing' being applied to particles? - In what context is said word being used? 
I might be crazier than that Regallow :) My interest in time comes from me first trying to understand matter and gravity, well not really :) but close enough. I don't know why, but it seems to me that both matter and gravity are different descriptions of the same phenomena which, without me understanding why it should be so, makes me look at the phenomena of time. we define everything we do from time, time is a hidden aspect in all our doings with 'nature'. So Time Gravity Matter are all expressions of spacetime. With expressions i mean that they seem all to be on such a basic level that trying to break them out from each other is very very hard, at least when you look at them in their smallest constellations.
So i thought i could understand the timelessness from the photons view :) It seemed to make sense to me. but that is only one part of it, time in itself is not defined to me, and as long as i don't understand the concept of time, nothing will be clear. Depending on our definition of time i belive that all other ideas will change, is time discrete, is it a flow, it all seems to be together, maybe we can't 'split ' the 'forces' if we want to get the full picture, but we can get as much info on every 'expression' of our universe as possible.
Time, if we found a clear definition for it would give us an opportunity to see the other relationships, and also by clever manipulation :) with light and other radiations :) give us a chance to 'break open' those hidden parameters. So for me (for the moment at least) it seems of great importance to know as much as i can about photon's and time. At least it keeps me away from MC Donald :) And as you noticed i'm no expert on anything, so i'm probably going to 'pester' a lot of guys on this forum. Simply, time and photons is my main interest.
So i thought i could understand the timelessness from the photons view :) It seemed to make sense to me. but that is only one part of it, time in itself is not defined to me, and as long as i don't understand the concept of time, nothing will be clear. Depending on our definition of time i belive that all other ideas will change, is time discrete, is it a flow, it all seems to be together, maybe we can't 'split ' the 'forces' if we want to get the full picture, but we can get as much info on every 'expression' of our universe as possible.
Time, if we found a clear definition for it would give us an opportunity to see the other relationships, and also by clever manipulation :) with light and other radiations :) give us a chance to 'break open' those hidden parameters. So for me (for the moment at least) it seems of great importance to know as much as i can about photon's and time. At least it keeps me away from MC Donald :) And as you noticed i'm no expert on anything, so i'm probably going to 'pester' a lot of guys on this forum. Simply, time and photons is my main interest.
And yes, i fully agree with Einsteins view of that we need to push the theories to the fullest, on the other hand i feel that a dualistic approach of understanding time and photons might give a fuller and faster understanding than treating them on its own, so to speak. You when presenting your ideas build a base of knowledge here just as f ex GoodElf Zephir and a lot of other guys do. Only in time :) will we see where those ideas take us, and even if everyone here are wrong at the moment, who knows, a young Einstein might get his ideas from you. It's a Little like the approach of Linux, no one is excluded, it's true freedom of the mind. Bryn i'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean photon's as a particle, or are we talking 'matter?'
PS: I'm sounding pompous here. Sh**
Never Mind no matter :) Or should it be No Mind never matter?
PS: I'm sounding pompous here. Sh**
Never Mind no matter :) Or should it be No Mind never matter?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 10 2007, 12:58 AM)
Bryn i'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean photon's as a particle, or are we talking 'matter?'
I read in this thread, discussion of photons 'ageing'. I'm just seeking an explanation for the use of this word.
I read in this thread, discussion of photons 'ageing'. I'm just seeking an explanation for the use of this word.
Ok, To be honest i don't really know myself :) what i was thinking was that when a photon travels at 'C' and people talks about its 'agelessness' for me that was explainable if one looked at it from the photons view, as it was going at 'C' there should be no aging involved. It may be simplistic, but to me it implied that if you slowed it down you should introduce 'aging' into the 'process'. as for what this aging should show itself as, i hadn't thought about until Regallow pointed out that it then would be expected to lose energy as it 'decayed?'. As nobody seems to have reported any such phenomena i might be wrong in my thinking. Then on the other hand? could it lose that energy while 'breaking speed? Or, does it have to lose any energy at all? Or, could there be a process that allows the photon to exist even when slowed down to a standstill? I think the actual size and how that change with velocity/momentum are important (as like a clue) too for understanding it.
Also i believe that one have to ponder about time in all experiment's as it seem to me that nothing except (perhaps :) singularities are excused from our spacetime. So does the photon have any similarities to 'singularities'? Well it's massless, that seems to me a pointer, and it has as far as i understood it 'instant acceleration' which as far as i know don't follow any known laws? So how do time treat singularities? I'm not sure, so time is the unknown if the photon would be seen as this. Now i know that a lot of you will find this somewhat stupid. But, hey :) you asked. And maybe it can be described in 'normal' terms as you do Regalow and still contain properties that makes it unusual? I don't know, thats why I'm learning from you guy's. I love this site. As i said , I don't have any answers :) But i do have questions.
And one last crazy idea :) Would it be possible that time is the 'singularity' that creates the photon's strange properties. Well, i'm not having any discussion's with black holes yet, at least :) And also, it could be the 'masslessness' that allows the photon to keep its energy even while slowing down.
Also i believe that one have to ponder about time in all experiment's as it seem to me that nothing except (perhaps :) singularities are excused from our spacetime. So does the photon have any similarities to 'singularities'? Well it's massless, that seems to me a pointer, and it has as far as i understood it 'instant acceleration' which as far as i know don't follow any known laws? So how do time treat singularities? I'm not sure, so time is the unknown if the photon would be seen as this. Now i know that a lot of you will find this somewhat stupid. But, hey :) you asked. And maybe it can be described in 'normal' terms as you do Regalow and still contain properties that makes it unusual? I don't know, thats why I'm learning from you guy's. I love this site. As i said , I don't have any answers :) But i do have questions.
And one last crazy idea :) Would it be possible that time is the 'singularity' that creates the photon's strange properties. Well, i'm not having any discussion's with black holes yet, at least :) And also, it could be the 'masslessness' that allows the photon to keep its energy even while slowing down.
Extremly strange stuff Regallow. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/3
Thanks for the links.
" 'instant acceleration' which as far as i know don't follow any known laws? " is wrong, isn't it? There are an explanation to it?
Here is another strange thing about photons " One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. "
It has relativistic mass which here are described as a 'particle's resistance to being accelerated' all is well until one suddenly realise that the photon according to common view have 'instant accelaration' or if you like 'no acceleration in time'. Where is that reluctance of being accelerated as it forms? Or do i have to accept two views, one when 'created' and another after? you could state that its similar to maiden Marias 'virgin birth' but if so, then i can't help myself. Ahaa, a 'singularity' :)
Thanks for the links.
" 'instant acceleration' which as far as i know don't follow any known laws? " is wrong, isn't it? There are an explanation to it?
Here is another strange thing about photons " One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. "
It has relativistic mass which here are described as a 'particle's resistance to being accelerated' all is well until one suddenly realise that the photon according to common view have 'instant accelaration' or if you like 'no acceleration in time'. Where is that reluctance of being accelerated as it forms? Or do i have to accept two views, one when 'created' and another after? you could state that its similar to maiden Marias 'virgin birth' but if so, then i can't help myself. Ahaa, a 'singularity' :)
If this is true one could decide the size of a photon no?
" Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. " BS (my view)
" Howell has so far been able to delay light pulses 100 nanoseconds and compress them to 1 percent of their original length. He is now working toward delaying dozens of pulses for as long as several milliseconds, and as many as 10,000 pulses for up to a nanosecond. "
Now how many single photons per light pulse(s) do that make?
http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
But Life And Death Of A Photon 'Filmed' For The First Time is cool
http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html ...And
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=517
" Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. " BS (my view)
" Howell has so far been able to delay light pulses 100 nanoseconds and compress them to 1 percent of their original length. He is now working toward delaying dozens of pulses for as long as several milliseconds, and as many as 10,000 pulses for up to a nanosecond. "
Now how many single photons per light pulse(s) do that make?
http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
But Life And Death Of A Photon 'Filmed' For The First Time is cool
http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html ...And
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=517
Hi All,
A few caveats here... When referring to Quantum Mechanics no single event has any attributes in Quantum Mechanics (QM) as StevenA has stated statistics only apply to 'ensembles" of events. I am going to provide a completely "one eyed" view of this "edifice" of modern Physics. I make no apologies and I am totally aware that this is not the accepted way of explaining this phenomenon but it is "not wrong". A single event does have "measurables" even though Quantum Mechanics cannot predict swat with no input data. Of course you can guess... I will give an example (This is all fictitious data I have dreamed up for demonstration purposes so do not try and see if this data is right or wrong)... a measurable event happens on the road outside your house in your street... a car accident. What statistical information can be gleaned from it from the Bureau of Statistics? The number of occupants in the cars is probably 1.7 involving on average 2.2 occupants in each car and it has a probability of happening outside your house with a probability of 1 part in 100 million. There were 0.5% fatalities involved and the velocity and direction of either car was totally unknown but were related to a mutual orthogonal to inverse relationship where the vehicle velocities lie between -100 and +100 MPH with a 75% chance each will lie within that range. Hardly the sort of data you would choose to use in handing out traffic offense tickets (especially if you have not even determined if the occupants are minors/drivers, dead or alive). This is the sort of data single quantum events can generate and be attributed based solely on past information. What Quantum Mechanics never gives is...
1. Any quantity that can be measured on the spot. There is no scientific instrument such as a "Probability meter" that can measure probability at the scene of an event.
2. No methodology that can attribute any positional descriptors to the single event due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle this depends on the way the system is measured, this means we have no information where it has actually happened (and there are no ways in QM to predict this) because QM has no such ability... it has been sacrificed to gain statistical data.
3. Due to a particle interpretation of the phenomenon there is no 'connection" to global properties and the system must reside in a "local" framework. This has been shown to be 'wanting" in terms of its ability to work correctly .... The Universe has been proven to be "non-local" despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics is a local theory.
4. All "particles" have no "individual" history, measurement are simply "events". They are indistinguishable and anonymous. This is of utmost importance to the theory. They also have "no inbuilt locality" and this is shown by rigorous treatment to be a failure of Quantum Mechanics... nevertheless it "almost" works.
You can patch these things up and work around many of the issues but to do this there are ever more assumptions needed to ensure that the system does not get out of hand. What I can say is this theory provides, for large numbers of events, a very accurate statistical framework. It is brilliant theory that can work in every circumstance and provide almost unlimited accuracy and predicts the "sort of data" that a Bureau of Statistics can provide with such accuracy that truly "boggles the mind". What it cannot do (and I stress this ) is provide a physical basis for any event at all. Quantum Mechanics does not involve "Physics" or any "dynamics" of systems, the sort of thing that you have always thought was reasonable to determine when something happens that can be measured. This is because humans want to "predict" outcomes. The 'cost " of this requirement is a loss of any ability to predict. QM is simply not designed to provide any physical information unless you resort to calling in the continuum descriptions and applying the statistics to this information when and where it is applicable.
For me I want to know for an individual event such as the position and velocity vectors, the energy of the various components and their momentums, the timing and to be able to show the path of the individual components on a "graph" of space and time. You can actually do this and you will find that the measurables that I am using here work excellently and in every circumstance... The only problem is these events can only be 'plotted" after the event and with data that has some imprecision in it. This is jarring to the human mind that there are things we are unable to know before they happen. Yet this is actually the case for the most of what is understood about almost everything in our Universe. There is nothing we can do that makes "absolute" predictions that have no errors, or the outcome is entirely predictable. We record almost all our data and there is very little in our predictions that lead to highly accurate predictions.... Aside from Quantum Mechanics that is.
Take for instance weather data which is collected over the surface of the Earth. We measure such things as wind speed, temperature, atmospheric pressure, cloud cover and a number of other variables and we use these to predict the 'future" of our weather based on computer simulations. Amazingly these predictions regardless of the fact that they do not use Quantum Mechanics, give quite reasonable assessments of the future based on the measurements of the past but there is no guarantee that the models no matter how good they are will ultimately predict the weather down the track at all. They will have some errors that tend to be uncontrolled that cause the predictions to be "off" significantly from what really finally happens.
We can ask the question why? There are answers... For instance in a Weather Model there are assumptions such as random chance and equal interplay of variables at all times. If I get in a Cloud Seeding Plane and seed some clouds then the model will not have accounted for this variation in the data and the result may be perturbed significantly if you can pick critical points in the model that are particularly sensitive to perturbation. If you have intelligent control over that moment in space and time you control the future and the destiny of the model... In so much the model is able to predict the future this information may remain unknown to the model and the model makes incorrect predictions and if we make the model allow for influence at those critical points and we deliberately interfere with the system we can better predict the outcomes with almost "prescient" foreknowledge and our model will respond like a concert piano to the hands of a "Master" rather than the cacophony of a wind chime in the wind. I have deliberately removed some ofthe randomness from the system and suddenly you get "control" rather than being a tool of random chance. For instance ifyou are firing mortar shells on the enemy you do not want randon chance to decide if your shells hit them or even hit you instead... control has been taken of the situation to "condition" the destiny of individual events.
Having said that Quantum Mechanics has many such "omissions" in its methodology that mean that such influence cannot be known beforehand built in and non-local information has no input into the outcomes. Some theories have what has been termed "hidden variables". Such variables can be considered as additional dimensions or parameters which influence the outcome of the experiments. One particular experiment is the Young's Double Slit Experiment which is particularly sensitive to influence in a particular way. You can influence the outcome of this quantum experiment by influence but only in a non-local way. This is handled in QM with the skillful use of "postulates"... What is a postulate? It is an assumption that cannot be justified scientifically but provides benefit in solving problems. QM is littered with them and this strategy works, it does help it solve problems. Classical Dynamics has no postulates but the basic underlying practically experimentally verifiable 'dynamics". These theories miss the mark when calculating the outcome of Quantum Phenomenon. You can get the right answers if you allow "hidden parameters".... these must be placed into the equations after the event based on measurables such as parameters measured at the conclusion of an experiment. According to the ground rules of Quantum Mechanics which demand 'locality" this is breaking the rules and Quantum Mechanists cry foul. We know from experiment that the ground rules of locality for QM are wrong (not my statement) ... this is from experiment and yet this requirement added in by a very successful theory of Quantum Mechanics says this rule must be adhered to. The reason why is Quantum Mechanics still gives the best numerical results known.... Why because of locality it fits our three dimensional world very well. If you deliberately "break the rules" and allow additional dimensions instantly we have good news and bad news...
First the bad news about "Hidden Variables"...
1. You can make no individual predictions before the event only after the event.
2. The "Interpretation space" is "fuzzy' compared with Quantum Space. In "real space we can define x,y,z,t .... Interpretation space adds more dimensions x',y',z',t' which do not necessarily coincide with the space defined above that we all know and understand... a particle such as in the Double Slit Experiment can exist is space which may coincide with the inside of matter or other apparent absurdity... This come from the fact that in the DSE a photon can pass through both slits at once but Quantum Mechanics says a particle can be in only one place at a time. The "Universe" and experiment say a photon is indeed in more than one place at a time and is non-local violating event related Quantum Mechanics.... It does potentially find itself "inside brick walls" (quantum tunneling?) or passing between slits rather than passing through slits. I can state for single event photons Quantum Mechanics is violated. A wave on the other hand does pass through two slits at the same time... A pier at the beach does not force the wave to go one side of that pier of the other, it has some "interference" with the pier and passes "both ways" around. Ah!... you will say a single particle "must" go one way or the other... You are right except when I say it has a probability of passing on the left or the right with a 50-50% chance of either action. Then you say this is the correct answer. and it is except for "single particles". If you 'force" photons to pass one side or the other with say 100% foreknowledge such as blocking one slit, then you do not get interference. This is predicted by Quantum Theory by saying that since there is no individual path information the individual photon has a 50-50% chance of passing either path and a this applies through the "principle of superposition" to that photon simultaneously. So the photon without individual path information and no individual history "solves" this quandary by staying 'local".
All other theories give less accurate answers because we are not talking about "statistics" and lack of history and path. These hidden parameter theories treat each individual event as "unique" so they "individually" have a history and they have paths and we have things to actually measure. We can solve this problem retrospectively by saying a single quantum dot source of coherent radiation produced a single photon (... on demand with an error in time that is "small") that is detected at a x,y position on a screen placed at z at a time t with a momentum and possibly a phase of theta radians. Plugging all this data into the dynamics of this particle we end up with a path of least action (not necessarily a straight line but some kind of curve) ... a Lagrangian... that potentially starts from the quantum dot at a position x1,y1,z1,t1 passes "between" the slits and strikes the screen at x2,y2,z2,t2. This path is not truly definite and is localized around the "best estimate" with a fuzziness that is very "disconcerting" since we have already forfeited our ability to predict that path in QM and now we are ask to accept an error in the path according to the conjugate variables being measured (possibility position and time). The result may be similar to that given by Quantum Theory for large numbers but does have the ability to predict what may happen to the next photon.... this prediction is "the same" within statistical variation. Hidden variables can "do better" taking the best from both those worlds...
So what is the "good news" about Hidden Variables is that provided we retain an independence of space parameters for those "dimensions" you get these added benefits 'for free"...
1. Prediction of path
2. Prediction of a history for events
3. Non-local explanation of events that tally with experiments
4. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle no longer deals with "probability" of particles but mutual variation of measurables on each other. Conjugate Variables take on roles of dual representations of the conjugates and particles and waves represent different domains of various measurables.
5. Partial solutions for one off events and not just "ensembles" especially where events are under direct "influence" at a critical part of their "interaction".
The question is does 'Hidden Variable" Theory mean we are unable to utilize the benefits where they exist in Quantum Theory? Logically speaking of course not... "Epistemologically" speaking it may mean the "death of "Pure Quantum Theory" as a "one stop shop" for the answers to the Universe.
Getting back to the question of working with "Hidden Variable" Theories, some theory may provide better answers to the accepted theory if we can gain some control over systems at the quantum level. If interaction at critical points in our models at critical times can result in a major increase in our ability to predict outcomes, then it not only vindicates the methodology it also shows that the purely statistical approach has been flawed by being too constrictive for far too long. I propose there are many situations recently with various experimental results that show divergence from the local Quantum Mechanical Model of Particle Interactions... Not at high energy but only significantly at low energy... the de Broglie end of Special Relativity. Photons in particular show this divergence in electromagnetic theory.... there are poorly conditioned regions in electromagnetic theory "in free space"... without a significant medium... where there is the emergence of topological charge and ill defined or under defined boundary conditions where outcomes can be "fixed" to arrive at solutions to the EM Equations that are very "non-classical" but not a part of Quantum Mechanics.
Cheers
A few caveats here... When referring to Quantum Mechanics no single event has any attributes in Quantum Mechanics (QM) as StevenA has stated statistics only apply to 'ensembles" of events. I am going to provide a completely "one eyed" view of this "edifice" of modern Physics. I make no apologies and I am totally aware that this is not the accepted way of explaining this phenomenon but it is "not wrong". A single event does have "measurables" even though Quantum Mechanics cannot predict swat with no input data. Of course you can guess... I will give an example (This is all fictitious data I have dreamed up for demonstration purposes so do not try and see if this data is right or wrong)... a measurable event happens on the road outside your house in your street... a car accident. What statistical information can be gleaned from it from the Bureau of Statistics? The number of occupants in the cars is probably 1.7 involving on average 2.2 occupants in each car and it has a probability of happening outside your house with a probability of 1 part in 100 million. There were 0.5% fatalities involved and the velocity and direction of either car was totally unknown but were related to a mutual orthogonal to inverse relationship where the vehicle velocities lie between -100 and +100 MPH with a 75% chance each will lie within that range. Hardly the sort of data you would choose to use in handing out traffic offense tickets (especially if you have not even determined if the occupants are minors/drivers, dead or alive). This is the sort of data single quantum events can generate and be attributed based solely on past information. What Quantum Mechanics never gives is...
1. Any quantity that can be measured on the spot. There is no scientific instrument such as a "Probability meter" that can measure probability at the scene of an event.
2. No methodology that can attribute any positional descriptors to the single event due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle this depends on the way the system is measured, this means we have no information where it has actually happened (and there are no ways in QM to predict this) because QM has no such ability... it has been sacrificed to gain statistical data.
3. Due to a particle interpretation of the phenomenon there is no 'connection" to global properties and the system must reside in a "local" framework. This has been shown to be 'wanting" in terms of its ability to work correctly .... The Universe has been proven to be "non-local" despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics is a local theory.
4. All "particles" have no "individual" history, measurement are simply "events". They are indistinguishable and anonymous. This is of utmost importance to the theory. They also have "no inbuilt locality" and this is shown by rigorous treatment to be a failure of Quantum Mechanics... nevertheless it "almost" works.
You can patch these things up and work around many of the issues but to do this there are ever more assumptions needed to ensure that the system does not get out of hand. What I can say is this theory provides, for large numbers of events, a very accurate statistical framework. It is brilliant theory that can work in every circumstance and provide almost unlimited accuracy and predicts the "sort of data" that a Bureau of Statistics can provide with such accuracy that truly "boggles the mind". What it cannot do (and I stress this ) is provide a physical basis for any event at all. Quantum Mechanics does not involve "Physics" or any "dynamics" of systems, the sort of thing that you have always thought was reasonable to determine when something happens that can be measured. This is because humans want to "predict" outcomes. The 'cost " of this requirement is a loss of any ability to predict. QM is simply not designed to provide any physical information unless you resort to calling in the continuum descriptions and applying the statistics to this information when and where it is applicable.
For me I want to know for an individual event such as the position and velocity vectors, the energy of the various components and their momentums, the timing and to be able to show the path of the individual components on a "graph" of space and time. You can actually do this and you will find that the measurables that I am using here work excellently and in every circumstance... The only problem is these events can only be 'plotted" after the event and with data that has some imprecision in it. This is jarring to the human mind that there are things we are unable to know before they happen. Yet this is actually the case for the most of what is understood about almost everything in our Universe. There is nothing we can do that makes "absolute" predictions that have no errors, or the outcome is entirely predictable. We record almost all our data and there is very little in our predictions that lead to highly accurate predictions.... Aside from Quantum Mechanics that is.
Take for instance weather data which is collected over the surface of the Earth. We measure such things as wind speed, temperature, atmospheric pressure, cloud cover and a number of other variables and we use these to predict the 'future" of our weather based on computer simulations. Amazingly these predictions regardless of the fact that they do not use Quantum Mechanics, give quite reasonable assessments of the future based on the measurements of the past but there is no guarantee that the models no matter how good they are will ultimately predict the weather down the track at all. They will have some errors that tend to be uncontrolled that cause the predictions to be "off" significantly from what really finally happens.
We can ask the question why? There are answers... For instance in a Weather Model there are assumptions such as random chance and equal interplay of variables at all times. If I get in a Cloud Seeding Plane and seed some clouds then the model will not have accounted for this variation in the data and the result may be perturbed significantly if you can pick critical points in the model that are particularly sensitive to perturbation. If you have intelligent control over that moment in space and time you control the future and the destiny of the model... In so much the model is able to predict the future this information may remain unknown to the model and the model makes incorrect predictions and if we make the model allow for influence at those critical points and we deliberately interfere with the system we can better predict the outcomes with almost "prescient" foreknowledge and our model will respond like a concert piano to the hands of a "Master" rather than the cacophony of a wind chime in the wind. I have deliberately removed some ofthe randomness from the system and suddenly you get "control" rather than being a tool of random chance. For instance ifyou are firing mortar shells on the enemy you do not want randon chance to decide if your shells hit them or even hit you instead... control has been taken of the situation to "condition" the destiny of individual events.
Having said that Quantum Mechanics has many such "omissions" in its methodology that mean that such influence cannot be known beforehand built in and non-local information has no input into the outcomes. Some theories have what has been termed "hidden variables". Such variables can be considered as additional dimensions or parameters which influence the outcome of the experiments. One particular experiment is the Young's Double Slit Experiment which is particularly sensitive to influence in a particular way. You can influence the outcome of this quantum experiment by influence but only in a non-local way. This is handled in QM with the skillful use of "postulates"... What is a postulate? It is an assumption that cannot be justified scientifically but provides benefit in solving problems. QM is littered with them and this strategy works, it does help it solve problems. Classical Dynamics has no postulates but the basic underlying practically experimentally verifiable 'dynamics". These theories miss the mark when calculating the outcome of Quantum Phenomenon. You can get the right answers if you allow "hidden parameters".... these must be placed into the equations after the event based on measurables such as parameters measured at the conclusion of an experiment. According to the ground rules of Quantum Mechanics which demand 'locality" this is breaking the rules and Quantum Mechanists cry foul. We know from experiment that the ground rules of locality for QM are wrong (not my statement) ... this is from experiment and yet this requirement added in by a very successful theory of Quantum Mechanics says this rule must be adhered to. The reason why is Quantum Mechanics still gives the best numerical results known.... Why because of locality it fits our three dimensional world very well. If you deliberately "break the rules" and allow additional dimensions instantly we have good news and bad news...
First the bad news about "Hidden Variables"...
1. You can make no individual predictions before the event only after the event.
2. The "Interpretation space" is "fuzzy' compared with Quantum Space. In "real space we can define x,y,z,t .... Interpretation space adds more dimensions x',y',z',t' which do not necessarily coincide with the space defined above that we all know and understand... a particle such as in the Double Slit Experiment can exist is space which may coincide with the inside of matter or other apparent absurdity... This come from the fact that in the DSE a photon can pass through both slits at once but Quantum Mechanics says a particle can be in only one place at a time. The "Universe" and experiment say a photon is indeed in more than one place at a time and is non-local violating event related Quantum Mechanics.... It does potentially find itself "inside brick walls" (quantum tunneling?) or passing between slits rather than passing through slits. I can state for single event photons Quantum Mechanics is violated. A wave on the other hand does pass through two slits at the same time... A pier at the beach does not force the wave to go one side of that pier of the other, it has some "interference" with the pier and passes "both ways" around. Ah!... you will say a single particle "must" go one way or the other... You are right except when I say it has a probability of passing on the left or the right with a 50-50% chance of either action. Then you say this is the correct answer. and it is except for "single particles". If you 'force" photons to pass one side or the other with say 100% foreknowledge such as blocking one slit, then you do not get interference. This is predicted by Quantum Theory by saying that since there is no individual path information the individual photon has a 50-50% chance of passing either path and a this applies through the "principle of superposition" to that photon simultaneously. So the photon without individual path information and no individual history "solves" this quandary by staying 'local".
