Why Not .. you can be on my team any day (actually vice versa is far more probable
) "The perfect C2 interferometer" .. fame at last! One arm a meter long and the other a light second long .. excellent. Paired photons (1 used and one 'idler' ) so we know when a photon goes in and can measure the time it takes to come out. Also excellent.
QUOTE (Why Not+)
Since the beam splitter perfectly sends 1/2 of the photons to arm A and 1/2 to arm B, we can assume that, in any run with a duration of less than two years, for every two photons registered at detector B, one photon will be registered at detector A. Yes?
The magic is in the beam splitter .. if we look at light as an EM wave we say half goes one way and half goes the other and we 'of course' see interference. If we flip back to our photon metaphor and agree that a photon can only interfere with itself then we are forced to the conclusion that each individual photon must explore both paths. I would only expecting to detect (at best) one photon out for every idler photon detected.
It looks like the 'bit of the photon that takes the short path' will have to hang about for 2 seconds to meet up with the bit that took the long path. If the photon is detected after time T then the speed of light looks like L_a/T or possibly L_b/T .. or both, or neither.
We borrow the coincidence detector from the DCQE and set it to fire only when the time delay between idler photon and used photon is equal to the length of time a photon would spend in the short leg. We scan the detector across the zone where we expect interference to occur .. if we see an interference pattern we know the photon has checked out both arms in less than the time it would take light to travel along the long arm and we (me certainly) go out and get very drunk because we KNOW something, not hand-waving, not 'I read it in a book' etc. . Possibly next day we change the coincidence detector time and repeat up to two seconds (or more) then we change the path length by a fraction of a wavelength and repeat everything until we have shifted the path length by at least a whole wavelength.
We look at the results and ask "What does this all mean?"
That would be the "Why Not./C2" experiment.
Before predicting the result it is interesting to note that we could potentially have FTL communication if one party controls the mirror at the end of the log arm and the other party watches for interference.
So far Good Elf predicts 'Sooner or later' .. anything more definite?
-C2.
C2,
Who needs inteference when you've crackpot concepts like this.... sent this stuff to NASA a few decades ago and still no superluminal communication...Duh.
Fivedoughnuts simple guide to hyperspacial communication utilizing 4-D hypertoroids......A sketch of 5 easy to follow steps.
Righty ho folks, listen good & proper....
Step 1: Collect positrons and electrons from gamma photon decays (lots are recommended)
Step 2: Entrap them cryogenically in pre-purged magnetic containment devices(ultra vacuum/particle density near zero) to minimize possibility of annihilation.
Step 3: Separate the electron and positron containment devices (at any distance you choose fit)
Step 4: finally mobilise (by affecting containment field) either the electrons or positrons. Then by the magic of what used to be called quantum interconnectivity, the other anti-particles will anti-wobble, thus producing an inductive effect on the containment coils....which then can then be amplified as a signal.
Communicate anywhere in our universe instantly...easy peasy.
Who needs inteference when you've crackpot concepts like this.... sent this stuff to NASA a few decades ago and still no superluminal communication...Duh.
Fivedoughnuts simple guide to hyperspacial communication utilizing 4-D hypertoroids......A sketch of 5 easy to follow steps.
Righty ho folks, listen good & proper....
Step 1: Collect positrons and electrons from gamma photon decays (lots are recommended)
Step 2: Entrap them cryogenically in pre-purged magnetic containment devices(ultra vacuum/particle density near zero) to minimize possibility of annihilation.
Step 3: Separate the electron and positron containment devices (at any distance you choose fit)
Step 4: finally mobilise (by affecting containment field) either the electrons or positrons. Then by the magic of what used to be called quantum interconnectivity, the other anti-particles will anti-wobble, thus producing an inductive effect on the containment coils....which then can then be amplified as a signal.
Communicate anywhere in our universe instantly...easy peasy.
Hi 5D,
Yes, if you mention superluminal communication you generally get sent to sit at the crackpot end of the bar. I just mentioned it as a warning. I don't usually drink during the day but I'm sure a swift half wouldn't do any harm.
Eleven hours later ..
Best wishes,
-C2.
Yes, if you mention superluminal communication you generally get sent to sit at the crackpot end of the bar. I just mentioned it as a warning. I don't usually drink during the day but I'm sure a swift half wouldn't do any harm.
Eleven hours later ..
Best wishes,
-C2.