All other theories give less accurate answers because we are not talking about "statistics" and lack of history and path. These hidden parameter theories treat each individual event as "unique" so they "individually" have a history and they have paths and we have things to actually measure. We can solve this problem retrospectively by saying a single quantum dot source of coherent radiation produced a single photon (... on demand with an error in time that is "small") that is detected at a x,y position on a screen placed at z at a time t with a momentum and possibly a phase of theta radians. Plugging all this data into the dynamics of this particle we end up with a path of least action (not necessarily a straight line but some kind of curve) ... a Lagrangian... that potentially starts from the quantum dot at a position x1,y1,z1,t1 passes "between" the slits and strikes the screen at x2,y2,z2,t2. This path is not truly definite and is localized around the "best estimate" with a fuzziness that is very "disconcerting" since we have already forfeited our ability to predict that path in QM and now we are ask to accept an error in the path according to the conjugate variables being measured (possibility position and time). The result may be similar to that given by Quantum Theory for large numbers but does have the ability to predict what may happen to the next photon.... this prediction is "the same" within statistical variation. Hidden variables can "do better" taking the best from both those worlds...
So what is the "good news" about Hidden Variables is that provided we retain an independence of space parameters for those "dimensions" you get these added benefits 'for free"...
1. Prediction of path
2. Prediction of a history for events
3. Non-local explanation of events that tally with experiments
4. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle no longer deals with "probability" of particles but mutual variation of measurables on each other. Conjugate Variables take on roles of dual representations of the conjugates and particles and waves represent different domains of various measurables.
5. Partial solutions for one off events and not just "ensembles" especially where events are under direct "influence" at a critical part of their "interaction".
The question is does 'Hidden Variable" Theory mean we are unable to utilize the benefits where they exist in Quantum Theory? Logically speaking of course not... "Epistemologically" speaking it may mean the "death of "Pure Quantum Theory" as a "one stop shop" for the answers to the Universe.
QUOTE
Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm
Note the problem with the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do "intrinsically" with statistics but is to do with conjugate variables in different domains being measured simultaneously... it leads to interdependence. As you already know I think that the de Broglie Relationship is the "low velocity end" of Special Relativity... as V -> 0 ...In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm
Getting back to the question of working with "Hidden Variable" Theories, some theory may provide better answers to the accepted theory if we can gain some control over systems at the quantum level. If interaction at critical points in our models at critical times can result in a major increase in our ability to predict outcomes, then it not only vindicates the methodology it also shows that the purely statistical approach has been flawed by being too constrictive for far too long. I propose there are many situations recently with various experimental results that show divergence from the local Quantum Mechanical Model of Particle Interactions... Not at high energy but only significantly at low energy... the de Broglie end of Special Relativity. Photons in particular show this divergence in electromagnetic theory.... there are poorly conditioned regions in electromagnetic theory "in free space"... without a significant medium... where there is the emergence of topological charge and ill defined or under defined boundary conditions where outcomes can be "fixed" to arrive at solutions to the EM Equations that are very "non-classical" but not a part of Quantum Mechanics.
Cheers
As always, you impresses the living daylight out of me GoodElf. The only problem being, the time :) it takes me to assimilate you're views :::))) it's half math, half (logic) philosophy, i just love it.
So what are you saying, that QM is at most a statistical reference with very good 'outfall', That its predictions are very accurate? (apropos Weather, i find chaos Math extremely cool, and the way Richard Feynman found his 'nature constant? 'fascinating)
" Due to a particle interpretation of the phenomenon there is no 'connection" to global properties and the system must reside in a "local" framework. This has been shown to be 'wanting" in terms of its ability to work correctly .... The Universe has been proven to be "non-local" despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics is a local theory. "
So when one are using QM one has to treat it as an isolated 'sandbox' and not extrapolate the results to a macroscopic level? Are you saying that i will have to accept instant acceleration on faith/circumstantial evidence?
" First the bad news about "Hidden Variables"...
1. You can make no individual predictions before the event only after the event. "
To me that makes extreme sense in view of how i feel time at the moment, or maybe i'm reading in something here you don't mean?
"2. The "Interpretation space" is "fuzzy' compared with Quantum Space. In "real space we can define x,y,z,t .... Interpretation space adds more dimensions x',y',z',t' which do not necessarily coincide with the space defined above that we all know and understand... a particle such as in the Double Slit Experiment can exist is space which may coincide with the inside of matter or other apparent absurdity... This come from the fact that in the DSE a photon can pass through both slits at once but Quantum Mechanics says a particle can be in only one place at a time."
Ah well, somebody said 'life's a bitc* and then you die ' :) One should never let the improbable stop one from trying :) So i scrream 'time' (in small letters, but still :)
I will as always when you guys write have to reread it several times to see if i really understand anything... BTW: i found this paper on photons on the net, it's interesting in the way he doubts. http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/photon_c...cteristics.html
So what are you saying, that QM is at most a statistical reference with very good 'outfall', That its predictions are very accurate? (apropos Weather, i find chaos Math extremely cool, and the way Richard Feynman found his 'nature constant? 'fascinating)
" Due to a particle interpretation of the phenomenon there is no 'connection" to global properties and the system must reside in a "local" framework. This has been shown to be 'wanting" in terms of its ability to work correctly .... The Universe has been proven to be "non-local" despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics is a local theory. "
So when one are using QM one has to treat it as an isolated 'sandbox' and not extrapolate the results to a macroscopic level? Are you saying that i will have to accept instant acceleration on faith/circumstantial evidence?
" First the bad news about "Hidden Variables"...
1. You can make no individual predictions before the event only after the event. "
To me that makes extreme sense in view of how i feel time at the moment, or maybe i'm reading in something here you don't mean?
"2. The "Interpretation space" is "fuzzy' compared with Quantum Space. In "real space we can define x,y,z,t .... Interpretation space adds more dimensions x',y',z',t' which do not necessarily coincide with the space defined above that we all know and understand... a particle such as in the Double Slit Experiment can exist is space which may coincide with the inside of matter or other apparent absurdity... This come from the fact that in the DSE a photon can pass through both slits at once but Quantum Mechanics says a particle can be in only one place at a time."
Ah well, somebody said 'life's a bitc* and then you die ' :) One should never let the improbable stop one from trying :) So i scrream 'time' (in small letters, but still :)
I will as always when you guys write have to reread it several times to see if i really understand anything... BTW: i found this paper on photons on the net, it's interesting in the way he doubts. http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/photon_c...cteristics.html
The foundations of physics (that I can practically guarantee will gain greater recognition over time) is in information theory. The universe is no different physically than a giant computer (ignoring consciousness which is a different animal entirely).
If you have two detectors which each have an even chance of detecting a photon, then we theoretically can extract one binary value of information for each photon detected (assuming no other predictable correlations are already known and that no external additional references for time are used etc. ... just a bare recording of the sequence of detections for two uncorrelated photon detectors with identical rates).
So if we detect 2 photons, we could record this as two (binary) bits of information. We can do an exhaustive calculation of the raw information content by listing all possible combinations and then summing the probability of each possibility along with the information content each provides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
We'll do a quick calculation for 2 bits being detected by 2 detectors, A and B:
AA (prob=1/4)
AB (prob=1/4)
BA (prob=1/4)
BB (prob=1/4)
The average information provided by these 2 detections is the sum of:
-log2(prob)*prob (for every combination)
-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/4)*1/4=2*1/4*4=2 bits of information, as expected
Now if we instead take a "macroscopic" view and just sum the number of events detected at either A or B, we get 3 possible results:
A=0 B=2 (prob=1/4)
A=1 B=1 (prob=1/4+1/4=1/2)
A=2 B=0 (prob=1/4)
Now we calculate how much information we can extract out of this form of measurement and get:
-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/2)*1/2-log2(1/4)*1/4=2*1/4+1*1/2+2*1/4=1 1/2 bits of information
Hmmm... we lost half a bit of information, on average, by grouping two detections together. Where did it go?
Well half the time we find that both the A and B detectors saw a photon and when this occurs and we remove the ordering of the events (which is a single bit of information in order to detect whether A came first or B came first), we find we have a 50% chance of losing a single bit of information.
Now when we move on to extremely large scales, this loss of information becomes much greater. For 1000 photons, we should theoretically have a raw information content between these two detectors of 1000 binary values, but instead we end up with a gaussian window of probabilities centered around 500 photons for each detector. I'll just make a rough estimate and say the variation for every 1000 photons is around 500^.5=+/-22 photons in each detector. This would roughly equate to log2(44)~= 5 1/2 bits of information.
So we theoretically begain with around 1000 bits and ended up "seeing" only a little over 5 bits of information. The rest was "wasted" creating a pseudo wave function of probabilities that would mask whatever fundamental processes might exist on that scale (not that we'd have an easy way of extracting them, but using the wave function is unnecessarily restrictive). Now I recognize this doesn't directly correlate to the wave function of a photon, but it's similar.
Now what did we gain by using this block-of-1000 photons interpretation? Well we can now measure up to 1001 different variations of intensities between the two detectors (with a peak statistical deviation of ~22 counts in the center). We've added the equivalent of a memory by counting photons (memory creates space) and we can imagine something close to a smooth continuum of intensities existing between the two extremes (if you take this to an extreme you can imagine space to be perfectly smooth featureless and infinitely indivisible - a common fallacy in physics).
But in order to gain this, we've lost around 2^1000 potential relationships (in decimal that's around a 300 digit value) that could exist on a finer scale in the data. Analyzing this in detail for fine scale features or novel forces that could exist would very likely be beyond most anything the best supercomputers could currently handle, but we wouldn't necessarily need to analyze every bit if larger scale features were more obvious.
The above doesn't directly relate to the wave function of photons, but consider that if we already interprete mass as having a wave function, then photons don't necessarily need to also possess a wave function as we can't see photons without their observations being effectively "filtered" by mass anyway, so it's redundant to assign those features to both mass and photons (and again, a single photon measurement doesn't possess a wave anyway).
Now, as a more direct comment on Good Elf's post, if we go back to a raw information content in photon detections and look at how these can be interpreted as macroscopic measurements, we find that we have to ascribe meanings to the measurements (we don't have innate human senses for individual quantum events and so no innate understanding of where and when they occur).
Let's say that we again have two detectors and we're trying to measure what we assume is a trajectory for a beam of light/photons through space. If we see more photons being detected by one detector, we'll assume the beam is more closely with that detector than the other.
So we begin to take measurements for 1000 photons and find that 997 photons hit detector A and only 3 hit B. Now we know that this beam is aligned strongly with detector A and not B ... but here's the question ... where is detector A? We can just look at it with human eyes and say it's "there", but that tells us little about how human senses determine where an object is and the experiment wouldn't be very repeatable ("there" doesn't provide a high information content).
So we need physically reproducible ways of determining where the locations of the emitter and detectors etc. are and if we're using physics, then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays. This requires a clock ... but how accurate is a clock? If we're going to measure things using wavelengths of some specific frequency of light, then how can we count wavelengths without a very abundant source of photons to assure we've completely over sampled the wave function? (In other words, if we only had 3 photon detections to work with, we'd be woefully inadequate in information to determine whether or not we're at precisely 1000 wavelengths of that specific frequency of light or not ... 3 photon detections isn't even enough to determine reliably whether or not we've even moved a single wavelength or not). Clock delays are also statistical - you can't determine precisely how long a delay is when you can't precisely determine when you emitted a photon.
If you're going to try to use the photon detections themselves to simultaneously localize the detectors and the beam alignment then you have the equivalent of the Uncertainty Principle in whatever aprior assumptions you make as to how significant these measurements are in determining each of these positions (in other words, if you decide half the information is going to determine the location of the detectors, then you're "losing" half the information regarding the beam alignment .... fundamentally you've just extracted correlation values and you trade off in many ways how significant the correlation is considered to be for measuring each of these positions)
Basically we can go down the list and find that basically every single attachment between an intuitive "human scale" view of the universe and the quantum scale is created via. large scale statistical measurements (that are inherently noisy anyway ... people have claimed to measure the speed of light to X billion parts accuracy yet even the velocity of a single photon of light remains an unknown ... in other words, they've just measured a large enough statistical sample to find that they can get a reproducible delay if someone else wanted to reconstruct the experiment ... ok, yes, I'm being overly critical but it's amazing the amount of ignorance present in many people who've been overly indoctrinated in current dogma and how little is truly understood is very often overlooked)
Now here are some of my more personal views of how these two realms are merged:
How does the wavefunction arise in matter? If we take a purely statistical measurement of the mean and standard deviation for a collection of sample in an area that are entirely chaotically localized, we should measure a pure gaussian of the form e^(-ad^2). But we can also generate this from sinusoidal processess of the form e^i(-ad^2), so a superposition of both complex sinusoidal oscillations as well as purely gaussian characteristics can exist in space. The chaotic gaussian spread is responsible for the gravitational force and the complex sinusoidal is responsible for EMF. The chaotic gaussian field of measurements responsible for detection of mass diffuses over time and expands, this gives rise to the Big Bang (gravity is an expansive force, not an invisible attractive one), the fast inflationary period (every location in space is effectively experiencing an expansion at the rate of the initial conditions of the Big Bang), time dilation (objects moving primarily in one direction have little ability to diffuse or "age" laterally), red shifting (the size of masses doesn't remain constant), Hawking radiation (gravity doesn't "suck" anything in to it - a black hole would be expanding chaotically at light speed outward and you wouldn't fall in to one, it would come out and hit you instead), gravity (objects diffuse and merge over time), "warped" space, and a statistically constant light speed motion through "spacetime" (gravity can be better understood as a diffusion to space that spreads outward - the Earth is pushing you upward against space diffusing downward and though this background pressure is much larger than gravity alone, just like we're surrounded by ~15 PSI atmospheric pressure at sea level, we're not crushed by it because it's rather evenly diffused.)
Part of the problem with assuming a constant light speed velocity in a vacuum is that this isn't directly verifiable except "locally" (though the concept is still a valuable tool in constructing metrics for spacial distances and hence relative positions) which, for mass, means that information needs to be integrated and correlated at less than light speed at some point in space and whatever fundamental light speed "fabric" of space that should exist for light to travel through is only indirectly measureable (for example, it's theoretically not impossible that an observer could be entirely stationary and simply interpreting motion indirectly via. photons ... that isn't specific to a light speed space but having light speed always faster than a mass can travel makes this problem become more obvious)
Yes, I've rambled a lot but I hope this gives a better picture of the link between quantum/discrete and the more intuitive macroscale/Euclidean/continuum view of space. There's more to this as, for example, atomic properties arise from quantum mechanics and aren't purely derived from macroscale statistical measurements. I can give some ideas of how inertia and kinetic energy arise but still don't it down to the point where it's naturally derived from chaos and information theory. The big question to me is over how conscious memories are formed and how relationships between information are physically/consciously correlated - basically I see the relationship as memory constructs space and memory, in order to extract useful predictive relationships must determine patterns that can be seen to repeat (knowledge is gained of the past and useful in predicting the future). You should be able to break down all possible predictable relationships as cycles of various lengths and in a constant light speed space, this ends up creating the equivalent of geometrical relationships. Whether or not two such relationships appear to have correlations depends upon whether or not they have relatively prime features between them or not. Ideally a relationship should be extractable from data alone that automatically implies the functions or computations that should be performed on it (in software terms you shouldn't need an explicit delineation between code and data - it's all just a program and the "instruction set" should be naturally derivable with little of any aprior assumptions made). So my general view is to take raw symbolic information, without any explicit meaning, extract a natural form of association that acts like a network of relationships between these - this gives the equivalent of a memory that constructs space and the specific relationships between these objects constructed should end up being extractable via. the relative lengths of their pathways and this forms a system of mathematical and logical relationships that give rise to physics, of which the larger scale characteristics are only statistically measured as gravity and time dilation etc. and the smaller integer relationships are seen as quantum properties with discrete, non-continuous properties.
Ok, I've been entirely too abstract, verbose and haven't given enough mathematics behind this but that's primarily because 1) when I do give mathematical examples, either people lose interest 2) they get confused in the details and/or 3) I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle mathematically fit together ... yet at least (the biggest ones are over where in the chain atomic properties arise and another is how inertial information is retained ... these both appear related to the wave features of space and I'm working on trying to find a way to have effectively an infinite number of dimensions, each associated with an integer that represents a wavelength, giving the equivalent of resonant filters that determine where an object is located in space ... inertia would be the detection of phase shifts between two dimensions in this case and atomic and quantum properties should be associated with dimensions with small numeric values - every object in the universe should be possible to be described by a single number under this view, that could be factored into its prime component, though that composite number would be huge for most anything larger than simple chemical compounds but whether or not two objects can interact should be determinable by whether or not they share any prime factors that allow them to interact coherently in the same space)
If you have two detectors which each have an even chance of detecting a photon, then we theoretically can extract one binary value of information for each photon detected (assuming no other predictable correlations are already known and that no external additional references for time are used etc. ... just a bare recording of the sequence of detections for two uncorrelated photon detectors with identical rates).
So if we detect 2 photons, we could record this as two (binary) bits of information. We can do an exhaustive calculation of the raw information content by listing all possible combinations and then summing the probability of each possibility along with the information content each provides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
We'll do a quick calculation for 2 bits being detected by 2 detectors, A and B:
AA (prob=1/4)
AB (prob=1/4)
BA (prob=1/4)
BB (prob=1/4)
The average information provided by these 2 detections is the sum of:
-log2(prob)*prob (for every combination)
-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/4)*1/4=2*1/4*4=2 bits of information, as expected
Now if we instead take a "macroscopic" view and just sum the number of events detected at either A or B, we get 3 possible results:
A=0 B=2 (prob=1/4)
A=1 B=1 (prob=1/4+1/4=1/2)
A=2 B=0 (prob=1/4)
Now we calculate how much information we can extract out of this form of measurement and get:
-log2(1/4)*1/4-log2(1/2)*1/2-log2(1/4)*1/4=2*1/4+1*1/2+2*1/4=1 1/2 bits of information
Hmmm... we lost half a bit of information, on average, by grouping two detections together. Where did it go?
Well half the time we find that both the A and B detectors saw a photon and when this occurs and we remove the ordering of the events (which is a single bit of information in order to detect whether A came first or B came first), we find we have a 50% chance of losing a single bit of information.
Now when we move on to extremely large scales, this loss of information becomes much greater. For 1000 photons, we should theoretically have a raw information content between these two detectors of 1000 binary values, but instead we end up with a gaussian window of probabilities centered around 500 photons for each detector. I'll just make a rough estimate and say the variation for every 1000 photons is around 500^.5=+/-22 photons in each detector. This would roughly equate to log2(44)~= 5 1/2 bits of information.
So we theoretically begain with around 1000 bits and ended up "seeing" only a little over 5 bits of information. The rest was "wasted" creating a pseudo wave function of probabilities that would mask whatever fundamental processes might exist on that scale (not that we'd have an easy way of extracting them, but using the wave function is unnecessarily restrictive). Now I recognize this doesn't directly correlate to the wave function of a photon, but it's similar.
Now what did we gain by using this block-of-1000 photons interpretation? Well we can now measure up to 1001 different variations of intensities between the two detectors (with a peak statistical deviation of ~22 counts in the center). We've added the equivalent of a memory by counting photons (memory creates space) and we can imagine something close to a smooth continuum of intensities existing between the two extremes (if you take this to an extreme you can imagine space to be perfectly smooth featureless and infinitely indivisible - a common fallacy in physics).
But in order to gain this, we've lost around 2^1000 potential relationships (in decimal that's around a 300 digit value) that could exist on a finer scale in the data. Analyzing this in detail for fine scale features or novel forces that could exist would very likely be beyond most anything the best supercomputers could currently handle, but we wouldn't necessarily need to analyze every bit if larger scale features were more obvious.
The above doesn't directly relate to the wave function of photons, but consider that if we already interprete mass as having a wave function, then photons don't necessarily need to also possess a wave function as we can't see photons without their observations being effectively "filtered" by mass anyway, so it's redundant to assign those features to both mass and photons (and again, a single photon measurement doesn't possess a wave anyway).
Now, as a more direct comment on Good Elf's post, if we go back to a raw information content in photon detections and look at how these can be interpreted as macroscopic measurements, we find that we have to ascribe meanings to the measurements (we don't have innate human senses for individual quantum events and so no innate understanding of where and when they occur).
Let's say that we again have two detectors and we're trying to measure what we assume is a trajectory for a beam of light/photons through space. If we see more photons being detected by one detector, we'll assume the beam is more closely with that detector than the other.
So we begin to take measurements for 1000 photons and find that 997 photons hit detector A and only 3 hit B. Now we know that this beam is aligned strongly with detector A and not B ... but here's the question ... where is detector A? We can just look at it with human eyes and say it's "there", but that tells us little about how human senses determine where an object is and the experiment wouldn't be very repeatable ("there" doesn't provide a high information content
).So we need physically reproducible ways of determining where the locations of the emitter and detectors etc. are and if we're using physics, then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays. This requires a clock ... but how accurate is a clock? If we're going to measure things using wavelengths of some specific frequency of light, then how can we count wavelengths without a very abundant source of photons to assure we've completely over sampled the wave function? (In other words, if we only had 3 photon detections to work with, we'd be woefully inadequate in information to determine whether or not we're at precisely 1000 wavelengths of that specific frequency of light or not ... 3 photon detections isn't even enough to determine reliably whether or not we've even moved a single wavelength or not). Clock delays are also statistical - you can't determine precisely how long a delay is when you can't precisely determine when you emitted a photon.
If you're going to try to use the photon detections themselves to simultaneously localize the detectors and the beam alignment then you have the equivalent of the Uncertainty Principle in whatever aprior assumptions you make as to how significant these measurements are in determining each of these positions (in other words, if you decide half the information is going to determine the location of the detectors, then you're "losing" half the information regarding the beam alignment .... fundamentally you've just extracted correlation values and you trade off in many ways how significant the correlation is considered to be for measuring each of these positions)
Basically we can go down the list and find that basically every single attachment between an intuitive "human scale" view of the universe and the quantum scale is created via. large scale statistical measurements (that are inherently noisy anyway ... people have claimed to measure the speed of light to X billion parts accuracy yet even the velocity of a single photon of light remains an unknown ... in other words, they've just measured a large enough statistical sample to find that they can get a reproducible delay if someone else wanted to reconstruct the experiment ... ok, yes, I'm being overly critical but it's amazing the amount of ignorance present in many people who've been overly indoctrinated in current dogma and how little is truly understood is very often overlooked)
Now here are some of my more personal views of how these two realms are merged:
How does the wavefunction arise in matter? If we take a purely statistical measurement of the mean and standard deviation for a collection of sample in an area that are entirely chaotically localized, we should measure a pure gaussian of the form e^(-ad^2). But we can also generate this from sinusoidal processess of the form e^i(-ad^2), so a superposition of both complex sinusoidal oscillations as well as purely gaussian characteristics can exist in space. The chaotic gaussian spread is responsible for the gravitational force and the complex sinusoidal is responsible for EMF. The chaotic gaussian field of measurements responsible for detection of mass diffuses over time and expands, this gives rise to the Big Bang (gravity is an expansive force, not an invisible attractive one), the fast inflationary period (every location in space is effectively experiencing an expansion at the rate of the initial conditions of the Big Bang), time dilation (objects moving primarily in one direction have little ability to diffuse or "age" laterally), red shifting (the size of masses doesn't remain constant), Hawking radiation (gravity doesn't "suck" anything in to it - a black hole would be expanding chaotically at light speed outward and you wouldn't fall in to one, it would come out and hit you instead), gravity (objects diffuse and merge over time), "warped" space, and a statistically constant light speed motion through "spacetime" (gravity can be better understood as a diffusion to space that spreads outward - the Earth is pushing you upward against space diffusing downward and though this background pressure is much larger than gravity alone, just like we're surrounded by ~15 PSI atmospheric pressure at sea level, we're not crushed by it because it's rather evenly diffused.)
Part of the problem with assuming a constant light speed velocity in a vacuum is that this isn't directly verifiable except "locally" (though the concept is still a valuable tool in constructing metrics for spacial distances and hence relative positions) which, for mass, means that information needs to be integrated and correlated at less than light speed at some point in space and whatever fundamental light speed "fabric" of space that should exist for light to travel through is only indirectly measureable (for example, it's theoretically not impossible that an observer could be entirely stationary and simply interpreting motion indirectly via. photons ... that isn't specific to a light speed space but having light speed always faster than a mass can travel makes this problem become more obvious)
Yes, I've rambled a lot but I hope this gives a better picture of the link between quantum/discrete and the more intuitive macroscale/Euclidean/continuum view of space. There's more to this as, for example, atomic properties arise from quantum mechanics and aren't purely derived from macroscale statistical measurements. I can give some ideas of how inertia and kinetic energy arise but still don't it down to the point where it's naturally derived from chaos and information theory. The big question to me is over how conscious memories are formed and how relationships between information are physically/consciously correlated - basically I see the relationship as memory constructs space and memory, in order to extract useful predictive relationships must determine patterns that can be seen to repeat (knowledge is gained of the past and useful in predicting the future). You should be able to break down all possible predictable relationships as cycles of various lengths and in a constant light speed space, this ends up creating the equivalent of geometrical relationships. Whether or not two such relationships appear to have correlations depends upon whether or not they have relatively prime features between them or not. Ideally a relationship should be extractable from data alone that automatically implies the functions or computations that should be performed on it (in software terms you shouldn't need an explicit delineation between code and data - it's all just a program and the "instruction set" should be naturally derivable with little of any aprior assumptions made). So my general view is to take raw symbolic information, without any explicit meaning, extract a natural form of association that acts like a network of relationships between these - this gives the equivalent of a memory that constructs space and the specific relationships between these objects constructed should end up being extractable via. the relative lengths of their pathways and this forms a system of mathematical and logical relationships that give rise to physics, of which the larger scale characteristics are only statistically measured as gravity and time dilation etc. and the smaller integer relationships are seen as quantum properties with discrete, non-continuous properties.