Why Not? .. sorry I seem to have missed the end of your post .. which end of the bar do you favour?
There is an everyday close equivalent of the modified MM .. the amount of light reflected by a sheet of glass depends on the thickness of the sheet of glass. I suspect the photon might well work out the thickness of the glass 'instantly' otherwise the effect would be better known
-C2.
There is an everyday close equivalent of the modified MM .. the amount of light reflected by a sheet of glass depends on the thickness of the sheet of glass. I suspect the photon might well work out the thickness of the glass 'instantly' otherwise the effect would be better known
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 26 2006, 12:43 PM)
Hi 5D,
Yes, if you mention superluminal communication you generally get sent to sit at the crackpot end of the bar. I just mentioned it as a warning. I don't usually drink during the day but I'm sure a swift half wouldn't do any harm.
Eleven hours later ..
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
I've just spent the last 25 years getting pissed-up waiting for the rest to catch up.
Whatta shame!
Yes, if you mention superluminal communication you generally get sent to sit at the crackpot end of the bar. I just mentioned it as a warning. I don't usually drink during the day but I'm sure a swift half wouldn't do any harm.
Eleven hours later ..
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2,
I've just spent the last 25 years getting pissed-up waiting for the rest to catch up.
Whatta shame!
yquantum, et al ..
I'm happy to hear you say"..holding on to the particle / wave mentality will just leave you in frustration and in bewilderment."
There is no duality in the wave vs particle models, only contradictory: the 2 models are exclusive of each other, and never co-exist. This is the heart of defining a duality.
However, you also said "The truth of it is we do not have a word to describe the weirdness of the behavior of this experiment or do we even understand the QM world in which makes up what we call reality."
Which, according "to the book", is correct, of course.
But it is not a "true" statement.
The word is Resonance; and the QM world has too many false model assumptions to create a logical explanation. This doesn't make it entirely wrong, though. We all know how "accurate" it has been.
Apparently, logic does not hold weight in this conversation. No one commented directly on points that make the conversation mute, that settle the score.
All I have to say is:
"Pump multiple frequencies into a cavity, and what will happen?"
It has been shown, by multiple Scientific disciplines, that, beginning with just 2 frequencies, interactions occur. They follow very simple mathematical rules. This simple rule creates the classic electro-magnetic phenomenon: the change in 1 creates the existence of another. We can only change vibrations in 2 ways: over time, or over distance, which is measured by the frequency or wavelength. Sure, we can look at more complexities, such as orientation, spin, etc., but this first part of the interaction is fundamental.
When I prove to you that there is always more than 1 frequency present after 1 cycle, then the interaction(s) are predictedin any experiment that manipulates vibration in any way.
There is nothing "unintuitive" about this, unless you start from a flawed model. The flaw is simple, that the equations that are being used to describe this phenomenon, are base on SINGLE frequencies. The number of frequencies present, in any experiment, is always more than 1.
Some of you, and I can't blame you, need to "read it from somewhere" to have it be credible. Just today, is another news item that supports my theory.
"Qubit Noise Matters More Than Expected" (link)
Some snips:
" He says that open systems are, by definition, “open to influences from the world around,” as opposed to tightly controlled in experimental settings. “When open systems are weakly influenced by a whole bunch of uncontrollable and random forces,” Eberly says, “this is noise.” He continues to explain that noise “is usually innocuous, extremely weak, but always present.” "
"It seems that physicists never thought to look at this before,” says Eberly."
Oh my God!
Termination of coherence... hmmm
That sounds a lot like a reason for specific, discreet jumps in energy.
Could it be that there is a reason for QM's postulate? Has no one asked this either?
Termination of coherence... hmmm
That sounds a lot like a reason for specific, discreet jumps in energy.
Could it be that there is a reason for QM's postulate? Has no one asked this either?
"It’s surprising and counter-intuitive, that by recognizing two parts, rather than one, noise has this unexpected effect.”
Not to me! Very logical, very predictable, no surprise.
This points to a problem with the math associated with the model. Infinitely divisible intervals. Heim saw his way around this, and made the interval discreet. Maybe his theory is not all correct, but he has generated the masses of the Standard Model. I have as well, yet with far less assumptions, and very little complexity.
Some of you will be familiar with a sure-fire way to eliminate "cross-talk" between signals: DON'T use equispaced intervals. (fiber optics)
hmmm..
The inverse of that statement is: if you WANT "cross-talk", make the intervals equidistant/discreet.