Ok, I've been entirely too abstract, verbose and haven't given enough mathematics behind this but that's primarily because 1) when I do give mathematical examples, either people lose interest 2) they get confused in the details and/or 3) I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle mathematically fit together ... yet at least (the biggest ones are over where in the chain atomic properties arise and another is how inertial information is retained ... these both appear related to the wave features of space and I'm working on trying to find a way to have effectively an infinite number of dimensions, each associated with an integer that represents a wavelength, giving the equivalent of resonant filters that determine where an object is located in space ... inertia would be the detection of phase shifts between two dimensions in this case and atomic and quantum properties should be associated with dimensions with small numeric values - every object in the universe should be possible to be described by a single number under this view, that could be factored into its prime component, though that composite number would be huge for most anything larger than simple chemical compounds but whether or not two objects can interact should be determinable by whether or not they share any prime factors that allow them to interact coherently in the same space)
First of all, Heeelllp :) What are you talking about :) I'm Joking (i hope).
I should warn you that my math is. Well one and one makes uh, two?
When you talk about this 'guaranteed' information you mean that under no circumstance will it be less than this amount, right? This is a statistical analysis of stochastic patterns no?
Ok in the first experiment i see how you come to 1/4 and it makes sense.
the second example makes sense too (i'm checking myself here :)
" Hmmm... we lost half a bit of information, on average, by grouping two detections together. Where did it go?
Well half the time we find that both the A and B detectors saw a photon and when this occurs and we remove the ordering of the events (which is a single bit of information in order to detect whether A came first or B came first), we find we have a 50% chance of losing a single bit of information. "
Here i'm starting to feel hmm, depending on my kindness to myself (i'm a naturally kind person :) let's just call it 'lost'. How the (sorry..) heck can one lose the information?
Either it went trough or it didn't? I know i'm missing something important here. What do you mean by ' both the A and B detectors saw a photon 'are we talking waves :) Or are that due to Schrodinger's cat there this one photon became superimposed, even though treated as an particle? Or do you mean that both came to close in time? Please explain how i should look at this first and then i will be able (again hopefully :) to follow the rest?
---------------------------
Don't give up on me now man, if you do i will probably have nightmares about it :)
" Now what did we gain by using this block-of-1000 photons interpretation? Well we can now measure up to 1001 different variations of intensities between the two detectors (with a peak statistical deviation of ~22 counts in the center). " If you only get 5 1/2 bits of information, how can you measure 1001 possible variations? You will have to explain it or point me to some place where it is explained. Are you counting in the 'noise'?
" We've added the equivalent of a memory by counting photons (memory creates space) and we can imagine something close to a smooth continuum of intensities existing between the two extremes (if you take this to an extreme you can imagine space to be perfectly smooth featureless and infinitely indivisible - a common fallacy in physics). " This one is rather deep too, (memory creates space) i like the sound of it but you are lightyears before me here. I can see what you mean by the 'smooth continuum of intensities' though.
" but consider that if we already interpret mass as having a wave function, then photons don't necessarily need to also possess a wave function as we can't see photons without their observations being effectively "filtered" by mass anyway, so it's redundant to assign those features to both mass and photons (and again, a single photon measurement doesn't possess a wave anyway). " That one is rather nice.
"then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays" So if you have two detectors A and B and one emitter then you will use the emitter to decide where the detectors are? If you mean using the emitters photons as a clock for getting a exact time i think i can understand, but how do you use it for getting the exact locations of A and B?
" f we only had 3 photon detections to work with, we'd be woefully inadequate in information to determine whether or not we're at precisely 1000 wavelengths of that specific frequency of light or no " Yep i agree, (i think:) I don't find you rambling at all, it's just that first part above that don't make sense to me. GoodElf probably follows it easy as a cake, it's me missing points here :)
It's very interesting, but as i don't have enough understanding of the math behind it this one will take time to melt.
I should warn you that my math is. Well one and one makes uh, two?
When you talk about this 'guaranteed' information you mean that under no circumstance will it be less than this amount, right? This is a statistical analysis of stochastic patterns no?
Ok in the first experiment i see how you come to 1/4 and it makes sense.
the second example makes sense too (i'm checking myself here :)
" Hmmm... we lost half a bit of information, on average, by grouping two detections together. Where did it go?
Well half the time we find that both the A and B detectors saw a photon and when this occurs and we remove the ordering of the events (which is a single bit of information in order to detect whether A came first or B came first), we find we have a 50% chance of losing a single bit of information. "
Here i'm starting to feel hmm, depending on my kindness to myself (i'm a naturally kind person :) let's just call it 'lost'. How the (sorry..) heck can one lose the information?
Either it went trough or it didn't? I know i'm missing something important here. What do you mean by ' both the A and B detectors saw a photon 'are we talking waves :) Or are that due to Schrodinger's cat there this one photon became superimposed, even though treated as an particle? Or do you mean that both came to close in time? Please explain how i should look at this first and then i will be able (again hopefully :) to follow the rest?
---------------------------
Don't give up on me now man, if you do i will probably have nightmares about it :)
" Now what did we gain by using this block-of-1000 photons interpretation? Well we can now measure up to 1001 different variations of intensities between the two detectors (with a peak statistical deviation of ~22 counts in the center). " If you only get 5 1/2 bits of information, how can you measure 1001 possible variations? You will have to explain it or point me to some place where it is explained. Are you counting in the 'noise'?
" We've added the equivalent of a memory by counting photons (memory creates space) and we can imagine something close to a smooth continuum of intensities existing between the two extremes (if you take this to an extreme you can imagine space to be perfectly smooth featureless and infinitely indivisible - a common fallacy in physics). " This one is rather deep too, (memory creates space) i like the sound of it but you are lightyears before me here. I can see what you mean by the 'smooth continuum of intensities' though.
" but consider that if we already interpret mass as having a wave function, then photons don't necessarily need to also possess a wave function as we can't see photons without their observations being effectively "filtered" by mass anyway, so it's redundant to assign those features to both mass and photons (and again, a single photon measurement doesn't possess a wave anyway). " That one is rather nice.
"then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays" So if you have two detectors A and B and one emitter then you will use the emitter to decide where the detectors are? If you mean using the emitters photons as a clock for getting a exact time i think i can understand, but how do you use it for getting the exact locations of A and B?
" f we only had 3 photon detections to work with, we'd be woefully inadequate in information to determine whether or not we're at precisely 1000 wavelengths of that specific frequency of light or no " Yep i agree, (i think:) I don't find you rambling at all, it's just that first part above that don't make sense to me. GoodElf probably follows it easy as a cake, it's me missing points here :)
It's very interesting, but as i don't have enough understanding of the math behind it this one will take time to melt.
StevenA i sure like it but, i don't get it all :) Maybe i been awake to long again. After some sleep i'll get it better, but you got to remember that you've been thinking about similar subjects for ? So when you explain it, even though i'm sure you are trying to be basic, it still becomes a large amount of information to assimilate, and some of your thinking are new to me, i like it and i will definitely try to understand it, but it takes time. It still gives me a mental 'kick' to read about it..
"The big question to me is over how conscious memories are formed and how relationships between information are physically/consciously correlated - basically I see the relationship as memory constructs space and memory, " Nice, you are correlating spacetime through the use of indirect means (statistical evidence) to consciousness? I agree that it needs to be done for a full understanding of the universe, how can we define it without including the observer?
"in order to extract useful predictive relationships must determine patterns that can be seen to repeat (knowledge is gained of the past and useful in predicting the future). You should be able to break down all possible predictable relationships as cycles of various lengths and in a constant light speed space, this ends up creating the equivalent of geometrical relationships." So you look at the past to gain info of the present, but here i'm not sure, my view of time is that its only the past that exist (as in, we have actual knowledge of ), also that it exist as a reference for our consciousness and our experience of the universe, but further than that i don't know.
BTW: "'m working on trying to find a way to have effectively an infinite number of dimensions, each associated with an integer that represents a wavelength, giving the equivalent of resonant filters that determine where an object is located in space ..." This one you must explain in detail to me. It sound's like something new.
"then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays" So if you have two detectors A and B and one emitter then you will use the emitter to decide where the detectors are? If you mean using the emitters photons as a clock for getting a exact time i think i can understand, but how do you use it for getting the exact locations of A and B? they are split in time, its not like a radar where you use reflections, to know A and B you need to have the fixated at a predefined location? Or??
"The big question to me is over how conscious memories are formed and how relationships between information are physically/consciously correlated - basically I see the relationship as memory constructs space and memory, " Nice, you are correlating spacetime through the use of indirect means (statistical evidence) to consciousness? I agree that it needs to be done for a full understanding of the universe, how can we define it without including the observer?
"in order to extract useful predictive relationships must determine patterns that can be seen to repeat (knowledge is gained of the past and useful in predicting the future). You should be able to break down all possible predictable relationships as cycles of various lengths and in a constant light speed space, this ends up creating the equivalent of geometrical relationships." So you look at the past to gain info of the present, but here i'm not sure, my view of time is that its only the past that exist (as in, we have actual knowledge of ), also that it exist as a reference for our consciousness and our experience of the universe, but further than that i don't know.
BTW: "'m working on trying to find a way to have effectively an infinite number of dimensions, each associated with an integer that represents a wavelength, giving the equivalent of resonant filters that determine where an object is located in space ..." This one you must explain in detail to me. It sound's like something new.
"then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays" So if you have two detectors A and B and one emitter then you will use the emitter to decide where the detectors are? If you mean using the emitters photons as a clock for getting a exact time i think i can understand, but how do you use it for getting the exact locations of A and B? they are split in time, its not like a radar where you use reflections, to know A and B you need to have the fixated at a predefined location? Or??
QUOTE (yor on+)
When you talk about this 'guaranteed' information you mean that under no circumstance will it be less than this amount, right? This is a statistical analysis of stochastic patterns no?
Yes, information "entropy" is much like energy - you have a certain amount and you can split it up or transform it in various ways, or even ignore it and hope it goes away, but it's still there.
Though there are ways of reducing information, in a sense. If you already have some information regarding a system, and you receive more that's identical or redundant, then subjectively the information can appear different and less informative. For example, if you had a crystal ball that could always predict tomorrows lotto numbers, you'd be receiving the information earlier and verifying that your prior knowledge was correct when the actually lotto numbers were drawn would provide you less and less information each day as you began to rely on the accuracy of your crystal ball. You're still receiving the same information - the lotto numbers - but a day earlier in this case.
So information content is subjective and needs something to measure it (so you can see this equivalent to physical systems in that you need some physical method to measure something and something different to contrast the measurement with - what you measure is subjective and dependent upon how and what you're using to measure it). Results that are entirely unknown ahead of time are considered purely informative.
Now if we consider that learning about something from information we've received regarding it gives a new subjective interpretation to further information we receive, then we can derive some characteristics for how the evolution of a system might appear to subjectively occur.
Let's say that you saw this sequence of 8 photon detections occur between the A and B detectors:
ABABABAB
So the detections just alternated between the two detectors. Now if we had to take a guess as to what the next detection would be, what might we assume? If we saw this as a pattern, instead of a statistical fluke, then we could expect it to go back to A for the next detection.
Now let's assume that this result was entirely random but look at what happened when we added out subjective interpretation of a pattern. We saw the equivalent of a periodic feature (periodic functions are predictable and have constant, unchanging attributes that are "knowable", even if they're dynamic over time) and our expectations would now bias our interpretation of what the next result would be. We've created a virtual/mental wave function where none necessarily existed prior to this and when we measured it, we'd find it was only statistically accurate. If the next result is A, we'd take that as an affirmation that our understanding of the system is correct and if it is B, then we might interprete this as either being a more complex pattern or alternately that the ABAB... pattern is still intact but something obstructed our view of that pattern. Basically we can imagine a potentially infinite number of possible systems that could generate this result (yes, even a god rolling dice).
So even if the universe was entirely randomly constructed, it would seem we'd still use those randomly selected components to construct rules of how things interact and these would seem to be able to naturally give rise to observations such as statistically accurate wave function in space. The question, to me, is how does that stable source of memory/storage/correlation (that constructs a perceive of space and time) operate. Something as simple as pattern matching should be general enough to allow for any form of computation to be performed, but it's difficult to extract the general properties of higher order features that would arise using this (but I believe space can be seen as constructed in a manner similar to string theory with various integer length relationships having various geometric compatibilities with other integer length associations/pathways/relationships depending upon whether or not they share common divisors - the basic logic behind this is that we need predictable features in order to understand something - space is constructed from discrete interactions, as existing in a space without discrete interactions means not being able to make discrete decisions and take discrete actions, we're limited to discrete forms of communication in science in any event so science, as a social institution based upon communication between people can only express things in terms compatible with those forms of communication ... so if, in order to have a rigid understanding of space, we must construct a rigid ruler to measure it with, then we have the idea of a constant light speed space naturally arise from this, even if it's not entirely appropriate. Time is also similarly quantized and discrete because we measure events as discrete units. Useful knowledge could also be seen as discrete in a sense because ultimately it needs to have some specific and discrete application and not forever remain a nebulous range of possible actions. That knowledge appears to be fundamentally described using logical pathways, similar to an electronic circuit that would compute that equivalent function. These computations could be seen to move through a lattice that's an array of identical nodes with the only significant feature being how the signals are routed through this network and that gives rise to the idea that all scientific/physical knowledge should be representable in terms of geometry with information flowing through a light speed space, though not necessarily 3 dimensional but it's not difficult to demonstrate why the majority of interactions in space appear as 3 dimensional - it's the least restrictive form of communication.
Yes, information "entropy" is much like energy - you have a certain amount and you can split it up or transform it in various ways, or even ignore it and hope it goes away, but it's still there.
Though there are ways of reducing information, in a sense. If you already have some information regarding a system, and you receive more that's identical or redundant, then subjectively the information can appear different and less informative. For example, if you had a crystal ball that could always predict tomorrows lotto numbers, you'd be receiving the information earlier and verifying that your prior knowledge was correct when the actually lotto numbers were drawn would provide you less and less information each day as you began to rely on the accuracy of your crystal ball. You're still receiving the same information - the lotto numbers - but a day earlier in this case.
So information content is subjective and needs something to measure it (so you can see this equivalent to physical systems in that you need some physical method to measure something and something different to contrast the measurement with - what you measure is subjective and dependent upon how and what you're using to measure it). Results that are entirely unknown ahead of time are considered purely informative.
Now if we consider that learning about something from information we've received regarding it gives a new subjective interpretation to further information we receive, then we can derive some characteristics for how the evolution of a system might appear to subjectively occur.
Let's say that you saw this sequence of 8 photon detections occur between the A and B detectors:
ABABABAB
So the detections just alternated between the two detectors. Now if we had to take a guess as to what the next detection would be, what might we assume? If we saw this as a pattern, instead of a statistical fluke, then we could expect it to go back to A for the next detection.
Now let's assume that this result was entirely random but look at what happened when we added out subjective interpretation of a pattern. We saw the equivalent of a periodic feature (periodic functions are predictable and have constant, unchanging attributes that are "knowable", even if they're dynamic over time) and our expectations would now bias our interpretation of what the next result would be. We've created a virtual/mental wave function where none necessarily existed prior to this and when we measured it, we'd find it was only statistically accurate. If the next result is A, we'd take that as an affirmation that our understanding of the system is correct and if it is B, then we might interprete this as either being a more complex pattern or alternately that the ABAB... pattern is still intact but something obstructed our view of that pattern. Basically we can imagine a potentially infinite number of possible systems that could generate this result (yes, even a god rolling dice).
So even if the universe was entirely randomly constructed, it would seem we'd still use those randomly selected components to construct rules of how things interact and these would seem to be able to naturally give rise to observations such as statistically accurate wave function in space. The question, to me, is how does that stable source of memory/storage/correlation (that constructs a perceive of space and time) operate. Something as simple as pattern matching should be general enough to allow for any form of computation to be performed, but it's difficult to extract the general properties of higher order features that would arise using this (but I believe space can be seen as constructed in a manner similar to string theory with various integer length relationships having various geometric compatibilities with other integer length associations/pathways/relationships depending upon whether or not they share common divisors - the basic logic behind this is that we need predictable features in order to understand something - space is constructed from discrete interactions, as existing in a space without discrete interactions means not being able to make discrete decisions and take discrete actions, we're limited to discrete forms of communication in science in any event so science, as a social institution based upon communication between people can only express things in terms compatible with those forms of communication ... so if, in order to have a rigid understanding of space, we must construct a rigid ruler to measure it with, then we have the idea of a constant light speed space naturally arise from this, even if it's not entirely appropriate. Time is also similarly quantized and discrete because we measure events as discrete units. Useful knowledge could also be seen as discrete in a sense because ultimately it needs to have some specific and discrete application and not forever remain a nebulous range of possible actions. That knowledge appears to be fundamentally described using logical pathways, similar to an electronic circuit that would compute that equivalent function. These computations could be seen to move through a lattice that's an array of identical nodes with the only significant feature being how the signals are routed through this network and that gives rise to the idea that all scientific/physical knowledge should be representable in terms of geometry with information flowing through a light speed space, though not necessarily 3 dimensional but it's not difficult to demonstrate why the majority of interactions in space appear as 3 dimensional - it's the least restrictive form of communication.
QUOTE (yor on+)
Ok in the first experiment i see how you come to 1/4 and it makes sense.
the second example makes sense too (i'm checking myself here :)
" Hmmm... we lost half a bit of information, on average, by grouping two detections together. Where did it go?
Well half the time we find that both the A and B detectors saw a photon and when this occurs and we remove the ordering of the events (which is a single bit of information in order to detect whether A came first or B came first), we find we have a 50% chance of losing a single bit of information. "
Here i'm starting to feel hmm, depending on my kindness to myself (i'm a naturally kind person :) let's just call it 'lost'. How the (sorry..) heck can one lose the information?
Well the information was physically present, but the manner in which we kept track of it doesn't allow for it to be entirely reconstructed. So this is an example of how information content can vary depending upon observer and their interpretation. Basically we've taken two physically different results but superimposed them into a single observation (in this case by knowing that both the A and B detectors saw a single photon, we tossed out the ordering of those detections) ... this is much like physically observed superposition of quantum states - if you don't have a way to differentiate between multiple similar physical states, then you're not detecting any one of them specifically but instead only limiting your view to a window of possibilities. For example, if we were to take a look at a freeway we could see cars in various positions and velocities moving on it, but without being more specific, the concept of a "freeway" is really a wide range of physical things that most people would consider a freeway and not any specific freeway at any specific moment. A more accurate representation of a freeway might be seen as a blur of headlights (as you may have seen in some movies) merged over all times of day and with various types of asphalt and curvatures etc. A "freeway" is a range of possibilities that's only limited by what some observer would consider a freeway. We could construct the mathematical equivalent of gaussian fields within a continuum of spacial dimensions that described the probability of various people considering something to be a "freeway" or not and this "virtual particle" in this virtual field would possess the equivalent of statistically detectable laws of physics with respect to other concepts as well, like trees or rocks (people would be less likely to consider something a "freeway" if it had various trees and rocks strewn about and this could be seen in a manner similar to the Pauli Exclusionary principle where two masses can't exist in the same space, in the end, if all we have is a checkbox to mark any specific scene as either "freeway", "tree", "rock", or "other" then you wouldn't have both a tree and a rock in the same location though for multiple observers you might find a distribution of results).
the second example makes sense too (i'm checking myself here :)
" Hmmm... we lost half a bit of information, on average, by grouping two detections together. Where did it go?
Well half the time we find that both the A and B detectors saw a photon and when this occurs and we remove the ordering of the events (which is a single bit of information in order to detect whether A came first or B came first), we find we have a 50% chance of losing a single bit of information. "
Here i'm starting to feel hmm, depending on my kindness to myself (i'm a naturally kind person :) let's just call it 'lost'. How the (sorry..) heck can one lose the information?
Well the information was physically present, but the manner in which we kept track of it doesn't allow for it to be entirely reconstructed. So this is an example of how information content can vary depending upon observer and their interpretation. Basically we've taken two physically different results but superimposed them into a single observation (in this case by knowing that both the A and B detectors saw a single photon, we tossed out the ordering of those detections) ... this is much like physically observed superposition of quantum states - if you don't have a way to differentiate between multiple similar physical states, then you're not detecting any one of them specifically but instead only limiting your view to a window of possibilities. For example, if we were to take a look at a freeway we could see cars in various positions and velocities moving on it, but without being more specific, the concept of a "freeway" is really a wide range of physical things that most people would consider a freeway and not any specific freeway at any specific moment. A more accurate representation of a freeway might be seen as a blur of headlights (as you may have seen in some movies) merged over all times of day and with various types of asphalt and curvatures etc. A "freeway" is a range of possibilities that's only limited by what some observer would consider a freeway. We could construct the mathematical equivalent of gaussian fields within a continuum of spacial dimensions that described the probability of various people considering something to be a "freeway" or not and this "virtual particle" in this virtual field would possess the equivalent of statistically detectable laws of physics with respect to other concepts as well, like trees or rocks (people would be less likely to consider something a "freeway" if it had various trees and rocks strewn about and this could be seen in a manner similar to the Pauli Exclusionary principle where two masses can't exist in the same space, in the end, if all we have is a checkbox to mark any specific scene as either "freeway", "tree", "rock", or "other" then you wouldn't have both a tree and a rock in the same location though for multiple observers you might find a distribution of results).
QUOTE (yor on+)
Either it went trough or it didn't? I know i'm missing something important here. What do you mean by ' both the A and B detectors saw a photon 'are we talking waves :) Or are that due to Schrodinger's cat there this one photon became superimposed, even though treated as an particle? Or do you mean that both came to close in time? Please explain how i should look at this first and then i will be able (again hopefully :) to follow the rest?
I meant that they each detected different photons but over a range of time, not the same photon. So we threw away the information about the chronology of events when we represented it as A=1 B=1 , instead of saying A first, B second or visa versa.
I meant that they each detected different photons but over a range of time, not the same photon. So we threw away the information about the chronology of events when we represented it as A=1 B=1 , instead of saying A first, B second or visa versa.
QUOTE (yor on+)
Don't give up on me now man, if you do i will probably have nightmares about it :)
I admit I'm not making many specific points but am just trying to point out the general features present in quantum observations. It's a lot like we're looking at a giant computer and only have a few keys we can play with and a few lights to watch and then are trying to piece together what happens behind the scenes.
I admit I'm not making many specific points but am just trying to point out the general features present in quantum observations. It's a lot like we're looking at a giant computer and only have a few keys we can play with and a few lights to watch and then are trying to piece together what happens behind the scenes.
QUOTE (yor on+)
" Now what did we gain by using this block-of-1000 photons interpretation? Well we can now measure up to 1001 different variations of intensities between the two detectors (with a peak statistical deviation of ~22 counts in the center). " If you only get 5 1/2 bits of information, how can you measure 1001 possible variations? You will have to explain it or point me to some place where it is explained. Are you counting in the 'noise'?
Thanks for asking about this. I wasn't very clear here. Yes, there are various ways we could cut the information up and assign some of it to be descriptive of one aspect of the system or the other.
It we look at some of the components of this measure, if we're emitting a beam close to the center of the A and B detectors so that on average we see 500 counts in each detector, then in any specific sample we might not see exactly 500 in each. We might see 487 for A and 513 for B, when the longer term average would be 500. So in this case we could interprete this in various ways mentally. We might say the beam is shaky and not always pointing at the center or that maybe there are internal dynamics to the detectors that cause the "noise" or we can just toss it off to "randomness" and say we have a mean deviation of something like 22 counts and ignore the variations (but that assumes we truly know what the average should be ... if we only have a limited number of samples, then we'd be adding our own mental expectations to the results and assuming the physical measurements were somehow wrong or not representative of some other mentally imagined reality)
The reference to 1001 possible detected beam positions is a result of use being able to measure from 0 to 1000 counts at a detector (which is actually 1001 possible values, just like 0 to 1 gives us two possible locations). So we could create a graph with 1001 locations to place the sampled results for a block of 1000 photons.
Thanks for asking about this. I wasn't very clear here. Yes, there are various ways we could cut the information up and assign some of it to be descriptive of one aspect of the system or the other.
It we look at some of the components of this measure, if we're emitting a beam close to the center of the A and B detectors so that on average we see 500 counts in each detector, then in any specific sample we might not see exactly 500 in each. We might see 487 for A and 513 for B, when the longer term average would be 500. So in this case we could interprete this in various ways mentally. We might say the beam is shaky and not always pointing at the center or that maybe there are internal dynamics to the detectors that cause the "noise" or we can just toss it off to "randomness" and say we have a mean deviation of something like 22 counts and ignore the variations (but that assumes we truly know what the average should be ... if we only have a limited number of samples, then we'd be adding our own mental expectations to the results and assuming the physical measurements were somehow wrong or not representative of some other mentally imagined reality)
The reference to 1001 possible detected beam positions is a result of use being able to measure from 0 to 1000 counts at a detector (which is actually 1001 possible values, just like 0 to 1 gives us two possible locations). So we could create a graph with 1001 locations to place the sampled results for a block of 1000 photons.
QUOTE (yor on+)
" We've added the equivalent of a memory by counting photons (memory creates space) and we can imagine something close to a smooth continuum of intensities existing between the two extremes (if you take this to an extreme you can imagine space to be perfectly smooth featureless and infinitely indivisible - a common fallacy in physics). " This one is rather deep too, (memory creates space) i like the sound of it but you are lightyears before me here. I can see what you mean by the 'smooth continuum of intensities' though.
Yes, there's a lot more behind this than is immediately obvious. I did some brainstorming in the past and had some epiphanies along the way. One of them is that no thing in itself has any meaning without some relationship to something else. If we're physically measuring discrete events as individual "things" then they only have a useful meaning when compared to some other specific "thing" we measured. How we see the two as related ends up being associated with knowledge and memory and this allows for a perception of time, distances and space to be constructed.
Here's something to consider. If you had no memory of the past, could you even physically detect something like gravity? I don't believe something even as pervasive to human experience as gravity could be seen as real and tangible without an ability to recognize patterns and relationships from moment to moment. Consider how a child learns to move and understand distances etc. They move and see the results or feel some feedback and then learn to refine the motions and predict the feedback until they understand the general features of the space in which they move and have an intuitive "feel" for inertia, relative positions etc. Something as simple to do as fall down can only be understood in terms of a sequence of changes over time, of which any isolated moment in itself doesn't describe falling or give a way to understand motion and force etc. So at a minimum we need a way to construct relationships between one thing and something else and this requires a way to form stable associations that I see as memory and extracting the patterns that exist within these gives rise to an understanding and recognition of things like space, or you could consider it the other way around also - that what associations we end up forming mold our perceptions of what space and the assocaited laws of physics are.
Yes, there's a lot more behind this than is immediately obvious. I did some brainstorming in the past and had some epiphanies along the way. One of them is that no thing in itself has any meaning without some relationship to something else. If we're physically measuring discrete events as individual "things" then they only have a useful meaning when compared to some other specific "thing" we measured. How we see the two as related ends up being associated with knowledge and memory and this allows for a perception of time, distances and space to be constructed.
Here's something to consider. If you had no memory of the past, could you even physically detect something like gravity? I don't believe something even as pervasive to human experience as gravity could be seen as real and tangible without an ability to recognize patterns and relationships from moment to moment. Consider how a child learns to move and understand distances etc. They move and see the results or feel some feedback and then learn to refine the motions and predict the feedback until they understand the general features of the space in which they move and have an intuitive "feel" for inertia, relative positions etc. Something as simple to do as fall down can only be understood in terms of a sequence of changes over time, of which any isolated moment in itself doesn't describe falling or give a way to understand motion and force etc. So at a minimum we need a way to construct relationships between one thing and something else and this requires a way to form stable associations that I see as memory and extracting the patterns that exist within these gives rise to an understanding and recognition of things like space, or you could consider it the other way around also - that what associations we end up forming mold our perceptions of what space and the assocaited laws of physics are.
QUOTE (yor on+)
" but consider that if we already interpret mass as having a wave function, then photons don't necessarily need to also possess a wave function as we can't see photons without their observations being effectively "filtered" by mass anyway, so it's redundant to assign those features to both mass and photons (and again, a single photon measurement doesn't possess a wave anyway). " That one is rather nice.
Thanks :D I'm glad you appreciate it.
Thanks :D I'm glad you appreciate it.
QUOTE (yor on+)
"then our fundamental metric for distances and locations in space are light speed delays" So if you have two detectors A and B and one emitter then you will use the emitter to decide where the detectors are? If you mean using the emitters photons as a clock for getting a exact time i think i can understand, but how do you use it for getting the exact locations of A and B?
Nice comment. This relies on the idea of a light speed space, where times and distances are related by the speed of light. It works nicely in the purely theoretical realm of isolated vacuums (which almost by definition would exclude an observer LOL :D), but it's not as easy to use this concept with observers and atmospheres etc. yet the concept of constructing a representation of space by using a single common metric/ruler for everything is valuable. I prefer to say "light speed delays" because we're really in the end measuring delays and not velocities directly.
So anyway, by knowing the delay (which requires a clock) between an emitter and one of the detectors, we can estimate the distance between them which gives us some reference for relative spacial locations to be determined. That's why space is often referred to as "spacetime" in physics, as there exist delays between points that have an associated distance.
Nice comment. This relies on the idea of a light speed space, where times and distances are related by the speed of light. It works nicely in the purely theoretical realm of isolated vacuums (which almost by definition would exclude an observer LOL :D), but it's not as easy to use this concept with observers and atmospheres etc. yet the concept of constructing a representation of space by using a single common metric/ruler for everything is valuable. I prefer to say "light speed delays" because we're really in the end measuring delays and not velocities directly.
So anyway, by knowing the delay (which requires a clock) between an emitter and one of the detectors, we can estimate the distance between them which gives us some reference for relative spacial locations to be determined. That's why space is often referred to as "spacetime" in physics, as there exist delays between points that have an associated distance.
QUOTE (yor on+)
" f we only had 3 photon detections to work with, we'd be woefully inadequate in information to determine whether or not we're at precisely 1000 wavelengths of that specific frequency of light or no " Yep i agree, (i think:) I don't find you rambling at all, it's just that first part above that don't make sense to me. GoodElf probably follows it easy as a cake, it's me missing points here :)
Yes, GoodElf is great.
It's getting back to the basics and relooking at the foundations of our current understanding of physics that's important. It's generally assumed that if you want to measure a voltage, you pop out a voltmeter and take a reading but in terms of the information present on a quantum scale this means ignoring 99.999%+ of what's actually happening ... and a lot of juicy possibilities appear to be available if we can untangle the knots.
Yes, GoodElf is great.
It's getting back to the basics and relooking at the foundations of our current understanding of physics that's important. It's generally assumed that if you want to measure a voltage, you pop out a voltmeter and take a reading but in terms of the information present on a quantum scale this means ignoring 99.999%+ of what's actually happening ... and a lot of juicy possibilities appear to be available if we can untangle the knots.
QUOTE (yor on+)
It's very interesting, but as i don't have enough understanding of the math behind it this one will take time to melt.
I'm still trying to piece a lot of it together as well. Congratulations if you could follow half of what I posted :)
I did avoid putting more equations in almost intentionally, but I admit that the transformations and general attributes of the algorithms I've presented are highly mathematic and have precise mathematical implementations. (I write software high in algorithmic complexity and work a lot with statistical property of large discrete systems so these are the terms and transformations I tend to think in. It causes problems in communication with those more focused in other areas of mathematics ... I'll refrain from giving out names ;) but when their computers break or the hardware or software needs improvements, I'll be one of the guys fixing them :D)
I'm still trying to piece a lot of it together as well. Congratulations if you could follow half of what I posted :)
I did avoid putting more equations in almost intentionally, but I admit that the transformations and general attributes of the algorithms I've presented are highly mathematic and have precise mathematical implementations. (I write software high in algorithmic complexity and work a lot with statistical property of large discrete systems so these are the terms and transformations I tend to think in. It causes problems in communication with those more focused in other areas of mathematics ... I'll refrain from giving out names ;) but when their computers break or the hardware or software needs improvements, I'll be one of the guys fixing them :D)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 10 2007, 08:56 PM)
If this is true one could decide the size of a photon no?
" Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. " BS (my view)
Seems like this thread is opening up into multiple avenues of thought. I'll get out of the way after leaving just a few thoughts.
Yor_on, your view (BS) is accurate. The media incorrectly labeled Howell's work as encoding 'an entire image's worth of data into a photon.' Makes me wonder how scientifically knowledgeable our science reporters are. I've seen worse examples, but not by much.
See Univ. of Rochester feature story
and press release.
Note that nowhere in either article does Howell claim to have stored a complete image using one photon. The team simply was trying to store a complex amount of optical information without converting it to another storage form while retaining good resolution.
"If a photon entered the fiber, a single photon detector attached to the fiber registered a hit that could be placed properly into a two-dimensional image."
...
"The image of the stencil is formed by scanning a fiber across the imaging plane. The fiber collects image information one pixel at a time. Over a hundred million pulses were used to reconstruct the image."
'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). The electron, if a wave function in orbit, might simply shift its leading edge to a new orbit path, especially if two paths (higher and lower energy) cross each other. If the electron is not a wave function but exists as a particle, such as in a plasma (my opinion here), it has rest mass that should need time to accelerate to a new vector momentum trajectory. In either case the time a photon takes to grow to completion should be represented as well in the electron's transition. The photon isn't 'accelerated' to light speed; light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy.
'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). The electron, if a wave function in orbit, might simply shift its leading edge to a new orbit path, especially if two paths (higher and lower energy) cross each other. If the electron is not a wave function but exists as a particle, such as in a plasma (my opinion here), it has rest mass that should need time to accelerate to a new vector momentum trajectory. In either case the time a photon takes to grow to completion should be represented as well in the electron's transition. The photon isn't 'accelerated' to light speed; light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy.
" One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. "
This statement should apply to particles with rest mass, not photons. It has to do with relativistic momentum, which is a vector value, rather than relativistic mass, which is a scalar value. I haven't confirmed the statement myself but it seems appropriate.
" Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. " BS (my view)
Seems like this thread is opening up into multiple avenues of thought. I'll get out of the way after leaving just a few thoughts.
Yor_on, your view (BS) is accurate. The media incorrectly labeled Howell's work as encoding 'an entire image's worth of data into a photon.' Makes me wonder how scientifically knowledgeable our science reporters are. I've seen worse examples, but not by much.
See Univ. of Rochester feature story
and press release.
Note that nowhere in either article does Howell claim to have stored a complete image using one photon. The team simply was trying to store a complex amount of optical information without converting it to another storage form while retaining good resolution.
"If a photon entered the fiber, a single photon detector attached to the fiber registered a hit that could be placed properly into a two-dimensional image."
...
"The image of the stencil is formed by scanning a fiber across the imaging plane. The fiber collects image information one pixel at a time. Over a hundred million pulses were used to reconstruct the image."
QUOTE
" 'instant acceleration' which as far as i know don't follow any known laws? " is wrong, isn't it? There are an explanation to it?
'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). The electron, if a wave function in orbit, might simply shift its leading edge to a new orbit path, especially if two paths (higher and lower energy) cross each other. If the electron is not a wave function but exists as a particle, such as in a plasma (my opinion here), it has rest mass that should need time to accelerate to a new vector momentum trajectory. In either case the time a photon takes to grow to completion should be represented as well in the electron's transition. The photon isn't 'accelerated' to light speed; light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| " 'instant acceleration' which as far as i know don't follow any known laws? " is wrong, isn't it? There are an explanation to it? |
'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). The electron, if a wave function in orbit, might simply shift its leading edge to a new orbit path, especially if two paths (higher and lower energy) cross each other. If the electron is not a wave function but exists as a particle, such as in a plasma (my opinion here), it has rest mass that should need time to accelerate to a new vector momentum trajectory. In either case the time a photon takes to grow to completion should be represented as well in the electron's transition. The photon isn't 'accelerated' to light speed; light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy.
" One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. "
This statement should apply to particles with rest mass, not photons. It has to do with relativistic momentum, which is a vector value, rather than relativistic mass, which is a scalar value. I haven't confirmed the statement myself but it seems appropriate.
A single photon detection could be interpreted as containing more than a single bit of data. The data content is variable, but the content is determined by things outside the photon as well.
For example if we have 4 photon detectors and each has a 1/4 probability of detecting the next photon, if we ignore other sources of timing (which add additional information), then the sequence of photon detections between these 4 detectors provides 2 bits of information per photon (8 detectors provides 3 bits etc. but these aren't storage mechanisms, though they could be included as part of one).
Even though a photon can represent more than a single bit of data, that University of Rochester experiment wasn't storing the entire image in a single photon but was working with many photons.
For example if we have 4 photon detectors and each has a 1/4 probability of detecting the next photon, if we ignore other sources of timing (which add additional information), then the sequence of photon detections between these 4 detectors provides 2 bits of information per photon (8 detectors provides 3 bits etc. but these aren't storage mechanisms, though they could be included as part of one).
Even though a photon can represent more than a single bit of data, that University of Rochester experiment wasn't storing the entire image in a single photon but was working with many photons.
Hi yor_on, StevenA, regallow et al,
I must admit that StevenA is a very knowledgeable chap. It is his style to explain using statistical argument using the particle paradigm. In a converse sense we "elves" are "wave" orientated and find the particle paradigm "off". I will give an example that has some reference to the Rochester Experiments and also to the field of Holography.
The statistical nature of particle phenomena sort of suggests that photons have a randomness that cannot be averted. I will state (without proof here) that insisting on a particle interpretation of events leads to a loss of informational data that cannot be usually restored. For instance take Young's Double Slit Experiment where we have no "which way" information you may think that the photons on the screen are deposited with a certain "randomness" that is intrinsically related to the quantum nature of our Universe. Examination of the numbers in these problems does indicate a quantum "noise" that seems totally unavoidable. Naturally if you use a detector that forces the "wave" phenomena to be localized and discrete we will certainly see this noise.
On the other hand the information gathered by "impacts of individual ballistic photons" on a two dimensional sensor array like a CMOS light sensor used in cameras cannot be used to record phase... the act of measurement using this kind of sensor destroys this phase information apparently irretrievably. What is recorded is a single bit of data as StevenA has stated. Almost all Lab experiments use some kind of sensor based on a principle related to these electronic class of devices. It is no coincidence that we build sensors that duplicate in some way our own optical sensors... eyes.
What is not said is replace this sensor with a "deep" sensitive photo-emulsion on a rigid stand that can register individual photons and what we see is an "in-depth" record of this photon absorption that actually records some information about phase... not all information but some!! The emulsion does not need to be placed at the "screen" but the emulsion can be placed "anywhere" and still record the entire "field" through the phase record encoded in the emulsion. It just so happens that the screen information can be recorded anywhere and not just at the screen since the Hologram is a kind of "remote sensor". If the plates are developed and then re-illuminated with a laser of the same wavelength as the source a reconstruction of the entire scene in full three dimensions, not just information about photons that actually strike the emulsion (which is all the information recorded by an optical sensor at the screen) but the location of all visible elements in the surrounding "dark Universe" and their respective dimensions and positions as well as the "brightness" of all objects as they were seen from the position of the emulsion.
What I mean is you truly need to restrict the information recorded by the emulsion to just the laser wavelength and even then the existence of other photons must be "perfectly screened out or kept to an absolute minimum (in the dark)". Extra light and extra frequencies would be "noise" in this system. What we see is a billion times the information recorded by the brightness "flashes" on the screen showing a simple repeated banding on the sensor in 2D... what we have is a snapshot of this "dark Universe" which has one diverged coherent source and the inter-relationships as standing wavelets in space recorded as that set of fringes inside the emulsion. These fringes are "in-depth" and demonstrate that the single grains of the photographic emulsion being exposed, which are from photons that have traveled directly to the photographic plate through the principle of least action finds a suitable "site" to darken a single grain of Silver Halide in the depth of the emulsion. In front of that position in the emulsion .... there is no partial absorption of that photon and behind that grain there is no "overshoot" of the photon... the absorption of one photon occurs at one place (all or nothing)... not necessarily on the surface of the emulsion but on an optimum place within the emulsion (because the emulsion is otherwise transparent before being developed). Very careful examination of this emulsion after development will show an almost "perfect" arrangement of light and dark bands of exposure inside the emulsion.... not randomly as you may expect but with great precision. These represent "standing waves"... exposure is a maximum at "antinodes" and a minimum at the nodes.
The next amazing fact that we can demonstrate is that this picture is not an interference between interfering photons such as a mixing may suggest... No... this effect does occur with single photons ... one at a time. These photons are interfering with themselves.
So "whats missing from this picture?".... Why such a richness and redundancy in the information from Holograms and why such poor statistical and randomized data from the "digitized" optical sensor array? The answer is the digital optical array is a "particle detector" and the photographic emulsion is a "wave detector" that simply uses particles. The obvious problem with these sensors is they mimic our simple and limited eyes in the way they gather data. We have systems that can do better but we can ignore this information if we become "one eyed" and see things in anthropomorphic terms only... intensity and two dimensional flat images like those produced by the retina of our eyes. I am reminded of Abbott's book on Flatland. We are "flatlanders" using restricted optical sensors and we have developed our understanding of our Universe around "flatland" and we have placed ourselves at the center of that Universe. Surprise surprise!... we are not alone in this wide Universe and perhaps there are most likely creatures with eyes developed along more complex optical systems than a "Box Brownie and a blob of transparent plastic".
I have used an analogy of a "Dark Universe" to show the richness and fineness of detail and the vast redundancy of this information carried by single self interfering photons. Consider that every photon carries "vast" information that we never seem to want to record. We have used KISS (Keep it simple stupid) but what we have forgotten is particles are single disconnected "events" while photons when we think of them in this way are tiny parts of a much larger whole. Snap a corner off a hologram and the entire hologram remains when seen through that "window", it is simply restricted to that smaller view. Mankind is restricted to a very small view... our evolution and our minds and its ability to retain information. Greater minds have greater grasps of the Universe than we may be ever capable of... this is just accepting our position in the order of things ... A little above the animals with our brain or below most of them with some other aspects of our physiology such as our optical system.
What I will add to this picture is what I have said before earlier about Quantum Theory...
I must admit that StevenA is a very knowledgeable chap. It is his style to explain using statistical argument using the particle paradigm. In a converse sense we "elves" are "wave" orientated and find the particle paradigm "off". I will give an example that has some reference to the Rochester Experiments and also to the field of Holography.
The statistical nature of particle phenomena sort of suggests that photons have a randomness that cannot be averted. I will state (without proof here) that insisting on a particle interpretation of events leads to a loss of informational data that cannot be usually restored. For instance take Young's Double Slit Experiment where we have no "which way" information you may think that the photons on the screen are deposited with a certain "randomness" that is intrinsically related to the quantum nature of our Universe. Examination of the numbers in these problems does indicate a quantum "noise" that seems totally unavoidable. Naturally if you use a detector that forces the "wave" phenomena to be localized and discrete we will certainly see this noise.
On the other hand the information gathered by "impacts of individual ballistic photons" on a two dimensional sensor array like a CMOS light sensor used in cameras cannot be used to record phase... the act of measurement using this kind of sensor destroys this phase information apparently irretrievably. What is recorded is a single bit of data as StevenA has stated. Almost all Lab experiments use some kind of sensor based on a principle related to these electronic class of devices. It is no coincidence that we build sensors that duplicate in some way our own optical sensors... eyes.
What is not said is replace this sensor with a "deep" sensitive photo-emulsion on a rigid stand that can register individual photons and what we see is an "in-depth" record of this photon absorption that actually records some information about phase... not all information but some!! The emulsion does not need to be placed at the "screen" but the emulsion can be placed "anywhere" and still record the entire "field" through the phase record encoded in the emulsion. It just so happens that the screen information can be recorded anywhere and not just at the screen since the Hologram is a kind of "remote sensor". If the plates are developed and then re-illuminated with a laser of the same wavelength as the source a reconstruction of the entire scene in full three dimensions, not just information about photons that actually strike the emulsion (which is all the information recorded by an optical sensor at the screen) but the location of all visible elements in the surrounding "dark Universe" and their respective dimensions and positions as well as the "brightness" of all objects as they were seen from the position of the emulsion.
What I mean is you truly need to restrict the information recorded by the emulsion to just the laser wavelength and even then the existence of other photons must be "perfectly screened out or kept to an absolute minimum (in the dark)". Extra light and extra frequencies would be "noise" in this system. What we see is a billion times the information recorded by the brightness "flashes" on the screen showing a simple repeated banding on the sensor in 2D... what we have is a snapshot of this "dark Universe" which has one diverged coherent source and the inter-relationships as standing wavelets in space recorded as that set of fringes inside the emulsion. These fringes are "in-depth" and demonstrate that the single grains of the photographic emulsion being exposed, which are from photons that have traveled directly to the photographic plate through the principle of least action finds a suitable "site" to darken a single grain of Silver Halide in the depth of the emulsion. In front of that position in the emulsion .... there is no partial absorption of that photon and behind that grain there is no "overshoot" of the photon... the absorption of one photon occurs at one place (all or nothing)... not necessarily on the surface of the emulsion but on an optimum place within the emulsion (because the emulsion is otherwise transparent before being developed). Very careful examination of this emulsion after development will show an almost "perfect" arrangement of light and dark bands of exposure inside the emulsion.... not randomly as you may expect but with great precision. These represent "standing waves"... exposure is a maximum at "antinodes" and a minimum at the nodes.
The next amazing fact that we can demonstrate is that this picture is not an interference between interfering photons such as a mixing may suggest... No... this effect does occur with single photons ... one at a time. These photons are interfering with themselves.
So "whats missing from this picture?".... Why such a richness and redundancy in the information from Holograms and why such poor statistical and randomized data from the "digitized" optical sensor array? The answer is the digital optical array is a "particle detector" and the photographic emulsion is a "wave detector" that simply uses particles. The obvious problem with these sensors is they mimic our simple and limited eyes in the way they gather data. We have systems that can do better but we can ignore this information if we become "one eyed" and see things in anthropomorphic terms only... intensity and two dimensional flat images like those produced by the retina of our eyes. I am reminded of Abbott's book on Flatland. We are "flatlanders" using restricted optical sensors and we have developed our understanding of our Universe around "flatland" and we have placed ourselves at the center of that Universe. Surprise surprise!... we are not alone in this wide Universe and perhaps there are most likely creatures with eyes developed along more complex optical systems than a "Box Brownie and a blob of transparent plastic".
I have used an analogy of a "Dark Universe" to show the richness and fineness of detail and the vast redundancy of this information carried by single self interfering photons. Consider that every photon carries "vast" information that we never seem to want to record. We have used KISS (Keep it simple stupid) but what we have forgotten is particles are single disconnected "events" while photons when we think of them in this way are tiny parts of a much larger whole. Snap a corner off a hologram and the entire hologram remains when seen through that "window", it is simply restricted to that smaller view. Mankind is restricted to a very small view... our evolution and our minds and its ability to retain information. Greater minds have greater grasps of the Universe than we may be ever capable of... this is just accepting our position in the order of things ... A little above the animals with our brain or below most of them with some other aspects of our physiology such as our optical system.
What I will add to this picture is what I have said before earlier about Quantum Theory...
QUOTE (Good Elf earlier about what Quantum Mechanics cannot actually provide+)
1. Any quantity that can be measured on the spot. There is no scientific instrument such as a "Probability meter" that can measure probability at the scene of an event.
2. No methodology that can attribute any positional descriptors to the single event due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle this depends on the way the system is measured, this means we have no information where it has actually happened (and there are no ways in QM to predict this) because QM has no such ability... it has been sacrificed to gain statistical data.
3. Due to a particle interpretation of the phenomenon there is no "connection" to global properties and the system must reside in a "local" framework. This has been shown to be 'wanting" in terms of its ability to work correctly .... The Universe has been proven to be "non-local" despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics is a local theory.
4. All "particles" have no "individual" history, measurement are simply "events". They are indistinguishable and anonymous. This is of utmost importance to the theory. They also have "no inbuilt locality" and this is shown by rigorous treatment to be a failure of Quantum Mechanics... nevertheless it "almost" works.
Holograms show us a bigger Universe even though we cannot see three dimensions (we only see "parallax"). Photons obviously have a global connection to "everything" and photons have a history and a "quality" that "feels" the surrounding Universe very accurately before they are "damaged" through absorption. The photons in holograms also have a very definite "path" that reflect its origins (the source) and the arrangement of the surrounding universe... through "seeking all paths".
Cheers
2. No methodology that can attribute any positional descriptors to the single event due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle this depends on the way the system is measured, this means we have no information where it has actually happened (and there are no ways in QM to predict this) because QM has no such ability... it has been sacrificed to gain statistical data.
3. Due to a particle interpretation of the phenomenon there is no "connection" to global properties and the system must reside in a "local" framework. This has been shown to be 'wanting" in terms of its ability to work correctly .... The Universe has been proven to be "non-local" despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics is a local theory.
4. All "particles" have no "individual" history, measurement are simply "events". They are indistinguishable and anonymous. This is of utmost importance to the theory. They also have "no inbuilt locality" and this is shown by rigorous treatment to be a failure of Quantum Mechanics... nevertheless it "almost" works.
Holograms show us a bigger Universe even though we cannot see three dimensions (we only see "parallax"). Photons obviously have a global connection to "everything" and photons have a history and a "quality" that "feels" the surrounding Universe very accurately before they are "damaged" through absorption. The photons in holograms also have a very definite "path" that reflect its origins (the source) and the arrangement of the surrounding universe... through "seeking all paths".
Cheers
StevenA. As always a pleasure :)
" information content is subjective and needs something to measure it (so you can see this equivalent to physical systems in that you need some physical method to measure something and something different to contrast the measurement with " Yep.
"So even if the universe was entirely randomly constructed, it would seem we'd still use those randomly selected components to construct rules of how things interact and these would seem to be able to naturally give rise to observations such as statistically accurate wave function in space. The question, to me, is how does that stable source of memory/storage/correlation (that constructs a perceive of space and time) operate " Another extremely good question :)
" space is constructed from discrete interactions, as existing in a space without discrete interactions means not being able to make discrete decisions and take discrete actions, we're limited to discrete forms of communication in science in any event so science, as a social institution based upon communication between people can only express things in terms compatible with those forms of communication . And this is about time, right? That are the discrete divider of information.Or are you thinking of discrete events as in the 'black body' experiments? Or maybe both? Then you'll have two 'dividers'
" Useful knowledge could also be seen as discrete in a sense because ultimately it needs to have some specific and discrete application and not forever remain a nebulous range of possible actions. " The word's you know my man, sometimes when you guys 'speak up' i get this feeling that physics real 'soul' are poetry in motion :). And it's so cool to read
" .That knowledge appears to be fundamentally described using logical pathways, similar to an electronic circuit that would compute that equivalent function " Now Sir, that is a bold statement, the soul reduced to the bit :)
" These computations could be seen to move through a lattice that's an array of identical nodes with the only significant feature being how the signals are routed through this network and that gives rise to the idea that all scientific/physical knowledge should be representable in terms of geometry with information flowing through a light speed space, though not necessarily 3 dimensional but it's not difficult to demonstrate why the majority of interactions in space appear as 3 dimensional - it's the least restrictive form of communication. " here i wonder what steers the computation through the lattice?And if you introduce the idea of 'higher' dimensions, what will that do to your lattice? To me it seems as you have two choices either you keep the information in three dimensions and then you have a 'simple' lattice with a bit information that are easily understood. Or you use more dimensions and this signal now may appear to us threedimensional beings as unrecognizable as it may f ex shove itself at different locations at the same 'time'. Or am i bicycling in the blue yonder again?
" A more accurate representation of a freeway might be seen as a blur of headlights (as you may have seen in some movies) merged over all times of day and with various types of asphalt and curvatures " Nice definition.So, if i understand, the detectors did see a photon each and as that is not acceptable as we sent only one the result was disregarded which is a direct result of the? I still don't get it. If we were talking of waves it would make sense to me, but here we are treating them as particles? And if you are treating them as vawefunctions even then the 'superimposing' breaks down as you observe them/it.. Hey don't expect to much here. Its well known that Swedes have very limited brain capacity although we are blessed in other regions :)
" I meant that they each detected different photons but over a range of time, not the same photon. So we threw away the information about the chronology of events when we represented it as A=1 B=1 , instead of saying A first, B second or visa versa " Woops, oh, well as i said above, i'm very blessed :)
" The reference to 1001 possible detected beam positions is a result of use being able to measure from 0 to 1000 counts at a detector (which is actually 1001 possible values, just like 0 to 1 gives us two possible locations). So we could create a graph with 1001 locations to place the sampled results for a block of 1000 photons." Ok i accept that as a logical view, why? because it is :) It comes back to possible variations of that 5.5 photon chart right?
" no thing in itself has any meaning without some relationship to something else" .Absolutely true.and so you became to investigate discrete relationships i guess? and our timesense is what makes us able to differentiate . Absolutely right :)
" So anyway, by knowing the delay (which requires a clock) between an emitter and one of the detectors, we can estimate the distance between them which gives us some reference for relative spacial locations to be determined." I'm still not sure on that one, to know the distance would only be possible after you sampled the results? and you could probably pinpoint their exact locations if you had two emitters sending to both, and then by knowing the distance between those and looking at the results from A an B contra the timing create a mapping but from one to two unknown location's in space? The only thing you could be sure of is the distance.. Or? yes yes, i know, i will get my bicycle :)
" information content is subjective and needs something to measure it (so you can see this equivalent to physical systems in that you need some physical method to measure something and something different to contrast the measurement with " Yep.
"So even if the universe was entirely randomly constructed, it would seem we'd still use those randomly selected components to construct rules of how things interact and these would seem to be able to naturally give rise to observations such as statistically accurate wave function in space. The question, to me, is how does that stable source of memory/storage/correlation (that constructs a perceive of space and time) operate " Another extremely good question :)
" space is constructed from discrete interactions, as existing in a space without discrete interactions means not being able to make discrete decisions and take discrete actions, we're limited to discrete forms of communication in science in any event so science, as a social institution based upon communication between people can only express things in terms compatible with those forms of communication . And this is about time, right? That are the discrete divider of information.Or are you thinking of discrete events as in the 'black body' experiments? Or maybe both? Then you'll have two 'dividers'
" Useful knowledge could also be seen as discrete in a sense because ultimately it needs to have some specific and discrete application and not forever remain a nebulous range of possible actions. " The word's you know my man, sometimes when you guys 'speak up' i get this feeling that physics real 'soul' are poetry in motion :). And it's so cool to read
" .That knowledge appears to be fundamentally described using logical pathways, similar to an electronic circuit that would compute that equivalent function " Now Sir, that is a bold statement, the soul reduced to the bit :)
" These computations could be seen to move through a lattice that's an array of identical nodes with the only significant feature being how the signals are routed through this network and that gives rise to the idea that all scientific/physical knowledge should be representable in terms of geometry with information flowing through a light speed space, though not necessarily 3 dimensional but it's not difficult to demonstrate why the majority of interactions in space appear as 3 dimensional - it's the least restrictive form of communication. " here i wonder what steers the computation through the lattice?And if you introduce the idea of 'higher' dimensions, what will that do to your lattice? To me it seems as you have two choices either you keep the information in three dimensions and then you have a 'simple' lattice with a bit information that are easily understood. Or you use more dimensions and this signal now may appear to us threedimensional beings as unrecognizable as it may f ex shove itself at different locations at the same 'time'. Or am i bicycling in the blue yonder again?
" A more accurate representation of a freeway might be seen as a blur of headlights (as you may have seen in some movies) merged over all times of day and with various types of asphalt and curvatures " Nice definition.So, if i understand, the detectors did see a photon each and as that is not acceptable as we sent only one the result was disregarded which is a direct result of the? I still don't get it. If we were talking of waves it would make sense to me, but here we are treating them as particles? And if you are treating them as vawefunctions even then the 'superimposing' breaks down as you observe them/it.. Hey don't expect to much here. Its well known that Swedes have very limited brain capacity although we are blessed in other regions :)
" I meant that they each detected different photons but over a range of time, not the same photon. So we threw away the information about the chronology of events when we represented it as A=1 B=1 , instead of saying A first, B second or visa versa " Woops, oh, well as i said above, i'm very blessed :)
" The reference to 1001 possible detected beam positions is a result of use being able to measure from 0 to 1000 counts at a detector (which is actually 1001 possible values, just like 0 to 1 gives us two possible locations). So we could create a graph with 1001 locations to place the sampled results for a block of 1000 photons." Ok i accept that as a logical view, why? because it is :) It comes back to possible variations of that 5.5 photon chart right?
" no thing in itself has any meaning without some relationship to something else" .Absolutely true.and so you became to investigate discrete relationships i guess? and our timesense is what makes us able to differentiate . Absolutely right :)
" So anyway, by knowing the delay (which requires a clock) between an emitter and one of the detectors, we can estimate the distance between them which gives us some reference for relative spacial locations to be determined." I'm still not sure on that one, to know the distance would only be possible after you sampled the results? and you could probably pinpoint their exact locations if you had two emitters sending to both, and then by knowing the distance between those and looking at the results from A an B contra the timing create a mapping but from one to two unknown location's in space? The only thing you could be sure of is the distance.. Or? yes yes, i know, i will get my bicycle :)
You know Steven, i never realized how much i was going to miss math until i started talking with you guys (and gal's :). When you say " then the sequence of photon detections between these 4 detectors provides 2 bits of information per photon ". And i would be sitting in a school bench, i guess i would just nod knowledgeable with a wise smile plastered to my face. Probably i would use it to impress Chic's :) too. Explain please...
First of all Regallow, if that now is your real name (I can't help myself on that one, it's so adequate to Cyberspace:) Don't you chicken out here :) When i said i had lot's of questions i didn't joke. You may work from different angels and with different views, but as far as i'm concerned life is a learning experience and how the F* will i ever learn anything if people just disappear? I have friends, oh yes, there is no way you will be able to hide, capisce`? ( someday i'll grow up too, but i hope it takes a long long time :)
" 'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). " Here you already left me with two new Q. first ' into being complete in no time ' which i find mystical as you already know :) and then " Growing to completeness ' which sounds a Little like group and phase? velocity to me. the information content moving after the first transition?
" The electron, if a wave function in orbit, might simply shift its leading edge to a new orbit path, especially if two paths (higher and lower energy) cross each other. If the electron is not a wave function but exists as a particle, such as in a plasma (my opinion here), it has rest mass that should need time to accelerate to a new vector momentum trajectory. In either case the time a photon takes to grow to completion should be represented as well in the electron's transition. The photon isn't 'accelerated' to light speed; light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy."
First you say something like this and then you say 'Goodbye and have a interesting journey, no way my man :) You are sounding almost poetic here,' light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy ' :) This you also have to explain. Look at me as your friendly inquisition. When you guys expand on your thinking i too expand mine. and that's the best kick known to Wo/man (if the Chic's get the capital letter i believe them easier to handle :). I don't see think that any of you see this as a race, I see it as a chance for me to get a good understanding on what physics contain nowadays. So for me, all of you views have a equal value and i hereby refuse anyone else using this thread as a judge. friendly questioning is different, so to speak. After all it's my room, even if i keep falling over my *** now and then (damn, Zephir didn't you promise that they was harmless :)
"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. '
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This statement should apply to particles with rest mass, not photons. It has to do with relativistic momentum, which is a vector value, rather than relativistic mass, which is a scalar value. I haven't confirmed the statement myself but it seems appropriate. "
Relativistic momentum contra relativistic mass? This is what i'm talking about StevenA GoodElf Alphanumeric Euler probably would nod at this and understand exactly what you are meaning, but for me both are new concepts (well, one at least and the combination makes me confused) ...so....No Way you can walk Regallow :) how should i think here?
I'm sorry i haven't answered directly but i'm congesting? (is that the right word) and as i said i'm blessed :) I'm slowww, satisfied? But i read and i ponder, and i think others than me get a kick out of this too. And now i will read some more of your thinking and forget to go to sleep again. But as they say in the comercials, its worth it! Well, they say something to that order, i think? ...He walks away muttering under his breath 'nitpicks' :)
" 'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). " Here you already left me with two new Q. first ' into being complete in no time ' which i find mystical as you already know :) and then " Growing to completeness ' which sounds a Little like group and phase? velocity to me. the information content moving after the first transition?
" The electron, if a wave function in orbit, might simply shift its leading edge to a new orbit path, especially if two paths (higher and lower energy) cross each other. If the electron is not a wave function but exists as a particle, such as in a plasma (my opinion here), it has rest mass that should need time to accelerate to a new vector momentum trajectory. In either case the time a photon takes to grow to completion should be represented as well in the electron's transition. The photon isn't 'accelerated' to light speed; light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy."
First you say something like this and then you say 'Goodbye and have a interesting journey, no way my man :) You are sounding almost poetic here,' light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy ' :) This you also have to explain. Look at me as your friendly inquisition. When you guys expand on your thinking i too expand mine. and that's the best kick known to Wo/man (if the Chic's get the capital letter i believe them easier to handle :). I don't see think that any of you see this as a race, I see it as a chance for me to get a good understanding on what physics contain nowadays. So for me, all of you views have a equal value and i hereby refuse anyone else using this thread as a judge. friendly questioning is different, so to speak. After all it's my room, even if i keep falling over my *** now and then (damn, Zephir didn't you promise that they was harmless :)
"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. '
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This statement should apply to particles with rest mass, not photons. It has to do with relativistic momentum, which is a vector value, rather than relativistic mass, which is a scalar value. I haven't confirmed the statement myself but it seems appropriate. "
Relativistic momentum contra relativistic mass? This is what i'm talking about StevenA GoodElf Alphanumeric Euler probably would nod at this and understand exactly what you are meaning, but for me both are new concepts (well, one at least and the combination makes me confused) ...so....No Way you can walk Regallow :) how should i think here?
I'm sorry i haven't answered directly but i'm congesting? (is that the right word) and as i said i'm blessed :) I'm slowww, satisfied? But i read and i ponder, and i think others than me get a kick out of this too. And now i will read some more of your thinking and forget to go to sleep again. But as they say in the comercials, its worth it! Well, they say something to that order, i think? ...He walks away muttering under his breath 'nitpicks' :)
GoodElf That is a very cool experiment.
Are you speaking of a holographic emulsion? when you say " .What is not said is replace this sensor with a "deep" sensitive photo-emulsion on a rigid stand that can register individual photons and what we see is an "in-depth" record of this photon absorption that actually records some information about phase... not all information but some!! "
I presume that you do as you write " It just so happens that the screen information can be recorded anywhere and not just at the screen since the Hologram is a kind of "remote sensor". " .How do you create this kind of emulsion? And it's sensitive enough to catch one photon? And how do you separate the photon information from possible interference by the emulsion as the photon are recorded? Or it doesn't interfere? And yes i totally agree with your statement that " It is no coincidence that we build sensors that duplicate in some way our own optical sensors... eyes. " .I mean, why shouldn't we. Everything we create, we create around our needs, right? Ok you explained the emulsion, i think :) but the interference, can you be assured of that?
" there is no partial absorption of that photon and behind that grain there is no "overshoot" of the photon... the absorption of one photon occurs at one place (all or nothing)... not necessarily on the surface of the emulsion but on an optimum place within the emulsion (because the emulsion is otherwise transparent before being developed). Very careful examination of this emulsion after development will show an almost "perfect" arrangement of light and dark bands of exposure inside the emulsion.... not randomly as you may expect but with great precision. These represent "standing waves"... exposure is a maximum at "antinodes" and a minimum at the nodes. "
So the light goes out immediately? What are those 'standing waves'? do you mean that you have two views of the same 'thing'?? Now what are this " These photons are interfering with themselves " Extremely cool my man. how can that be possible, i thought of photons as either a particle or a wave ( or both :) but i didn't expect it to interfere with itself. This is very strange, you will have to expand on that. How did you reach that conclusion.
For me it falls down to the question above and the questions on how sure you are on it not getting any 'strange' interference by entering the emulsion, and what you see those standing waves as?
Any way one of the coolest experiment's Ive heard of.
Are you speaking of a holographic emulsion? when you say " .What is not said is replace this sensor with a "deep" sensitive photo-emulsion on a rigid stand that can register individual photons and what we see is an "in-depth" record of this photon absorption that actually records some information about phase... not all information but some!! "
I presume that you do as you write " It just so happens that the screen information can be recorded anywhere and not just at the screen since the Hologram is a kind of "remote sensor". " .How do you create this kind of emulsion? And it's sensitive enough to catch one photon? And how do you separate the photon information from possible interference by the emulsion as the photon are recorded? Or it doesn't interfere? And yes i totally agree with your statement that " It is no coincidence that we build sensors that duplicate in some way our own optical sensors... eyes. " .I mean, why shouldn't we. Everything we create, we create around our needs, right? Ok you explained the emulsion, i think :) but the interference, can you be assured of that?
" there is no partial absorption of that photon and behind that grain there is no "overshoot" of the photon... the absorption of one photon occurs at one place (all or nothing)... not necessarily on the surface of the emulsion but on an optimum place within the emulsion (because the emulsion is otherwise transparent before being developed). Very careful examination of this emulsion after development will show an almost "perfect" arrangement of light and dark bands of exposure inside the emulsion.... not randomly as you may expect but with great precision. These represent "standing waves"... exposure is a maximum at "antinodes" and a minimum at the nodes. "
So the light goes out immediately? What are those 'standing waves'? do you mean that you have two views of the same 'thing'?? Now what are this " These photons are interfering with themselves " Extremely cool my man. how can that be possible, i thought of photons as either a particle or a wave ( or both :) but i didn't expect it to interfere with itself. This is very strange, you will have to expand on that. How did you reach that conclusion.
For me it falls down to the question above and the questions on how sure you are on it not getting any 'strange' interference by entering the emulsion, and what you see those standing waves as?
Any way one of the coolest experiment's Ive heard of.
Regallow i believe i understand what you mean by ' light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy ' if slowed down it would loose its information? And there is that 'no time' thing you speak of, it fits so well with GoodElfs experiment where the photon transits into the emulsion immediately. I like how you think man, But what about the 'Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms' experiment? Or should i get that damned bicycle again? Yep i definitly need a bicycle, you didn't mean that at all. Awwh :)
I'm happy to count you as friends on this forum people, you're cool.
And i should definitley go to sleep now, i know it's overdue when i get all emotional :)
I'm happy to count you as friends on this forum people, you're cool.
And i should definitley go to sleep now, i know it's overdue when i get all emotional :)
OK, yor_on, you're on. I'll stick around. Guess I have to since you keep finding so many questions to ask. But tonight it's late and I have a long day tomorrow. I'll be back.
QUOTE (yor on+)
" .That knowledge appears to be fundamentally described using logical pathways, similar to an electronic circuit that would compute that equivalent function " Now Sir, that is a bold statement, the soul reduced to the bit :)
Ah, thanks for catching this. I was trying to be careful and slipped :)
Yes, there's something beyond the discrete and physical. The realm of conscious experience doesn't appear to be something that can be broken down into bits, but I don't consider that to be knowledge though.
For example, we could possibly construct some massive formula or algorithm that could predict with close to 100% accuracy how some individual would describe a particular scent and this algorith or formula could be fundamenally broken down in to a large array of identical computing elements, but with the information contained in how these elements were "wired" together, or how the pathways were constructed that "routed" the data through it.
So in this sense, the knowledge of a scent and how it would be described in language could be mimicked using something akin to pure binary/boolean/digital logic, but there is what appears to be the originating source of all of this - conscious experience (or it might be visa versa or somehow both at once) - and you can't break down the particular qualities of those experiences (as far as I can tell) into even a million binary yes/no values, and similarly not even a potentially infinite number of A-Z multiple choice values. Language can't convey the qualities of conscious experience, and I see this similar to something like an irrational number being unrepresentable as a fraction or being unable to represent pi precisely as a decimal - I think physically there's something like a dimension shared in one that's not present in the other and so there's no physical way to communicate information in one realm in to the other.
Something interesting along these lines to consider as well, is that by changing the dimensionality of an interaction you're either placing greater or fewer restrictions on the forms of interactions that can occur. Basically by requiring an interaction to occur with properties shared in 4 dimension, you're restricting the number of possible interactions by confining them in an additional dimension, but you're giving them new properties as well. On the other hand, by lower interactions to two dimensions, you're now allowing a potentially infinite number of attribute to be present for the third dimension but you're only left with two dimensions specified and this restrains it to being something like an instantaineous moment (if you remove the extended time dimension) or you're making it a one dimension experience over time (not certain how that would physically appear but you wouldn't see it using two dimensional senses like sight or touch etc., even smell, taste and hearing have two dimensional aspects ... ok, ignore me, I'm just rambling about random stuff :D).
Ah, thanks for catching this. I was trying to be careful and slipped :)
Yes, there's something beyond the discrete and physical. The realm of conscious experience doesn't appear to be something that can be broken down into bits, but I don't consider that to be knowledge though.
For example, we could possibly construct some massive formula or algorithm that could predict with close to 100% accuracy how some individual would describe a particular scent and this algorith or formula could be fundamenally broken down in to a large array of identical computing elements, but with the information contained in how these elements were "wired" together, or how the pathways were constructed that "routed" the data through it.
So in this sense, the knowledge of a scent and how it would be described in language could be mimicked using something akin to pure binary/boolean/digital logic, but there is what appears to be the originating source of all of this - conscious experience (or it might be visa versa or somehow both at once) - and you can't break down the particular qualities of those experiences (as far as I can tell) into even a million binary yes/no values, and similarly not even a potentially infinite number of A-Z multiple choice values. Language can't convey the qualities of conscious experience, and I see this similar to something like an irrational number being unrepresentable as a fraction or being unable to represent pi precisely as a decimal - I think physically there's something like a dimension shared in one that's not present in the other and so there's no physical way to communicate information in one realm in to the other.
Something interesting along these lines to consider as well, is that by changing the dimensionality of an interaction you're either placing greater or fewer restrictions on the forms of interactions that can occur. Basically by requiring an interaction to occur with properties shared in 4 dimension, you're restricting the number of possible interactions by confining them in an additional dimension, but you're giving them new properties as well. On the other hand, by lower interactions to two dimensions, you're now allowing a potentially infinite number of attribute to be present for the third dimension but you're only left with two dimensions specified and this restrains it to being something like an instantaineous moment (if you remove the extended time dimension) or you're making it a one dimension experience over time (not certain how that would physically appear but you wouldn't see it using two dimensional senses like sight or touch etc., even smell, taste and hearing have two dimensional aspects ... ok, ignore me, I'm just rambling about random stuff :D).
QUOTE (yor on+)
" These computations could be seen to move through a lattice that's an array of identical nodes with the only significant feature being how the signals are routed through this network and that gives rise to the idea that all scientific/physical knowledge should be representable in terms of geometry with information flowing through a light speed space, though not necessarily 3 dimensional but it's not difficult to demonstrate why the majority of interactions in space appear as 3 dimensional - it's the least restrictive form of communication. " here i wonder what steers the computation through the lattice?And if you introduce the idea of 'higher' dimensions, what will that do to your lattice? To me it seems as you have two choices either you keep the information in three dimensions and then you have a 'simple' lattice with a bit information that are easily understood. Or you use more dimensions and this signal now may appear to us threedimensional beings as unrecognizable as it may f ex shove itself at different locations at the same 'time'. Or am i bicycling in the blue yonder again?
No, I think you're thinking along similar lines as me.
To give you an idea of how all discrete/predictable/logical form of knowledge could be computed by a single computation element, in electronics, you could theoretically build any type of computer using just 3 types of elements - 1) storage/memory, of which the simplest is something to store a single binary 0 or 1 state 2) something to route the data, in order to deliver it to the necessary or "correct" computational component and 3) a "non-linear" computational element.
There are many ways of doing this. A classical one is a Turing Machine but I prefer to break it down in to the smallest number of electronic components that are capable of emulating any of other circuit (given enough time and resources).
You can use either a 2 input "NAND" or "NOR" gate as the computation element (the NAND gate can be seen mathematically to compute f(a,b)=1-a*b, where a and b are the probabilities of each of the 2 inputs being a 1). For routing, we just use wires and for storage we can just use a digital latch (that generally uses an external clock but we could include both routing and storage by using delay lines instead ... and that happens to be much like space itself) In mathematics we could approximate a function using chains of addition and multiplication (though we can swap in scaling an squaring for multiplcation).
The physical equivalents of these are 1) Space - both storage and routing and 2) mass, which creates non-linear interactions between photons and so allows photons to interact with each other at a point.
Anyway, if we imagined a giant array of elements that could be either a storage element that just propogated some value to neighboring areas or computing elements that combined those values and output new results, then we could interprete this as a space with masses strewn about that performed computations and we could attempt to interprete the information flowing past some point and attempt to "see" the processess occuring elsewhere. An interesting point here is that none of the distant processess would be necessarily experienced directly, in terms of the actual data flowing past some distant point, but instead via. indirect communication ... a "node" would only "experience" things in terms of its own local sources of data without a direct way of knowing the "experiences" of other "nodes" (I put things in quotes because there are a ton of analogies that could be made here including things like "souls" in a "matrix" or "observers" in a "universe" etc.) I think that's rather interesting because it leaves open a question of whether or not the qualities of conscious experiences varies from person to person (it seems it must because of things like dyslexia or being color blind etc. - at a minimum, not everyone experiences conscious sensations in the same manner and most likely there's very little in common between people or people and ants etc.)
Now back on track a bit more. You asked how routing can occur and actually you can trade off routing for computation. If a computation had multiple inputs, then a computation could select which of those inputs to process. In this case the routing could be made rather uniform and routing occur as a byproduct within computations (that still leaves open the question of how a computational element would select which inputs to process, though that could be part of the data itself). For example, an atomic orbital that's already in a more energetic state can't absorb another photon in the same manner as the previous one (this could end up acting as memory and space because it has a manner to effectively count photons ... hmmmm ... interesting thought).
Routing and data can be unified if we use the idea of a constant velocity space because space itself stores information during the transition between two (computational) elements.
Now we could represent any cyclic pathway in such a computational space as a regular polygon - like a square or triangle etc. In the case of a NAND gate, there's an inversion in polarity at each stage (a necessary component in making this gate capable of performing universal computation without needed additional inverters), and for a pathway that cycled 4 units (a square), a signal would be inverted 180 degs at each node and come back reinforcing itself (appear to remain stationary in this space), so you could see the corners as alternating phase +-+- (and then the last corner of the square would return to a + back at the originating node of the square). For a triangle, each pass would invert the signal 3 times and so a net odd number of inversions would occur and such a signal would appear to have 2 phases alternating in space. If you had two of these cycles, let's say one with 6 (a pentagon) and another with 4 nodes (a square) and you could only observe each from a single point within each loop, then you'd see them both as stationary (they share a common denominator of 2 and are both, even and reinforcing lengths), but if we had 2 loops of say lengths 3 and 5, a "beat" frequency would occur between them and if we used one as a reference marker for spacial location it would make the other appear to rotate or orbit relative to it (and in discrete steps - quantum measurements of angles gives such discrete results for angles - a tiny particle of dust doesn't spin uniformly but makes jumps between angles and only rotates smoothly on average), for very large lengths you could interprete the two as having a constant linear motion relative to the other and see "inertia" result (though the motion would ultimately be periodic and cyclic). Depending upon the relative ratios of lengths, an observer could subjectively interprete various pieces of information cycling through this as being spacial connected or in linear motion with other pieces of information (the question still remains as to exactly how this pattern matching occurs ... it's easy to see that for a sequence like ABABABAB, we can find simple rules that could predict A as being the next most likely symbol but it's difficult to find an easily analyzable general purpose function though I believe something like the "dictionary compression" scheme used for data compression (which also happens to be associated with intelligence, IMO) could be a very simple and fundamental way that nature associates points in space - two things are either indentical and seen as being at the exact same point in space and time or they aren't - that matches the ideas of a light speed space as well in that we can't truly see what's "out there" except to the extent it reaches "here" ... we detect for things being precisely equal to some point in space, which is generally called the "observer" or referred to as "local" in relativity, or something isn't at that particular point and nothing immediately is known about it).
I know it's pretty tough "wrapping ones mind around" these ideas, but it's also quite an interesting subject as well ... it's definitely enjoyable when some of the pieces start clicking together :D.
No, I think you're thinking along similar lines as me.
To give you an idea of how all discrete/predictable/logical form of knowledge could be computed by a single computation element, in electronics, you could theoretically build any type of computer using just 3 types of elements - 1) storage/memory, of which the simplest is something to store a single binary 0 or 1 state 2) something to route the data, in order to deliver it to the necessary or "correct" computational component and 3) a "non-linear" computational element.
There are many ways of doing this. A classical one is a Turing Machine but I prefer to break it down in to the smallest number of electronic components that are capable of emulating any of other circuit (given enough time and resources).
You can use either a 2 input "NAND" or "NOR" gate as the computation element (the NAND gate can be seen mathematically to compute f(a,b)=1-a*b, where a and b are the probabilities of each of the 2 inputs being a 1). For routing, we just use wires and for storage we can just use a digital latch (that generally uses an external clock but we could include both routing and storage by using delay lines instead ... and that happens to be much like space itself) In mathematics we could approximate a function using chains of addition and multiplication (though we can swap in scaling an squaring for multiplcation).
The physical equivalents of these are 1) Space - both storage and routing and 2) mass, which creates non-linear interactions between photons and so allows photons to interact with each other at a point.
Anyway, if we imagined a giant array of elements that could be either a storage element that just propogated some value to neighboring areas or computing elements that combined those values and output new results, then we could interprete this as a space with masses strewn about that performed computations and we could attempt to interprete the information flowing past some point and attempt to "see" the processess occuring elsewhere. An interesting point here is that none of the distant processess would be necessarily experienced directly, in terms of the actual data flowing past some distant point, but instead via. indirect communication ... a "node" would only "experience" things in terms of its own local sources of data without a direct way of knowing the "experiences" of other "nodes" (I put things in quotes because there are a ton of analogies that could be made here including things like "souls" in a "matrix" or "observers" in a "universe" etc.) I think that's rather interesting because it leaves open a question of whether or not the qualities of conscious experiences varies from person to person (it seems it must because of things like dyslexia or being color blind etc. - at a minimum, not everyone experiences conscious sensations in the same manner and most likely there's very little in common between people or people and ants etc.)
Now back on track a bit more. You asked how routing can occur and actually you can trade off routing for computation. If a computation had multiple inputs, then a computation could select which of those inputs to process. In this case the routing could be made rather uniform and routing occur as a byproduct within computations (that still leaves open the question of how a computational element would select which inputs to process, though that could be part of the data itself). For example, an atomic orbital that's already in a more energetic state can't absorb another photon in the same manner as the previous one (this could end up acting as memory and space because it has a manner to effectively count photons ... hmmmm ... interesting thought).
Routing and data can be unified if we use the idea of a constant velocity space because space itself stores information during the transition between two (computational) elements.
Now we could represent any cyclic pathway in such a computational space as a regular polygon - like a square or triangle etc. In the case of a NAND gate, there's an inversion in polarity at each stage (a necessary component in making this gate capable of performing universal computation without needed additional inverters), and for a pathway that cycled 4 units (a square), a signal would be inverted 180 degs at each node and come back reinforcing itself (appear to remain stationary in this space), so you could see the corners as alternating phase +-+- (and then the last corner of the square would return to a + back at the originating node of the square). For a triangle, each pass would invert the signal 3 times and so a net odd number of inversions would occur and such a signal would appear to have 2 phases alternating in space. If you had two of these cycles, let's say one with 6 (a pentagon) and another with 4 nodes (a square) and you could only observe each from a single point within each loop, then you'd see them both as stationary (they share a common denominator of 2 and are both, even and reinforcing lengths), but if we had 2 loops of say lengths 3 and 5, a "beat" frequency would occur between them and if we used one as a reference marker for spacial location it would make the other appear to rotate or orbit relative to it (and in discrete steps - quantum measurements of angles gives such discrete results for angles - a tiny particle of dust doesn't spin uniformly but makes jumps between angles and only rotates smoothly on average), for very large lengths you could interprete the two as having a constant linear motion relative to the other and see "inertia" result (though the motion would ultimately be periodic and cyclic). Depending upon the relative ratios of lengths, an observer could subjectively interprete various pieces of information cycling through this as being spacial connected or in linear motion with other pieces of information (the question still remains as to exactly how this pattern matching occurs ... it's easy to see that for a sequence like ABABABAB, we can find simple rules that could predict A as being the next most likely symbol but it's difficult to find an easily analyzable general purpose function though I believe something like the "dictionary compression" scheme used for data compression (which also happens to be associated with intelligence, IMO) could be a very simple and fundamental way that nature associates points in space - two things are either indentical and seen as being at the exact same point in space and time or they aren't - that matches the ideas of a light speed space as well in that we can't truly see what's "out there" except to the extent it reaches "here" ... we detect for things being precisely equal to some point in space, which is generally called the "observer" or referred to as "local" in relativity, or something isn't at that particular point and nothing immediately is known about it).
I know it's pretty tough "wrapping ones mind around" these ideas, but it's also quite an interesting subject as well ... it's definitely enjoyable when some of the pieces start clicking together :D.
QUOTE (yor on+)
" A more accurate representation of a freeway might be seen as a blur of headlights (as you may have seen in some movies) merged over all times of day and with various types of asphalt and curvatures " Nice definition.So, if i understand, the detectors did see a photon each and as that is not acceptable as we sent only one the result was disregarded which is a direct result of the? I still don't get it. If we were talking of waves it would make sense to me, but here we are treating them as particles? And if you are treating them as vawefunctions even then the 'superimposing' breaks down as you observe them/it.. Hey don't expect to much here. Its well known that Swedes have very limited brain capacity although we are blessed in other regions :)
I'm part Swedish as well (though mostly German and French).
I was actually thinking of 2 photon detections occuring, not one. So two photons were present and one detector detected, and the other detector detected the other. The detections could even be far apart in time.
The main point was just that by saying each detected one photon, we're losing information because we're throwing away information regarding the time or chronology in which the two were detected.
Here, let's break this down in to all 4 possible combinations of detections, in chronological order for the two photons. If the A detector detects both of them then that can be written AA, if the A detector detects the first one and then the B detector detects the second one, we could write that as AB ... etc. So the 4 possibilities are:
AA
AB
BA
BB
Recognize both photon detections were entirely random and so for the first photon, either A or B could have detected it and that's one binary value of information (A or B) and the same is true for the second photon. So each photon provides a single binary value of raw "information".
We can do the mathematics on the groups as well and get the same results by assigning probabilities of 1/4th to each of the 4 possible events (but I already showed that above, so I'll skip it).
Now if you instead recorded these results in a different format and just handed someone else a paper showing them the number of photon counts each detector had, then you've ended up throwing information if both the A and B detectors detected a photon because you aren't telling them which order the detectors picked up the photons. If both detections occured on the A side, then you're giving them the full information (again, ignoring something like a clock in the picture) and the same if B detected both, so half the 4 combinations are still entirely described by listing the counts, but if the result was either AB or BA, you'd just be telling them that A detected 1 photon and so did B, but leaving out the order, so they'd only know that you got the 50/50 result of being in the AB/BA group and not either AA or BB. That 50/50 probability implies only a single bit of information (and the bit "lost" in the translation was which order they occured).
A way to see how this can cause problems is to imagine something like dyslexia. If someone reversed right and left consistantly, that's not a problem. They'd perceive things on their left as being on their right instead, but they subjective reach to their right (which would be physically on their left) and still be able to interact in a perfectly normal manner (as viewed by everyone else) with the universe (someone could reverse up and down or colors or even swap touch for sight etc. it doesn't matter as long as the round trip results look the same ... something like being color blind though isn't the same because a specific sense is actually missing and so that lack becomes detectable under the right circumstances)
Now if we take the example with the A and B photon detectors and apply it to human perceptions, if I saw at one moment an apple on the ground and at another moment that same apple in a tree, I might assume it moved from the ground to the tree, but we can feel confident that's the reverse of the actual chronological order - it went from the tree to the ground, but if someone didn't know which came first, they would just know the apple moved from one place to the other but wouldn't know which direction it went or where it was currently. (For example if we were sweeping the beam and it passed by A and then B, without specifying the ordering, then we'd only know the beam was swept by the detectors but not the direction of the sweep).
I'm part Swedish as well (though mostly German and French).
I was actually thinking of 2 photon detections occuring, not one. So two photons were present and one detector detected, and the other detector detected the other. The detections could even be far apart in time.
The main point was just that by saying each detected one photon, we're losing information because we're throwing away information regarding the time or chronology in which the two were detected.
Here, let's break this down in to all 4 possible combinations of detections, in chronological order for the two photons. If the A detector detects both of them then that can be written AA, if the A detector detects the first one and then the B detector detects the second one, we could write that as AB ... etc. So the 4 possibilities are:
AA
AB
BA
BB
Recognize both photon detections were entirely random and so for the first photon, either A or B could have detected it and that's one binary value of information (A or B) and the same is true for the second photon. So each photon provides a single binary value of raw "information".
We can do the mathematics on the groups as well and get the same results by assigning probabilities of 1/4th to each of the 4 possible events (but I already showed that above, so I'll skip it).
Now if you instead recorded these results in a different format and just handed someone else a paper showing them the number of photon counts each detector had, then you've ended up throwing information if both the A and B detectors detected a photon because you aren't telling them which order the detectors picked up the photons. If both detections occured on the A side, then you're giving them the full information (again, ignoring something like a clock in the picture) and the same if B detected both, so half the 4 combinations are still entirely described by listing the counts, but if the result was either AB or BA, you'd just be telling them that A detected 1 photon and so did B, but leaving out the order, so they'd only know that you got the 50/50 result of being in the AB/BA group and not either AA or BB. That 50/50 probability implies only a single bit of information (and the bit "lost" in the translation was which order they occured).
A way to see how this can cause problems is to imagine something like dyslexia. If someone reversed right and left consistantly, that's not a problem. They'd perceive things on their left as being on their right instead, but they subjective reach to their right (which would be physically on their left) and still be able to interact in a perfectly normal manner (as viewed by everyone else) with the universe (someone could reverse up and down or colors or even swap touch for sight etc. it doesn't matter as long as the round trip results look the same ... something like being color blind though isn't the same because a specific sense is actually missing and so that lack becomes detectable under the right circumstances)
Now if we take the example with the A and B photon detectors and apply it to human perceptions, if I saw at one moment an apple on the ground and at another moment that same apple in a tree, I might assume it moved from the ground to the tree, but we can feel confident that's the reverse of the actual chronological order - it went from the tree to the ground, but if someone didn't know which came first, they would just know the apple moved from one place to the other but wouldn't know which direction it went or where it was currently. (For example if we were sweeping the beam and it passed by A and then B, without specifying the ordering, then we'd only know the beam was swept by the detectors but not the direction of the sweep).
QUOTE (yor on+)
" I meant that they each detected different photons but over a range of time, not the same photon. So we threw away the information about the chronology of events when we represented it as A=1 B=1 , instead of saying A first, B second or visa versa " Woops, oh, well as i said above, i'm very blessed :)
LOL
LOL
QUOTE (yor on+)
" The reference to 1001 possible detected beam positions is a result of use being able to measure from 0 to 1000 counts at a detector (which is actually 1001 possible values, just like 0 to 1 gives us two possible locations). So we could create a graph with 1001 locations to place the sampled results for a block of 1000 photons." Ok i accept that as a logical view, why? because it is :) It comes back to possible variations of that 5.5 photon chart right?
Actually the 5.5 was referring to bits worth of information contained in the "noise" though would be sort of superimposed upon those 1001 position ... I admit it gets a bit confusing. If you get the idea that for every block of 1000 photon detections between the A and B detectors, we could plot this on a graph as 0 to 1000 for each detector, that's good enough (though behind this recognize that we tossed out a huge amount of information by not listing the ordering in which they occured ... for example if we had 500 in A and 500 in B, knowing that the detections were ordered as ABABABABA... or something more random like BBBAABAAABAABBABBBA... would make a huge difference, because if we could predict the next photon as in the ABABAB... example, then we could see beyond what are believe to be the current limits in physics and delve into the details of quantum behavior)
Actually the 5.5 was referring to bits worth of information contained in the "noise" though would be sort of superimposed upon those 1001 position ... I admit it gets a bit confusing. If you get the idea that for every block of 1000 photon detections between the A and B detectors, we could plot this on a graph as 0 to 1000 for each detector, that's good enough (though behind this recognize that we tossed out a huge amount of information by not listing the ordering in which they occured ... for example if we had 500 in A and 500 in B, knowing that the detections were ordered as ABABABABA... or something more random like BBBAABAAABAABBABBBA... would make a huge difference, because if we could predict the next photon as in the ABABAB... example, then we could see beyond what are believe to be the current limits in physics and delve into the details of quantum behavior)
QUOTE (yor on+)
" no thing in itself has any meaning without some relationship to something else" .Absolutely true.and so you became to investigate discrete relationships i guess? and our timesense is what makes us able to differentiate . Absolutely right :)
Yes, I believe it's only the discretes that are "knowable" in a sense. Basically, anything that we can learn about and find to be predictive or useful has some feature that's unchanging and "stationary" or constant.
For example, if we only knew that tomorrow had a 60% chance of being sunny and a 40% of being cloudy then we wouldn't really know whether or not it would be sunny or rainy tomorrow but we would know the specific values of 60% sunny and 40% rainy. So the random components of something aren't "knowable" - they don't provide any handles to predict anything with or be able to learn from.
Part of this could be seen as related to the fact that we need figurative "rulers" or metrics to measure or gain a reference for something. Those metrics need to be rigidly defined, because to the extent they aren't, neither is knowledge acquired using them. Then because we've measured it in terms of those characteristic, we can only compare it to other things that are in compatible units (for example, day and night are related in various ways by time, amounts of sunlight etc. but if day was defined by a distance and night defined by a color, it would be very difficult to find ways the two were related or manners of describing one in terms of the other ... they need to have attributes that can be connected in order that a structure to the relationship between them can be constructed and verified as being consistantly true and that depends upon how we measure and define the attributes of each).
Are you suggesting that photons only exist coupled to electrons?
Yes.
Yes, I believe it's only the discretes that are "knowable" in a sense. Basically, anything that we can learn about and find to be predictive or useful has some feature that's unchanging and "stationary" or constant.
For example, if we only knew that tomorrow had a 60% chance of being sunny and a 40% of being cloudy then we wouldn't really know whether or not it would be sunny or rainy tomorrow but we would know the specific values of 60% sunny and 40% rainy. So the random components of something aren't "knowable" - they don't provide any handles to predict anything with or be able to learn from.
Part of this could be seen as related to the fact that we need figurative "rulers" or metrics to measure or gain a reference for something. Those metrics need to be rigidly defined, because to the extent they aren't, neither is knowledge acquired using them. Then because we've measured it in terms of those characteristic, we can only compare it to other things that are in compatible units (for example, day and night are related in various ways by time, amounts of sunlight etc. but if day was defined by a distance and night defined by a color, it would be very difficult to find ways the two were related or manners of describing one in terms of the other ... they need to have attributes that can be connected in order that a structure to the relationship between them can be constructed and verified as being consistantly true and that depends upon how we measure and define the attributes of each).
QUOTE (yor on+)
" So anyway, by knowing the delay (which requires a clock) between an emitter and one of the detectors, we can estimate the distance between them which gives us some reference for relative spacial locations to be determined." I'm still not sure on that one, to know the distance would only be possible after you sampled the results? and you could probably pinpoint their exact locations if you had two emitters sending to both, and then by knowing the distance between those and looking at the results from A an B contra the timing create a mapping but from one to two unknown location's in space? The only thing you could be sure of is the distance.. Or? yes yes, i know, i will get my bicycle :)
Yes, you're right, you need additional information outside the two detectors in order to determine the distances between the three components. At a minimum, it would seem a clock would be necessary in order to time delays between the emitter and each detector and you'd still need a way to determine the distance between the detectors if you wanted to know all the distances between the points. So, yes, what's commonly assumed to be intuitive and obvious "Look, the detector is sitting 'there'" :D ends up being rather complex to nail down physically and at every point there are things that often go overlooked, and I believe this is true even for people we'd normally expect to be very well educated and recognize these issues.
Yes, you're right, you need additional information outside the two detectors in order to determine the distances between the three components. At a minimum, it would seem a clock would be necessary in order to time delays between the emitter and each detector and you'd still need a way to determine the distance between the detectors if you wanted to know all the distances between the points. So, yes, what's commonly assumed to be intuitive and obvious "Look, the detector is sitting 'there'" :D ends up being rather complex to nail down physically and at every point there are things that often go overlooked, and I believe this is true even for people we'd normally expect to be very well educated and recognize these issues.
Hello,
Not gonna crank it up with ring singularities/hypertoroidal stuff, however consider this gibberish:
Imagine if photons reside as an intergrated harmonic on the wave-state surface of an electron; this wave state manifesting as a spherical explosion @ c with regards to its particulate origin.
Now picture this expansion throughout the universe. When this wavefront encounters a harmonically receptive wavicle of less energy it donates this energy into its wave matrix, this mechanism being a natural equilibrating event. I feel gravity works in a much similar way in which energy exchange between wavicles is induced from wave-state to wave-state.
The doughnut has spoken.
Not gonna crank it up with ring singularities/hypertoroidal stuff, however consider this gibberish:
Imagine if photons reside as an intergrated harmonic on the wave-state surface of an electron; this wave state manifesting as a spherical explosion @ c with regards to its particulate origin.
Now picture this expansion throughout the universe. When this wavefront encounters a harmonically receptive wavicle of less energy it donates this energy into its wave matrix, this mechanism being a natural equilibrating event. I feel gravity works in a much similar way in which energy exchange between wavicles is induced from wave-state to wave-state.
The doughnut has spoken.
GoodElf, I've got to get to bed soon and was busy replying to yor_on, but regarding that emulsion, isn't the phase difference detected by the emulsion just due to self interference altering the probability of detection and not actually recording phase information along with single photon detections?
For a CMOS sensor, the detection over the entire surface is summed in to a single result but for the emulsion you have a much finer resolution that's sensitive on a smaller scale, though I'd assume it could still be equivalent to a discrete (not truly binary though ... I should avoid trying to equate photons with solely a binary value as the information content can be higher even if the detection is discrete), though if you detected many photons with the emulsion a finer scale of resolution would result versus the CMOS sensor because the results of detections in an area aren't "summed" together.
The positional information of a photon does convey additional information and you could correlate this with a phase component because the distance or delay to one area of the material would be different from another but that alone wouldn't seem to require the phase information is actually recorded along with individual photon detections but that instead that the fine scale interference pattern, below the resolution of a CMOS sensor, would be recorded and detectable. If this occurs at distances significantly below the wavelength of the photon then that would definitely be interesting but it still doesn't appear to require an individual photon detection convey anything other than a single discrete value, identical to other detected photons. The higher information content would just be due to having a finer resolution of detection.
For a CMOS sensor, the detection over the entire surface is summed in to a single result but for the emulsion you have a much finer resolution that's sensitive on a smaller scale, though I'd assume it could still be equivalent to a discrete (not truly binary though ... I should avoid trying to equate photons with solely a binary value as the information content can be higher even if the detection is discrete), though if you detected many photons with the emulsion a finer scale of resolution would result versus the CMOS sensor because the results of detections in an area aren't "summed" together.
The positional information of a photon does convey additional information and you could correlate this with a phase component because the distance or delay to one area of the material would be different from another but that alone wouldn't seem to require the phase information is actually recorded along with individual photon detections but that instead that the fine scale interference pattern, below the resolution of a CMOS sensor, would be recorded and detectable. If this occurs at distances significantly below the wavelength of the photon then that would definitely be interesting but it still doesn't appear to require an individual photon detection convey anything other than a single discrete value, identical to other detected photons. The higher information content would just be due to having a finer resolution of detection.
fivedoughnut you're a hard one to crack :)
Are you suggesting that photons only exist coupled to electrons?
how far away from each other? We have a lot of photons flying all the time right, Are you suggesting we have as many electrons ? Or maybe you see space as consisting off waves, a fluctuating field with rhythmic oscillations and your wave tops would represent particles and matter?
That is a very complicated view as the wavetops somehow would have to 'know' how to 'coagulate' at the right places in all time states, f ex to constantly rebuild us humans when moving. But why would you then need the photon to be bound to a electron? i'm not sure to what you refer as being a 'wavicle'.
As far as i understand you are using the word harmonics as i might describe 'fields' interacting with each other? You are not pulling my leg here are you? When you use so many new words you imply that there is greater difference's between f ex my 'field's' and your 'harmonics' than it seems at a first glance, no? Probably i got it all wrong (again :)?
ps: Steven i won't read yours before i slept :) well i read it, but as always i need to mull it over. So good night and etc etc :)
Are you suggesting that photons only exist coupled to electrons?
how far away from each other? We have a lot of photons flying all the time right, Are you suggesting we have as many electrons ? Or maybe you see space as consisting off waves, a fluctuating field with rhythmic oscillations and your wave tops would represent particles and matter?
That is a very complicated view as the wavetops somehow would have to 'know' how to 'coagulate' at the right places in all time states, f ex to constantly rebuild us humans when moving. But why would you then need the photon to be bound to a electron? i'm not sure to what you refer as being a 'wavicle'.
As far as i understand you are using the word harmonics as i might describe 'fields' interacting with each other? You are not pulling my leg here are you? When you use so many new words you imply that there is greater difference's between f ex my 'field's' and your 'harmonics' than it seems at a first glance, no? Probably i got it all wrong (again :)?
ps: Steven i won't read yours before i slept :) well i read it, but as always i need to mull it over. So good night and etc etc :)
Are you suggesting that photons only exist coupled to electrons?
Yes.
Hi StevenA,
QUOTE (StevenA+)
GoodElf, I've got to get to bed soon and was busy replying to yor_on, but regarding that emulsion, isn't the phase difference detected by the emulsion just due to self interference altering the probability of detection and not actually recording phase information along with single photon detections?
For a CMOS sensor, the detection over the entire surface is summed in to a single result but for the emulsion you have a much finer resolution that's sensitive on a smaller scale, though I'd assume it could still be equivalent to a discrete (not truly binary though ... I should avoid trying to equate photons with solely a binary value as the information content can be higher even if the detection is discrete), though if you detected many photons with the emulsion a finer scale of resolution would result versus the CMOS sensor because the results of detections in an area aren't "summed" together.
The positional information of a photon does convey additional information and you could correlate this with a phase component because the distance or delay to one area of the material would be different from another but that alone wouldn't seem to require the phase information is actually recorded along with individual photon detections but that instead that the fine scale interference pattern, below the resolution of a CMOS sensor, would be recorded and detectable. If this occurs at distances significantly below the wavelength of the photon then that would definitely be interesting but it still doesn't appear to require an individual photon detection convey anything other than a single discrete value, identical to other detected photons. The higher information content would just be due to having a finer resolution of detection.
For a CMOS sensor, the detection over the entire surface is summed in to a single result but for the emulsion you have a much finer resolution that's sensitive on a smaller scale, though I'd assume it could still be equivalent to a discrete (not truly binary though ... I should avoid trying to equate photons with solely a binary value as the information content can be higher even if the detection is discrete), though if you detected many photons with the emulsion a finer scale of resolution would result versus the CMOS sensor because the results of detections in an area aren't "summed" together.
The positional information of a photon does convey additional information and you could correlate this with a phase component because the distance or delay to one area of the material would be different from another but that alone wouldn't seem to require the phase information is actually recorded along with individual photon detections but that instead that the fine scale interference pattern, below the resolution of a CMOS sensor, would be recorded and detectable. If this occurs at distances significantly below the wavelength of the photon then that would definitely be interesting but it still doesn't appear to require an individual photon detection convey anything other than a single discrete value, identical to other detected photons. The higher information content would just be due to having a finer resolution of detection.
You are right, of course the phase is recorded "indirectly" through depth into the emulsion but this is not the exactly same as recording the phase in a single plane as you have rightly pointed out. Each individual photon modulating the site of detection through "phase". Thin emulsions are not as good at recording this information as are thick emulsions.
It does not stop there... The record in the film itself is not amplitude but is actually still intensity as you have correctly pointed out. This leads to some "unintended artifacts". Since intensity records the gradient of the field and not the field there are nulls at maxima and minima and inflection points. The illumination of the plate with a source LASER leads to not the original scene if you wish to be exact about it (and being "exact" is very important when we wish to understand). The wave functions of the first derivative lead to a very fine "double image" in the Hologram at the level that most observers do not notice. The other issue is all exposed emulsions result in "negatives" and because the Hologram is recorded as actual depth information, it cannot be "reverse printed" without losing some of that information. Recently I have seen an algorithm that is able to reprocess holographic information to remove that "false ghost" in some meaningful way. This would "potentially" restore the hologram in some respects to a more faithful reproduction as an amplitude record plus some depth information due to phase, but I still think some phase information might be lost. Naturally if a computer technique such as this can re-process the hologram "in depth" then it can also make a "positive" as well.
Still in an imperfect way some phase information is indirectly recorded and in an imperfect way the scene recorded closely resembles the original "dark universe".
The CMOS detector is a planar device that "flattens" the data phase wise by collapsing the photon wavelet at the sensor surface. This process either works or it does not ... it is a binary operation as are all emissions or absorptions of quanta. Let this device have access to a third degree of freedom... a depth.. a "translucent layer". It would be possible to consider fabrication of an advanced holographic sensor that records the finer detail that a fine grained emulsion records usually as "depth information". This would sense the depth inside the fronting "matrix" of the sensor and as each photon was absorbed its three dimensional position could be recorded.
According to a "hidden parameter theory" of where the photons were in that "thick layer" the most suitable place in which a photon could be absorbed will depend on "where" the electric field parameters were at an instantaneous maximum. Why?... this is just an expression of the way a photographic emulsion works... it works by a process of electron displacement through photo-absorption in light sensitive micro-crystalline colloid due to the photoelectric effect explained by Einstein. Naturally the photoelectric work function in this detecting layer varies with depth because the incoming coherent standing wave electric field amplitude will be varying within the layer with depth, and when it reaches the maximum or minimum field strength (in excess of the work function) the incident photon is most likely to "expose" that single silver halide crystal there causing it to displace an elemental charge... a feeble inductive surge in the "thick" substrate. A matched CMOS device (in some respects similar to a photomultiplier KI crystal and Detector arrangement) but a great deal more sophisticated, utilizing a microscopic optical beamed array, could potentially detect where this sudden imbalance in charge arose in this "thick" layer and record this position as a single "voxel" in the Hologram Space. Now this electric displacement may be permanent or temporary, if temporary it may lead to a very interesting Holographic Technology capable of providing evidence of "several" features of "hidden parameter theories". The question is are there any inquiring minds out there with sufficient ken to realize the opportunity for them here?
This electronically generated position... amplitude... phase detector could be the basis of several holographic technologies that could be revolutionary. Not to mention the ability to process the signal for the above mentioned defects in real time using a dedicated Discrete Signal Processing Chip to remove the "ghost" and to provide the positive hologram. There could be a flatpanel display technology based on a multi-film transparent screen not too different to the standard computer flatpanel display except with a large number of sandwiched layers and much smaller elements capable of providing a realtime high definition true holographic display.
Cheers
It does not stop there... The record in the film itself is not amplitude but is actually still intensity as you have correctly pointed out. This leads to some "unintended artifacts". Since intensity records the gradient of the field and not the field there are nulls at maxima and minima and inflection points. The illumination of the plate with a source LASER leads to not the original scene if you wish to be exact about it (and being "exact" is very important when we wish to understand). The wave functions of the first derivative lead to a very fine "double image" in the Hologram at the level that most observers do not notice. The other issue is all exposed emulsions result in "negatives" and because the Hologram is recorded as actual depth information, it cannot be "reverse printed" without losing some of that information. Recently I have seen an algorithm that is able to reprocess holographic information to remove that "false ghost" in some meaningful way. This would "potentially" restore the hologram in some respects to a more faithful reproduction as an amplitude record plus some depth information due to phase, but I still think some phase information might be lost. Naturally if a computer technique such as this can re-process the hologram "in depth" then it can also make a "positive" as well.
Still in an imperfect way some phase information is indirectly recorded and in an imperfect way the scene recorded closely resembles the original "dark universe".
The CMOS detector is a planar device that "flattens" the data phase wise by collapsing the photon wavelet at the sensor surface. This process either works or it does not ... it is a binary operation as are all emissions or absorptions of quanta. Let this device have access to a third degree of freedom... a depth.. a "translucent layer". It would be possible to consider fabrication of an advanced holographic sensor that records the finer detail that a fine grained emulsion records usually as "depth information". This would sense the depth inside the fronting "matrix" of the sensor and as each photon was absorbed its three dimensional position could be recorded.
According to a "hidden parameter theory" of where the photons were in that "thick layer" the most suitable place in which a photon could be absorbed will depend on "where" the electric field parameters were at an instantaneous maximum. Why?... this is just an expression of the way a photographic emulsion works... it works by a process of electron displacement through photo-absorption in light sensitive micro-crystalline colloid due to the photoelectric effect explained by Einstein. Naturally the photoelectric work function in this detecting layer varies with depth because the incoming coherent standing wave electric field amplitude will be varying within the layer with depth, and when it reaches the maximum or minimum field strength (in excess of the work function) the incident photon is most likely to "expose" that single silver halide crystal there causing it to displace an elemental charge... a feeble inductive surge in the "thick" substrate. A matched CMOS device (in some respects similar to a photomultiplier KI crystal and Detector arrangement) but a great deal more sophisticated, utilizing a microscopic optical beamed array, could potentially detect where this sudden imbalance in charge arose in this "thick" layer and record this position as a single "voxel" in the Hologram Space. Now this electric displacement may be permanent or temporary, if temporary it may lead to a very interesting Holographic Technology capable of providing evidence of "several" features of "hidden parameter theories". The question is are there any inquiring minds out there with sufficient ken to realize the opportunity for them here?
This electronically generated position... amplitude... phase detector could be the basis of several holographic technologies that could be revolutionary. Not to mention the ability to process the signal for the above mentioned defects in real time using a dedicated Discrete Signal Processing Chip to remove the "ghost" and to provide the positive hologram. There could be a flatpanel display technology based on a multi-film transparent screen not too different to the standard computer flatpanel display except with a large number of sandwiched layers and much smaller elements capable of providing a realtime high definition true holographic display.
Cheers
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
You are right, of course the phase is recorded "indirectly" through depth into the emulsion but this is not the exactly same as recording the phase in a single plane as you have rightly pointed out. Each individual photon modulating the site of detection through "phase". Thin emulsions are not as good at recording this information as are thick emulsions.
That's definitely something interesting to consider. If we had a plane of detectors, let's say 1024x1024, we'd have 2^10*2^10 possible locations to detect a photon. That implies (for an even probability of detection) 20 bits of information per photon. In reality, with a laser, we have a coherent interference that skews these probabilities and lowers the information content, within a plane (slightly in this case - probably less than a bit lost for this example), but by including a depth to the detection we add a third dimension of measurement (If we had an effectively resolution of 64 depths, then the information content goes up by another 6 bits per photon). A catch here though is that you now have additional material to be exposed, so though the information content has increased slightly per photon (which matches you statement that some phase information is recorded), you still have 64 times as much material to "develop". Still it's something very interesting to consider, thank you.
That's definitely something interesting to consider. If we had a plane of detectors, let's say 1024x1024, we'd have 2^10*2^10 possible locations to detect a photon. That implies (for an even probability of detection) 20 bits of information per photon. In reality, with a laser, we have a coherent interference that skews these probabilities and lowers the information content, within a plane (slightly in this case - probably less than a bit lost for this example), but by including a depth to the detection we add a third dimension of measurement (If we had an effectively resolution of 64 depths, then the information content goes up by another 6 bits per photon). A catch here though is that you now have additional material to be exposed, so though the information content has increased slightly per photon (which matches you statement that some phase information is recorded), you still have 64 times as much material to "develop". Still it's something very interesting to consider, thank you.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
It does not stop there... The record in the film itself is not amplitude but is actually still intensity as you have correctly pointed out. This leads to some "unintended artifacts". Since intensity records the gradient of the field and not the field there are nulls at maxima and minima and inflection points. The illumination of the plate with a source LASER leads to not the original scene if you wish to be exact about it (and being "exact" is very important when we wish to understand). The wave functions of the first derivative lead to a very fine "double image" in the Hologram at the level that most observers do not notice.
This is very cool because I've actually had thoughts along these lines. We don't motion directly - if everything in the universe was moving in one direction at the same velocity, nothing would interact. Forces imply a change in velocity, or an acceleration, but it doesn't stop there - we couldn't even directly detect an acceleration as if everything in the universe was under an identical constant acceleration, again nothing would interaction. Because we detect contrasts between things, we could see this as measuring the derivative of a slope in some "density" function to space - a uniform density goes unnoticed similar to having a constant background density of activity in space. Anyway, if what we measure differentially becomes the new reality, which we again measure differentially, then reality is composed of a recursive differentiation to space. Differentiation imposes a phase shift upon the function being measured (though it comes in discrete 90 deg steps) and can, over time, create a relative amplification or attentuation of various wavelengths (high frequency or shorter wavelengths tend to predominate ... not unlike gravity and differentiation isn't specifically directional). Anyway, a function that would to remain constant in such a space would be an exponential (a gaussian has exponential characteristics on the edges, which could be seen to propogate outward, though it's not exponential at the central lobe ... I'm just tossing out some random thoughts here).
Something else interesting to consider is that a constant lateral acceleration creates a circular orbital, whereas a constant second derivative would seem to create a decaying orbit or spiral and I believe the third derivative, if applied as a lateral force could actually appear to remain stationary! (though even the second derivative on some scale could do this) I was just messing around with some ideas where you have 4 phases of differential measurement - 1) a "stationary" mass is measured via 2) a constant velocity which requires a 3) constant acceleration which requires a 4) constantly changing acceleration, or "jerk", which once again appears as a mass ... seems rather funky huh?
This is very cool because I've actually had thoughts along these lines. We don't motion directly - if everything in the universe was moving in one direction at the same velocity, nothing would interact. Forces imply a change in velocity, or an acceleration, but it doesn't stop there - we couldn't even directly detect an acceleration as if everything in the universe was under an identical constant acceleration, again nothing would interaction. Because we detect contrasts between things, we could see this as measuring the derivative of a slope in some "density" function to space - a uniform density goes unnoticed similar to having a constant background density of activity in space. Anyway, if what we measure differentially becomes the new reality, which we again measure differentially, then reality is composed of a recursive differentiation to space. Differentiation imposes a phase shift upon the function being measured (though it comes in discrete 90 deg steps) and can, over time, create a relative amplification or attentuation of various wavelengths (high frequency or shorter wavelengths tend to predominate ... not unlike gravity and differentiation isn't specifically directional). Anyway, a function that would to remain constant in such a space would be an exponential (a gaussian has exponential characteristics on the edges, which could be seen to propogate outward, though it's not exponential at the central lobe ... I'm just tossing out some random thoughts here).
Something else interesting to consider is that a constant lateral acceleration creates a circular orbital, whereas a constant second derivative would seem to create a decaying orbit or spiral and I believe the third derivative, if applied as a lateral force could actually appear to remain stationary! (though even the second derivative on some scale could do this) I was just messing around with some ideas where you have 4 phases of differential measurement - 1) a "stationary" mass is measured via 2) a constant velocity which requires a 3) constant acceleration which requires a 4) constantly changing acceleration, or "jerk", which once again appears as a mass ... seems rather funky huh?
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
The other issue is all exposed emulsions result in "negatives" and because the Hologram is recorded as actual depth information, it cannot be "reverse printed" without losing some of that information. Recently I have seen an algorithm that is able to reprocess holographic information to remove that "false ghost" in some meaningful way. This would "potentially" restore the hologram in some respects to a more faithful reproduction as an amplitude record plus some depth information due to phase, but I still think some phase information might be lost. Naturally if a computer technique such as this can re-process the hologram "in depth" then it can also make a "positive" as well.
If the exposure is done with a constant wavelength you might not lose much of any information as the double exposure could be purely redundant if the wavelength is known (but yes, you might lose more information than that ...)
If the exposure is done with a constant wavelength you might not lose much of any information as the double exposure could be purely redundant if the wavelength is known (but yes, you might lose more information than that ...)
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
Still in an imperfect way some phase information is indirectly recorded and in an imperfect way the scene recorded closely resembles the original "dark universe".
Ok, though I'd say it resembles the surfaces of that though it's interesting to consider what depth information could be present in the phase component (hmmm... maybe there is a way to "see" in more than 2 dimensions over time).
Something I'd like to emphasize here though is that the additional detectable information arose from an ability to localize mass and wasn't necessarily a part of the photon.
For example, let's say we have access to photon interactions with a single atom. If no other detectable events exist outside this, then we'd be stuck seeing possible long periods of "nothing" (of course this assumes there's a way to measure how long "nothing" lasts) and then an occasional blip as a photon was detected. If we only had two possible states in a single orbital, then only one frequency of light could be considered detectable. If we consider that the periods of time between photons wouldn't be detected without an outside reference for time, then we have only a visible continuous stream of non-directional light (which could also be interpreted as coming uniformly from all directions) and this provides no information content as being in a universe composed of only one absolute thing everywhere, without contrast is informationally no different that nothing (though I guess in terms of a conscious experience it might be considered an instantaneous frozen moment of experience, without meaning in itself). So these photons provide no information.
Now if we have more information available, for example 2 orbitals or more states within a single orbital then we could witness alterations between these but if there's only two such events and no way for any other differentiation to be made outside these, then we're left forever transitioning between two states. If we had a way to select a specific moment between one of these two states, then we could consider that to provide a single bit of information, or we might consider the contrast itself to imply something, but I can't see how it could be more than a single bit (even with an infinite number of such cycles) without a memory or way to accumulate information about these over time. So in this case we'd have (yes, in my opinion) a maximum of a single bit potentially available and that still requires some way to sample it in one state versus another.
If we add a third input from some outside system that acts similar to a clock and samples states of that system, then we can begin to see an ability for binary communication to occur (the lowest discrete form of communication ... again, in my opinion), though this still leaves that third, time dimension, rather nebulous and unspecific in complexity. As we increase the number of possible states that a photon could be seen as moving the system into, we increase the available information content of each photon, but consider that this can also be ascribed to properties of the masses and the network of communication betweem them that we're able to detect or differentiate. (I admit you could consider the source, destination of a communication with its accompanying trajectory and phase to be a property of a photon, but we could also say these are properties of the masses and that communication delays are actual part of orbital characteristics as these can retain a state for a period of time that could appear as a light speed delay through space of a photon. For example, if we had an orbital that toggled between two states every time it interacted with a photon, but the emission was detectably different, then we have the equivalent of a counter that has a delay. It performs a logic function and has a delay and could be interpreted as both a mass and the associated space, and of course photons would never age because they never actually travelled through space and had time to degrade or be altered). The reason why I'm picking to move the pea under that particular nutshell is because atomic orbitals already imply a wavefunction and I don't believe that information necessarily needs to be carried through space in a manner that appears redundant. Consider we construct a perception of space from information detected by masses seeing other masses ... we can't follow along with a photon to verify it actually travels through space ... I'm rambling somewhat and recognize space represents a valuable understanding of physical interactions, but it seems there should be a simplification here. Recognizing that the information conveyed by a photon isn't directly possessed by a photon by instead dependent upon the network of masses (which gives wave features to detections) seems to be something worth looking more closely at.
Ok, though I'd say it resembles the surfaces of that though it's interesting to consider what depth information could be present in the phase component (hmmm... maybe there is a way to "see" in more than 2 dimensions over time).
Something I'd like to emphasize here though is that the additional detectable information arose from an ability to localize mass and wasn't necessarily a part of the photon.
For example, let's say we have access to photon interactions with a single atom. If no other detectable events exist outside this, then we'd be stuck seeing possible long periods of "nothing" (of course this assumes there's a way to measure how long "nothing" lasts) and then an occasional blip as a photon was detected. If we only had two possible states in a single orbital, then only one frequency of light could be considered detectable. If we consider that the periods of time between photons wouldn't be detected without an outside reference for time, then we have only a visible continuous stream of non-directional light (which could also be interpreted as coming uniformly from all directions) and this provides no information content as being in a universe composed of only one absolute thing everywhere, without contrast is informationally no different that nothing (though I guess in terms of a conscious experience it might be considered an instantaneous frozen moment of experience, without meaning in itself). So these photons provide no information.
Now if we have more information available, for example 2 orbitals or more states within a single orbital then we could witness alterations between these but if there's only two such events and no way for any other differentiation to be made outside these, then we're left forever transitioning between two states. If we had a way to select a specific moment between one of these two states, then we could consider that to provide a single bit of information, or we might consider the contrast itself to imply something, but I can't see how it could be more than a single bit (even with an infinite number of such cycles) without a memory or way to accumulate information about these over time. So in this case we'd have (yes, in my opinion) a maximum of a single bit potentially available and that still requires some way to sample it in one state versus another.
If we add a third input from some outside system that acts similar to a clock and samples states of that system, then we can begin to see an ability for binary communication to occur (the lowest discrete form of communication ... again, in my opinion), though this still leaves that third, time dimension, rather nebulous and unspecific in complexity. As we increase the number of possible states that a photon could be seen as moving the system into, we increase the available information content of each photon, but consider that this can also be ascribed to properties of the masses and the network of communication betweem them that we're able to detect or differentiate. (I admit you could consider the source, destination of a communication with its accompanying trajectory and phase to be a property of a photon, but we could also say these are properties of the masses and that communication delays are actual part of orbital characteristics as these can retain a state for a period of time that could appear as a light speed delay through space of a photon. For example, if we had an orbital that toggled between two states every time it interacted with a photon, but the emission was detectably different, then we have the equivalent of a counter that has a delay. It performs a logic function and has a delay and could be interpreted as both a mass and the associated space, and of course photons would never age because they never actually travelled through space and had time to degrade or be altered). The reason why I'm picking to move the pea under that particular nutshell is because atomic orbitals already imply a wavefunction and I don't believe that information necessarily needs to be carried through space in a manner that appears redundant. Consider we construct a perception of space from information detected by masses seeing other masses ... we can't follow along with a photon to verify it actually travels through space ... I'm rambling somewhat and recognize space represents a valuable understanding of physical interactions, but it seems there should be a simplification here. Recognizing that the information conveyed by a photon isn't directly possessed by a photon by instead dependent upon the network of masses (which gives wave features to detections) seems to be something worth looking more closely at.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
The CMOS detector is a planar device that "flattens" the data phase wise by collapsing the photon wavelet at the sensor surface. This process either works or it does not ... it is a binary operation as are all emissions or absorptions of quanta. Let this device have access to a third degree of freedom... a depth.. a "translucent layer". It would be possible to consider fabrication of an advanced holographic sensor that records the finer detail that a fine grained emulsion records usually as "depth information". This would sense the depth inside the fronting "matrix" of the sensor and as each photon was absorbed its three dimensional position could be recorded.
Again, this is very interesting and I'm thankful you detailed the idea. Hopefully, some of comments adding something to consider as well.
Again, this is very interesting and I'm thankful you detailed the idea. Hopefully, some of comments adding something to consider as well.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
According to a "hidden parameter theory" of where the photons were in that "thick layer" the most suitable place in which a photon could be absorbed will depend on "where" the electric field parameters were at an instantaneous maximum. Why?... this is just an expression of the way a photographic emulsion works... it works by a process of electron displacement through photo-absorption in light sensitive micro-crystalline colloid due to the photoelectric effect explained by Einstein. Naturally the photoelectric work function in this detecting layer varies with depth because the incoming coherent standing wave electric field amplitude will be varying within the layer with depth, and when it reaches the maximum or minimum field strength (in excess of the work function) the incident photon is most likely to "expose" that single silver halide crystal there causing it to displace an elemental charge... a feeble inductive surge in the "thick" substrate. A matched CMOS device (in some respects similar to a photomultiplier KI crystal and Detector arrangement) but a great deal more sophisticated, utilizing a microscopic optical beamed array, could potentially detect where this sudden imbalance in charge arose in this "thick" layer and record this position as a single "voxel" in the Hologram Space. Now this electric displacement may be permanent or temporary, if temporary it may lead to a very interesting Holographic Technology capable of providing evidence of "several" features of "hidden parameter theories". The question is are there any inquiring minds out there with sufficient ken to realize the opportunity for them here?
This electronically generated position... amplitude... phase detector could be the basis of several holographic technologies that could be revolutionary. Not to mention the ability to process the signal for the above mentioned defects in real time using a dedicated Discrete Signal Processing Chip to remove the "ghost" and to provide the positive hologram. There could be a flatpanel display technology based on a multi-film transparent screen not too different to the standard computer flatpanel display except with a large number of sandwiched layers and much smaller elements capable of providing a realtime high definition true holographic display.
Cheers
It definitely sounds like an interesting technology. Measuring such detections in 3 dimensions would be a manufacturing challenge, though consider that this might not be entirely necessary as not all of the 3 dimensional structure is continually detecting photons. Let's say for example we had a highly charged chemical that discharged and propogated an electrochemical field outward from a point of photon detection, then electronic monitoring could occur along the edges of this and interprete from an inverse filtering algorithm (a bit tricky to design) where the originating photon(s) were. The issue here would be one of bandwdith. For a low intensity exposure, it should be simple but for higher rates of photon detections, getting adequate computational power and enough amplification and bandwidth through the medium to theoretically deliver the information would be a challenge. (as usual the idea will be patented within a few months if it hasn't already been ... I hate intellectual property laws)
This electronically generated position... amplitude... phase detector could be the basis of several holographic technologies that could be revolutionary. Not to mention the ability to process the signal for the above mentioned defects in real time using a dedicated Discrete Signal Processing Chip to remove the "ghost" and to provide the positive hologram. There could be a flatpanel display technology based on a multi-film transparent screen not too different to the standard computer flatpanel display except with a large number of sandwiched layers and much smaller elements capable of providing a realtime high definition true holographic display.
Cheers
It definitely sounds like an interesting technology. Measuring such detections in 3 dimensions would be a manufacturing challenge, though consider that this might not be entirely necessary as not all of the 3 dimensional structure is continually detecting photons. Let's say for example we had a highly charged chemical that discharged and propogated an electrochemical field outward from a point of photon detection, then electronic monitoring could occur along the edges of this and interprete from an inverse filtering algorithm (a bit tricky to design) where the originating photon(s) were. The issue here would be one of bandwdith. For a low intensity exposure, it should be simple but for higher rates of photon detections, getting adequate computational power and enough amplification and bandwidth through the medium to theoretically deliver the information would be a challenge. (as usual the idea will be patented within a few months if it hasn't already been ... I hate intellectual property laws)
Just a question, why not record it in a Bose-Einstein condensate. There i suppose one would have ample 'time'? to study its interactions. On the other hand it wouldn't work, would it, as any observation would be slowed down too? :) On the third hand, if that kind of interference (Bose-Einstein condensate) would lead to different images then that might be of interest too??
Ahh, here comes the headache...
" Photons definitely have mass. What they lack is "rest mass". That is why they
have to move at the speed of light if they are to have any energy atall. Energy and mass are different names for the same thing. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 means that you can convert matter into energy or vice versa. In fact they are the same thing, just measured in different units and c^2 is the conversion factor between those units.For example, you know that when you speed something up, it gains kinetic energy. That is exactly the same as the relativistic mass increase ivided by c^2, as a simple calculation will show. The mass of a photon depends on its frequency (or wavelength) and is given by hf/c^2 where h is Planck's constant, f is the frequency, and c is the speed of light.
E=mc^2 is absolutely precise, where m is the relativistic mass, which
increases as the particle speeds up. You can also write this as:
E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + Eo^2),
where p is the momentum and Eo is the rest energy, given, naturally, by
Eo = Mo*c^2,
where Mo is the rest mass. It is the total mass that gives rise to the
gravitational force.
Since mass and energy are two names for the same thing, physicists know exactly as much about mass as they do about energy. Again, your comments about the mystery of mass are about rest mass (or rest energy, choose your favorite units). In the standard model, the rest mass of each of the fundamental particles (like electrons and quarks) has to be put in as a constant that cannot be derived from the theory. The Higgs mechanism is the theoretical justification, but we don't have a complete enough theory to calculate the rest mass of the fundamental particles from basic principles. "
So 'massless' photons do have mass which are equivalent to energy?
I thought restmass was what the photon archived by traveling ar 'C' but here it is stated that it has an intrinsic mass but no restmass ??? Or?
" Photons definitely have mass. What they lack is "rest mass". That is why they
have to move at the speed of light if they are to have any energy atall. Energy and mass are different names for the same thing. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 means that you can convert matter into energy or vice versa. In fact they are the same thing, just measured in different units and c^2 is the conversion factor between those units.For example, you know that when you speed something up, it gains kinetic energy. That is exactly the same as the relativistic mass increase ivided by c^2, as a simple calculation will show. The mass of a photon depends on its frequency (or wavelength) and is given by hf/c^2 where h is Planck's constant, f is the frequency, and c is the speed of light.
E=mc^2 is absolutely precise, where m is the relativistic mass, which
increases as the particle speeds up. You can also write this as:
E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + Eo^2),
where p is the momentum and Eo is the rest energy, given, naturally, by
Eo = Mo*c^2,
where Mo is the rest mass. It is the total mass that gives rise to the
gravitational force.
Since mass and energy are two names for the same thing, physicists know exactly as much about mass as they do about energy. Again, your comments about the mystery of mass are about rest mass (or rest energy, choose your favorite units). In the standard model, the rest mass of each of the fundamental particles (like electrons and quarks) has to be put in as a constant that cannot be derived from the theory. The Higgs mechanism is the theoretical justification, but we don't have a complete enough theory to calculate the rest mass of the fundamental particles from basic principles. "
So 'massless' photons do have mass which are equivalent to energy?
I thought restmass was what the photon archived by traveling ar 'C' but here it is stated that it has an intrinsic mass but no restmass ??? Or?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 12 2007, 10:49 PM)
... Regallow, if that now is your real name ...
It's R. E. Galloway; regallow makes it easier for me to remember who I am :-)
My words perhaps led to confusion. I can only think of two time-related ways for a photon to be created. Either it takes time or it doesn't. I favor it taking time, "growing to completeness" while (for example) a particle generating the photon loses energy and begins to move away in recoil.
My words perhaps led to confusion. I can only think of two time-related ways for a photon to be created. Either it takes time or it doesn't. I favor it taking time, "growing to completeness" while (for example) a particle generating the photon loses energy and begins to move away in recoil.
'... light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy ' This you also have to explain. Look at me as your friendly inquisition.
Yes, Sir! Actually, I believe you're getting the point in a later post:
and
and
E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + Eo^2),
where p is the momentum and Eo is the rest energy, given, naturally, by
Eo = Mo*c^2,
where Mo is the rest mass. It is the total mass that gives rise to the
gravitational force.
You got it.
The photon does not achieve rest mass. Instead, it has relativistic mass, or mass equivalent (the mass an equivalent particle at rest would have if it had the photon's energy).
Its momentum times its speed is its energy, p*c = E
and its momentum divided by its speed is the mass equivalent of that energy, p/c=m.
Maybe I better stop here. Seems the more words I use, the more questions you find.....
Actually, I think I know one of the questions you will ask now: Then what happens to the photon's mass when it slows down but isn't destroyed? Good question!
It's R. E. Galloway; regallow makes it easier for me to remember who I am :-)
QUOTE
" 'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). " Here you already left me with two new Q. first ' into being complete in no time ' which i find mystical as you already know and then " Growing to completeness ' which sounds a Little like group and phase? velocity to me. the information content moving after the first transition?
and then " Growing to completeness ' which sounds a Little like group and phase? velocity to me. the information content moving after the first transition? My words perhaps led to confusion. I can only think of two time-related ways for a photon to be created. Either it takes time or it doesn't. I favor it taking time, "growing to completeness" while (for example) a particle generating the photon loses energy and begins to move away in recoil.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| " 'Instant acceleration' oversimplifies the situation. Consider a photon's birth. It either comes into being complete in no time or it grows into completeness during the transition time of an electron shifting orbits in an atom (for example). Growing to completeness, with its leading edge moving away before the transition is complete, makes most physical sense to me (but others may look at it differently). " Here you already left me with two new Q. first ' into being complete in no time ' which i find mystical as you already know and then " Growing to completeness ' which sounds a Little like group and phase? velocity to me. the information content moving after the first transition? |
My words perhaps led to confusion. I can only think of two time-related ways for a photon to be created. Either it takes time or it doesn't. I favor it taking time, "growing to completeness" while (for example) a particle generating the photon loses energy and begins to move away in recoil.
'... light speed is inherent to its existence, since it requires speed to contain its energy '
This you also have to explain. Look at me as your friendly inquisition.Yes, Sir! Actually, I believe you're getting the point in a later post:
QUOTE
" Photons definitely have mass. What they lack is "rest mass". That is why they have to move at the speed of light if they are to have any energy atall.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| " Photons definitely have mass. What they lack is "rest mass". That is why they have to move at the speed of light if they are to have any energy atall. |
and
E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + Eo^2),
where p is the momentum and Eo is the rest energy, given, naturally, by
Eo = Mo*c^2,
where Mo is the rest mass. It is the total mass that gives rise to the
gravitational force.
You got it.
QUOTE
So 'massless' photons do have mass which are equivalent to energy?
I thought restmass was what the photon archived by traveling ar 'C' but here it is stated that it has an intrinsic mass but no restmass ???
I thought restmass was what the photon archived by traveling ar 'C' but here it is stated that it has an intrinsic mass but no restmass ???
The photon does not achieve rest mass. Instead, it has relativistic mass, or mass equivalent (the mass an equivalent particle at rest would have if it had the photon's energy).
Its momentum times its speed is its energy, p*c = E
and its momentum divided by its speed is the mass equivalent of that energy, p/c=m.
Maybe I better stop here. Seems the more words I use, the more questions you find.....
Actually, I think I know one of the questions you will ask now: Then what happens to the photon's mass when it slows down but isn't destroyed? Good question!
Thank you :)
And the answer will bee (and counting..... ;)
PS it will take 'time' for me to sort out all those 'functions' and descriptions :)
I definitely mixed rest and relative mass together S'' They sound so alike :(
Its true, it isss, they should have made one beginning with the S-sound and the other should have had a totally different name !!!
But why call them massless then? if mass = energy?
And restmass is a 'gravitational'? effect for 'normal' particles???
Ahh but you make one more distinktion here " it has relativistic mass, or mass equivalent-----(the mass an equivalent particle at rest would have if it had the photon's energy).------"
Is it sooo :) Well Sir, there seems to be some more explanation to do :)
So there are no mass? only energy representing an 'equal' amount of mass.
Yep that's what i wonder, mass as i understand belongs to matter, certainly you can transform it into energy , and yes the photon seems to be able to transform itself into an electron and a positron, both with a charge and mass too? Or should i call it restmass?
No longer will i call it matter, restmass is what i'm walking on?
And the answer will bee (and counting..... ;)
PS it will take 'time' for me to sort out all those 'functions' and descriptions :)
I definitely mixed rest and relative mass together S'' They sound so alike :(
Its true, it isss, they should have made one beginning with the S-sound and the other should have had a totally different name !!!
But why call them massless then? if mass = energy?
And restmass is a 'gravitational'? effect for 'normal' particles???
Ahh but you make one more distinktion here " it has relativistic mass, or mass equivalent-----(the mass an equivalent particle at rest would have if it had the photon's energy).------"
Is it sooo :) Well Sir, there seems to be some more explanation to do :)
So there are no mass? only energy representing an 'equal' amount of mass.
Yep that's what i wonder, mass as i understand belongs to matter, certainly you can transform it into energy , and yes the photon seems to be able to transform itself into an electron and a positron, both with a charge and mass too? Or should i call it restmass?
No longer will i call it matter, restmass is what i'm walking on?
Now " In classical (as in "nonquantum") physics, the notion of a point particle arises as an approximation to an object whose mass or other "charge" (say, electrical charge) is so small that it does not appreciately disturb the ambient field (say, an electromagnetic field) under study. Assuming also that this object is very small in comparison to the region of interest, under these conditions, it can usually be treated as a point particle.
The notion of a "point particle" in classical physics is not free of objections, but it has proven so useful that physicists can hardly reject simply because it ultimately leads to self-contradictions involving issues like "self-forces" or "back-reaction", particularly in non-linear classical field theories like gtr. "
That's understandable i think, but for me it raises another question. If you have a (classical) point particle which are so small that we can't define it. And we do have them, they are hitting my eyes and skin as i'm writing :) .How small would then that wave be, i know, the same size right. dumb question :) but how can it also represent the possible creation of two particles? The Electron which i found a size for Usenet discussion: 2.8 × 10^-19 m and in arxiv paper: 2.9 × 10^−19 m, to me it imply that which ever size it has its bigger than the photon.
And then we have the positron. " The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron." How about the giving the same size for that one approximately? and even though they may only exist for a moment they seem to regroup into other constellations of photon's than the one they split from, which to me imply that they are no 'illusion' of nature.
Now how do they come to 'light' :) so to speak, from this tiny pinprick of a photon. and also, as they can change constellation when being assimilated as a photon again i presume them to have a restmass. Further more , why don't they take each other out immediately? I know i jumped from that first classical definition of a photon to quantum mechanics but it still makes me flabbergasted. I mean the Electron at least is supposed to be one of our building stones, no? This behavior shouldn't be allowed :)
Btw: before when i wrote "Its true, it isss, they should have made one beginning with the S-sound and the other should have had a totally different name !!!"
I think i meant the 'resss' sound, not the 'S-sound' a minor inconvenience for me, sorry about that :) Otherwise i'm fully sane, yes Sir..
The notion of a "point particle" in classical physics is not free of objections, but it has proven so useful that physicists can hardly reject simply because it ultimately leads to self-contradictions involving issues like "self-forces" or "back-reaction", particularly in non-linear classical field theories like gtr. "
That's understandable i think, but for me it raises another question. If you have a (classical) point particle which are so small that we can't define it. And we do have them, they are hitting my eyes and skin as i'm writing :) .How small would then that wave be, i know, the same size right. dumb question :) but how can it also represent the possible creation of two particles? The Electron which i found a size for Usenet discussion: 2.8 × 10^-19 m and in arxiv paper: 2.9 × 10^−19 m, to me it imply that which ever size it has its bigger than the photon.
And then we have the positron. " The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron." How about the giving the same size for that one approximately? and even though they may only exist for a moment they seem to regroup into other constellations of photon's than the one they split from, which to me imply that they are no 'illusion' of nature.
Now how do they come to 'light' :) so to speak, from this tiny pinprick of a photon. and also, as they can change constellation when being assimilated as a photon again i presume them to have a restmass. Further more , why don't they take each other out immediately? I know i jumped from that first classical definition of a photon to quantum mechanics but it still makes me flabbergasted. I mean the Electron at least is supposed to be one of our building stones, no? This behavior shouldn't be allowed :)
Btw: before when i wrote "Its true, it isss, they should have made one beginning with the S-sound and the other should have had a totally different name !!!"
I think i meant the 'resss' sound, not the 'S-sound' a minor inconvenience for me, sorry about that :) Otherwise i'm fully sane, yes Sir..
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 14 2007, 12:08 AM)
But why call them massless then? if mass = energy?
And restmass is a 'gravitational'? effect for 'normal' particles???
I'm changing the order of your questions a little, to stay on the mass - energy equivalence concept first.
When someone says a photon has no mass or is massless, they are referring to rest mass (Mo in the equation Eo = Mo * c^2).
It is not strictly correct to say that mass and energy are the same thing or that mass = energy; it is better to say that they are equivalent. Mass and energy are two different concepts that are related through a constant, the speed of light. Since the relationship is via a constant and not a variable, it is commonly said that mass and energy are equivalent. See Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Using cause and effect properly, rest mass is not a gravitational effect; rather rest mass has a gravitational effect.
Rest mass. Essentially, a photon with enough energy traveling at c can become an electron and positron, both at rest. Those two particles then have rest mass and opposite charges. Any extra energy in the photon not used to make the particles becomes kinetic energy of the electron and positron.
Rest mass. Essentially, a photon with enough energy traveling at c can become an electron and positron, both at rest. Those two particles then have rest mass and opposite charges. Any extra energy in the photon not used to make the particles becomes kinetic energy of the electron and positron.
No longer will i call it matter, restmass is what i'm walking on?
Depends on whether you're trying to impress someone who likes physics nerds!
What happens to a photon's mass when it slows down but isn't destroyed? We need to use an understanding of a photon's group and phase velocities. The effect is well-studied.
See Group and Phase Velocity. Move the group velocity slider to 1.0 or type 1.0 in its box. Move the frequency slider all the way right. You will see individual wave crests moving right at the same speed as the wave packets (groups of wave crests with a minimum height between the groups). Think of each wave packet as a single photon. The packets move at group velocity (velocity is technically a vector which is speed in a particular direction). The individual wave crests move at phase velocity within each packet. When group velocity = 1.0, both velocities are the same and this is what happens for photons in free space.
Now move the group velocity slider to about 0.2. Notice that the group velocity (of the packets) is less than the phase velocity (of the individual crests). It is similar for photons in space where the index of refraction is greater than one. The photons slow down (in group velocity terms), but internally a phase wave moves faster. When the group velocity of a photon goes below c, its internal phase velocity goes above c. Normally, the relationship between group and phase velocity of a photon is:
c^2 = Vg * Vp , where Vg is group velocity and Vp is phase velocity, and c is the speed of light in free space.
When a photon slows down in group velocity, the phase wave increases in kinetic energy so that the photon's total energy remains the same. Since its energy does not change, its equivalent mass does not change either.
And restmass is a 'gravitational'? effect for 'normal' particles???
I'm changing the order of your questions a little, to stay on the mass - energy equivalence concept first.
When someone says a photon has no mass or is massless, they are referring to rest mass (Mo in the equation Eo = Mo * c^2).
It is not strictly correct to say that mass and energy are the same thing or that mass = energy; it is better to say that they are equivalent. Mass and energy are two different concepts that are related through a constant, the speed of light. Since the relationship is via a constant and not a variable, it is commonly said that mass and energy are equivalent. See Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Using cause and effect properly, rest mass is not a gravitational effect; rather rest mass has a gravitational effect.
QUOTE
Yep that's what i wonder, mass as i understand belongs to matter, certainly you can transform it into energy , and yes the photon seems to be able to transform itself into an electron and a positron, both with a charge and mass too? Or should i call it restmass?
Rest mass. Essentially, a photon with enough energy traveling at c can become an electron and positron, both at rest. Those two particles then have rest mass and opposite charges. Any extra energy in the photon not used to make the particles becomes kinetic energy of the electron and positron.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yep that's what i wonder, mass as i understand belongs to matter, certainly you can transform it into energy , and yes the photon seems to be able to transform itself into an electron and a positron, both with a charge and mass too? Or should i call it restmass? |
Rest mass. Essentially, a photon with enough energy traveling at c can become an electron and positron, both at rest. Those two particles then have rest mass and opposite charges. Any extra energy in the photon not used to make the particles becomes kinetic energy of the electron and positron.
No longer will i call it matter, restmass is what i'm walking on?
Depends on whether you're trying to impress someone who likes physics nerds!
QUOTE
And the answer will bee (and counting.....
What happens to a photon's mass when it slows down but isn't destroyed? We need to use an understanding of a photon's group and phase velocities. The effect is well-studied.
See Group and Phase Velocity. Move the group velocity slider to 1.0 or type 1.0 in its box. Move the frequency slider all the way right. You will see individual wave crests moving right at the same speed as the wave packets (groups of wave crests with a minimum height between the groups). Think of each wave packet as a single photon. The packets move at group velocity (velocity is technically a vector which is speed in a particular direction). The individual wave crests move at phase velocity within each packet. When group velocity = 1.0, both velocities are the same and this is what happens for photons in free space.
Now move the group velocity slider to about 0.2. Notice that the group velocity (of the packets) is less than the phase velocity (of the individual crests). It is similar for photons in space where the index of refraction is greater than one. The photons slow down (in group velocity terms), but internally a phase wave moves faster. When the group velocity of a photon goes below c, its internal phase velocity goes above c. Normally, the relationship between group and phase velocity of a photon is:
c^2 = Vg * Vp , where Vg is group velocity and Vp is phase velocity, and c is the speed of light in free space.
When a photon slows down in group velocity, the phase wave increases in kinetic energy so that the photon's total energy remains the same. Since its energy does not change, its equivalent mass does not change either.
You have the most incredible links R. E. Galloway, formerly known as regallow. Don't tell me that you play music too :) . I love that one.
Ahh well,l perhaps i should try to get some sleep now, But it's very cool, i'm learning stuff that i always wanted to know thanks to you guys :)
Ahh well,l perhaps i should try to get some sleep now, But it's very cool, i'm learning stuff that i always wanted to know thanks to you guys :)
Hi StevenA, yor_on et al,
Thanks for listening... not everyone does and it seems "you are getting it". You will never view quantum theory quite the same way again.
As to chip deigns... I never said it would be easy. What I do not think is it is beyond our ability to do it.
I think yor_on is enjoying this as well.
Cheers
Thanks for listening... not everyone does and it seems "you are getting it". You will never view quantum theory quite the same way again.
As to chip deigns... I never said it would be easy. What I do not think is it is beyond our ability to do it.
I think yor_on is enjoying this as well.
Cheers
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 14 2007, 01:55 AM)
Now " In classical (as in "nonquantum") physics, the notion of a point particle arises as an approximation to an object whose mass or other "charge" (say, electrical charge) is so small that it does not appreciately disturb the ambient field (say, an electromagnetic field) under study. Assuming also that this object is very small in comparison to the region of interest, under these conditions, it can usually be treated as a point particle.
The notion of a "point particle" in classical physics is not free of objections, but it has proven so useful that physicists can hardly reject simply because it ultimately leads to self-contradictions involving issues like "self-forces" or "back-reaction", particularly in non-linear classical field theories like gtr. "
That's understandable i think, but for me it raises another question. If you have a (classical) point particle which are so small that we can't define it. And we do have them, they are hitting my eyes and skin as i'm writing .How small would then that wave be, i know, the same size right. dumb question but how can it also represent the possible creation of two particles? The Electron which i found a size for Usenet discussion: 2.8 × 10^-19 m and in arxiv paper: 2.9 × 10^−19 m, to me it imply that which ever size it has its bigger than the photon.
And then we have the positron. " The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron." How about the giving the same size for that one approximately? and even though they may only exist for a moment they seem to regroup into other constellations of photon's than the one they split from, which to me imply that they are no 'illusion' of nature.
Now how do they come to 'light' so to speak, from this tiny pinprick of a photon. and also, as they can change constellation when being assimilated as a photon again i presume them to have a restmass. Further more , why don't they take each other out immediately? I know i jumped from that first classical definition of a photon to quantum mechanics but it still makes me flabbergasted. I mean the Electron at least is supposed to be one of our building stones, no? This behavior shouldn't be allowed
Btw: before when i wrote "Its true, it isss, they should have made one beginning with the S-sound and the other should have had a totally different name !!!"
I think i meant the 'resss' sound, not the 'S-sound' a minor inconvenience for me, sorry about that Otherwise i'm fully sane, yes Sir..
I'm getting slack; I won't bother to split your post into separate questions but just head into the fray... Now you're getting into areas where I stray considerably from currently accepted physics theory.
Both classical and quantum physics use the concept of a point particle, to their disadvantage (my opinion). Point particles make many calculations much simpler. Indeed, the electron is seriously believed to be a point particle since experimental scattering results match predictions that use a derivative of the Rutherford scattering formula (which assumes point particles), electromagnetic forces, strong forces, and a proton model of quarks and gluons combined in a mathematical scattering model. I've never believed in point particles, the strong force, quarks, or gluons. Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are likely to be the only basic forces necessary. The model of electrons and protons that I developed point (pun intended) to this scenario. The model I developed indicates the true size of an electron is hidden within the accepted size of a proton. That is, the accepted size of a proton is too large by a factor related to the electron's true size.
The energy content of an electron, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength long enough to encircle the electron about 137 times. You can't treat a photon as a point particle any more than you can treat an electron as a point particle. The photon needed to create both a positron and electron is only half as long, since its energy is twice as large and its wavelength one-half as long.
A positron is identical in size and rest mass to an electron and simply has an opposite charge. Positrons and electrons created in pair generation rely on their kinetic energy and subsequent opposite reaction to electromagnetic fields to keep from annihilating each other immediately. If their kinetic energy is low or the surrounding EM field is weak after their creation, they will likely recombine quickly.
The energy content of a proton, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength that would not encircle the proton completely.
The notion of a "point particle" in classical physics is not free of objections, but it has proven so useful that physicists can hardly reject simply because it ultimately leads to self-contradictions involving issues like "self-forces" or "back-reaction", particularly in non-linear classical field theories like gtr. "
That's understandable i think, but for me it raises another question. If you have a (classical) point particle which are so small that we can't define it. And we do have them, they are hitting my eyes and skin as i'm writing
.How small would then that wave be, i know, the same size right. dumb question but how can it also represent the possible creation of two particles? The Electron which i found a size for Usenet discussion: 2.8 × 10^-19 m and in arxiv paper: 2.9 × 10^−19 m, to me it imply that which ever size it has its bigger than the photon. And then we have the positron. " The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron." How about the giving the same size for that one approximately? and even though they may only exist for a moment they seem to regroup into other constellations of photon's than the one they split from, which to me imply that they are no 'illusion' of nature.
Now how do they come to 'light'
so to speak, from this tiny pinprick of a photon. and also, as they can change constellation when being assimilated as a photon again i presume them to have a restmass. Further more , why don't they take each other out immediately? I know i jumped from that first classical definition of a photon to quantum mechanics but it still makes me flabbergasted. I mean the Electron at least is supposed to be one of our building stones, no? This behavior shouldn't be allowed Btw: before when i wrote "Its true, it isss, they should have made one beginning with the S-sound and the other should have had a totally different name !!!"
I think i meant the 'resss' sound, not the 'S-sound' a minor inconvenience for me, sorry about that
Otherwise i'm fully sane, yes Sir..I'm getting slack; I won't bother to split your post into separate questions but just head into the fray... Now you're getting into areas where I stray considerably from currently accepted physics theory.
Both classical and quantum physics use the concept of a point particle, to their disadvantage (my opinion). Point particles make many calculations much simpler. Indeed, the electron is seriously believed to be a point particle since experimental scattering results match predictions that use a derivative of the Rutherford scattering formula (which assumes point particles), electromagnetic forces, strong forces, and a proton model of quarks and gluons combined in a mathematical scattering model. I've never believed in point particles, the strong force, quarks, or gluons. Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are likely to be the only basic forces necessary. The model of electrons and protons that I developed point (pun intended) to this scenario. The model I developed indicates the true size of an electron is hidden within the accepted size of a proton. That is, the accepted size of a proton is too large by a factor related to the electron's true size.
The energy content of an electron, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength long enough to encircle the electron about 137 times. You can't treat a photon as a point particle any more than you can treat an electron as a point particle. The photon needed to create both a positron and electron is only half as long, since its energy is twice as large and its wavelength one-half as long.
A positron is identical in size and rest mass to an electron and simply has an opposite charge. Positrons and electrons created in pair generation rely on their kinetic energy and subsequent opposite reaction to electromagnetic fields to keep from annihilating each other immediately. If their kinetic energy is low or the surrounding EM field is weak after their creation, they will likely recombine quickly.
The energy content of a proton, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength that would not encircle the proton completely.
Ive been rereading the posts and i'm impressed with your patience, especially regallow's :). sometimes i keep asking the same questions though i already got the answer. Perhaps one can see that as an example of photons possible communication between time. o<-->o ? Ah well, there is one question that truly strikes me. If you don't feel satisfied with discrete jumps as in QM. then you are walking the road from the other direction right? You are coming from our 'normal' experience of spacetime where we experience none of those discrete jumps into QM. Do you feel somewhere that you have a inkling where to unravel this mystery? Because for me it is a mystery, on one hand the life as i know it, on the other when i look at my hand and use what little imagination i have :) i go further and further down in size until there is only relationships but no matter, or as we nerds say 'restmass':). (Well i think that i could aply for a junior position at least?) . it's like there is two realities, both valid but separated by size and in one way also similar to two dimensions as they act so differently. And now i think i will read some more :) I can sleep when i ..
Now mr. R. E. Galloway if th... You say and i quote " The energy content of an electron, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength long enough to encircle the electron about 137 times " How did you reach that figure? And now we have a possible size or should i start bicycling again?
Now mr. R. E. Galloway if th... You say and i quote " The energy content of an electron, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength long enough to encircle the electron about 137 times " How did you reach that figure? And now we have a possible size or should i start bicycling again?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 14 2007, 03:38 AM)
If you don't feel satisfied with discrete jumps as in QM. then you are walking the road from the other direction right? You are coming from our 'normal' experience of spacetime where we experience none of those discrete jumps into QM. Do you feel somewhere that you have a inkling where to unravel this mystery? Because for me it is a mystery, on one hand the life as i know it, on the other when i look at my hand and use what little imagination i have i go further and further down in size until there is only relationships but no matter, or as we nerds say 'restmass':). (Well i think that i could aply for a junior position at least?) . it's like there is two realities, both valid but separated by size and in one way also similar to two dimensions as they act so differently.
I have nothing against the concept of discrete quantum jumps, at least as I use the term. The term usually describes an energy change of a bound state electron, "jumping" from one energy state to another as it absorbs or releases a photon's energy. It really says nothing about whether time is involved in the jump, only that the change is discrete. That is, all the energy difference between the states is absorbed or emitted in one change, not several, and the allowed states form a discrete set, not a continuum. I simply tend to perceive the process as a physical one in the classical sense rather than a mathematical one, with (for example) a probability wave function collapsing into a particular state.
QM simplifies the interaction between particles by intentionally ignoring their structures and giving them 'inherent' properties such as spin and charge. The tendency is to say "it simply is" rather than look for an underlying particle structure. Simplicity is good, so QM has won and a generation or more of physicists tended to stop looking for any alternatives. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was used as a reason to stop looking for more detail (why since uncertainty reigns there?).
We need to break through the belief that it makes no sense to look for more detail below a quantum particle's 'inherent' properties. Rutherford and others tried to build structural electron models without success. I firmly believe the key lies in properly understanding the structure of a photon. Since an electron and positron can be created from one photon, that makes them electromagnetic in origin. I don't believe electromagnetic (EM) waves change into something else; I believe they can form stable EM structures and remain wavelike.
Lo and behold, stable structural EM wave models are possible that explain the quantum nature of charge and spin and the origin of the fine structure constant. Use the same model for protons and antiprotons, and all begins to be explained in terms of stable EM wave structures. As a bonus, we find a departure from Coulomb's Law for short distances that will probably negate the need for the strong force once the effect is completely analyzed.
Once we have a valid structural model for these basic particles and understand how specific quantum properties come to be, such as charge and spin, then we will have a valid underpinning for quantum mechanics. Classical particle, relativistic wave and field, and quantum theories will then form a continuum of concepts with valid realms of usage.
If we are able to do away with the strong force, we are left with electromagnetic, gravitational, and weak forces. I believe the weak force is not a force at all. Similar to the use of inherent QM properties, it became an 'inherent' force used to explain instability that will be better understood as wave structure instability. Once left with just electromagnetic and gravitational forces, the link between them will be much easier to define. Then we will have an all-inclusive Grand Unified Field Theory or a Theory Of Everything.
We know the rest mass Mo of an electron from experiments.
Using Eo = Mo * c^2, where c = speed of light, we can calculate its energy content Eo.
Using E = h * f, where h = Planck's constant, we can calculate the frequency f of a photon of that energy.
Using c = f * l, where l = wavelength, we can calculate the photon's wavelength.
Knowing the wavelength, we can compare it to an electron's circumference. Currently accepted physics believes the electron's circumference is zero (it's a point particle with no circumference), so that comparison would be invalid. Comparing it to the electron's circumference found in my model, the ratio of the photon's wavelength to an electron's circumference is 1/alpha, where alpha is the fine structure constant. 1/alpha = 137.0359991.
Technically speaking, the electron in my model isn't circular or spherical. It's an ellipsoid. So circumference should read perimeter. Also technically, the circumference or perimeter so calculated for an electron will not be identical to the one seen experimentally because its root mean square value in experiments will be different.
i go further and further down in size until there is only relationships but no matter, or as we nerds say 'restmass':). (Well i think that i could aply for a junior position at least?) . it's like there is two realities, both valid but separated by size and in one way also similar to two dimensions as they act so differently.I have nothing against the concept of discrete quantum jumps, at least as I use the term. The term usually describes an energy change of a bound state electron, "jumping" from one energy state to another as it absorbs or releases a photon's energy. It really says nothing about whether time is involved in the jump, only that the change is discrete. That is, all the energy difference between the states is absorbed or emitted in one change, not several, and the allowed states form a discrete set, not a continuum. I simply tend to perceive the process as a physical one in the classical sense rather than a mathematical one, with (for example) a probability wave function collapsing into a particular state.
QM simplifies the interaction between particles by intentionally ignoring their structures and giving them 'inherent' properties such as spin and charge. The tendency is to say "it simply is" rather than look for an underlying particle structure. Simplicity is good, so QM has won and a generation or more of physicists tended to stop looking for any alternatives. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was used as a reason to stop looking for more detail (why since uncertainty reigns there?).
We need to break through the belief that it makes no sense to look for more detail below a quantum particle's 'inherent' properties. Rutherford and others tried to build structural electron models without success. I firmly believe the key lies in properly understanding the structure of a photon. Since an electron and positron can be created from one photon, that makes them electromagnetic in origin. I don't believe electromagnetic (EM) waves change into something else; I believe they can form stable EM structures and remain wavelike.
Lo and behold, stable structural EM wave models are possible that explain the quantum nature of charge and spin and the origin of the fine structure constant. Use the same model for protons and antiprotons, and all begins to be explained in terms of stable EM wave structures. As a bonus, we find a departure from Coulomb's Law for short distances that will probably negate the need for the strong force once the effect is completely analyzed.
Once we have a valid structural model for these basic particles and understand how specific quantum properties come to be, such as charge and spin, then we will have a valid underpinning for quantum mechanics. Classical particle, relativistic wave and field, and quantum theories will then form a continuum of concepts with valid realms of usage.
If we are able to do away with the strong force, we are left with electromagnetic, gravitational, and weak forces. I believe the weak force is not a force at all. Similar to the use of inherent QM properties, it became an 'inherent' force used to explain instability that will be better understood as wave structure instability. Once left with just electromagnetic and gravitational forces, the link between them will be much easier to define. Then we will have an all-inclusive Grand Unified Field Theory or a Theory Of Everything.
QUOTE
You say and i quote " The energy content of an electron, if represented by a photon, would require a photon with a wavelength long enough to encircle the electron about 137 times " How did you reach that figure?
We know the rest mass Mo of an electron from experiments.
Using Eo = Mo * c^2, where c = speed of light, we can calculate its energy content Eo.
Using E = h * f, where h = Planck's constant, we can calculate the frequency f of a photon of that energy.
Using c = f * l, where l = wavelength, we can calculate the photon's wavelength.
Knowing the wavelength, we can compare it to an electron's circumference. Currently accepted physics believes the electron's circumference is zero (it's a point particle with no circumference), so that comparison would be invalid. Comparing it to the electron's circumference found in my model, the ratio of the photon's wavelength to an electron's circumference is 1/alpha, where alpha is the fine structure constant. 1/alpha = 137.0359991.
Technically speaking, the electron in my model isn't circular or spherical. It's an ellipsoid. So circumference should read perimeter. Also technically, the circumference or perimeter so calculated for an electron will not be identical to the one seen experimentally because its root mean square value in experiments will be different.
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.