Some "exhaustive" math will show you the limit needed to make equidistant intervals between the Fundamental Resonance that occurs from 1:2 . A little deductive reasoning will have you realize that the lasers that are being used will follow this same ratio. This is the "octave" of visible light; we can even extend down into IR, and up into UV, and maintain this harmonic relationship.
When you work this out, you end up with quite a lot of possible "happy endings" for the frequencies: they find resonance with each other. "A lot", but certainly with a LIMIT. The "nodes" that exist in this limited way define all that we will ever "see" with the key players involved .
Back to the experiment (any experiment that "divides" light into 2 parts).
The 2 slits are the same size, and form a discreet interval between them. All the waves that pass through here are equally divided by this interval. "Cross-talk", or "interference", or "coherence", or "resonance" happens because of this. This is the classic interference pattern.
C2,
The 2 differences are this: in a linear medium, the interactions are limited to higher harmonics of the wave; in a non-linear medium, both the lower, and the upper harmonics can be "accessed". This separates the phenomenon into 2 different models. "Starlight" models of the very big, and "Quantum light" that models the very small.
The frame of reference for the observer is key to joining these 2 models. While we may be able to understand the concept of "light years" worth of time, the fact is, we can not "experience" it. We can not measure those things, in the inverse way that we can not measure the very small (HUP). Our lifetimes are not that "stable"; generations of us would come and go before we could even record a difference in the buildup of the pattern.
ciao!
T.Roc
I'm happy to hear you say"..holding on to the particle / wave mentality will just leave you in frustration and in bewilderment."
There is no duality in the wave vs particle models, only contradictory: the 2 models are exclusive of each other, and never co-exist. This is the heart of defining a duality.
However, you also said "The truth of it is we do not have a word to describe the weirdness of the behavior of this experiment or do we even understand the QM world in which makes up what we call reality."
Which, according "to the book", is correct, of course.
But it is not a "true" statement.
The word is Resonance; and the QM world has too many false model assumptions to create a logical explanation. This doesn't make it entirely wrong, though. We all know how "accurate" it has been.
Apparently, logic does not hold weight in this conversation. No one commented directly on points that make the conversation mute, that settle the score.
All I have to say is:
"Pump multiple frequencies into a cavity, and what will happen?"
It has been shown, by multiple Scientific disciplines, that, beginning with just 2 frequencies, interactions occur. They follow very simple mathematical rules. This simple rule creates the classic electro-magnetic phenomenon: the change in 1 creates the existence of another. We can only change vibrations in 2 ways: over time, or over distance, which is measured by the frequency or wavelength. Sure, we can look at more complexities, such as orientation, spin, etc., but this first part of the interaction is fundamental.
When I prove to you that there is always more than 1 frequency present after 1 cycle, then the interaction(s) are predictedin any experiment that manipulates vibration in any way.
There is nothing "unintuitive" about this, unless you start from a flawed model. The flaw is simple, that the equations that are being used to describe this phenomenon, are base on SINGLE frequencies. The number of frequencies present, in any experiment, is always more than 1.
Some of you, and I can't blame you, need to "read it from somewhere" to have it be credible. Just today, is another news item that supports my theory.
"Qubit Noise Matters More Than Expected" (link)
Some snips:
QUOTE
"Widely understood, long-known features of the effect of noise on quantum systems fail to be true as soon as you take into account that a system has two distinguishable parts.”
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Widely understood, long-known features of the effect of noise on quantum systems fail to be true as soon as you take into account that a system has two distinguishable parts.” |
" He says that open systems are, by definition, “open to influences from the world around,” as opposed to tightly controlled in experimental settings. “When open systems are weakly influenced by a whole bunch of uncontrollable and random forces,” Eberly says, “this is noise.” He continues to explain that noise “is usually innocuous, extremely weak, but always present.” "
QUOTE
"Noise universally causes smooth degradation of coherence over time. But Eberly and Yu began considering something different with regards to quantum open systems. They decided to consider coherence degradation in quantum open systems made of two parts and focus on the two-part aspect."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Noise universally causes smooth degradation of coherence over time. But Eberly and Yu began considering something different with regards to quantum open systems. They decided to consider coherence degradation in quantum open systems made of two parts and focus on the two-part aspect." |
"It seems that physicists never thought to look at this before,” says Eberly."
Oh my God!
QUOTE
"“Noise is so weak, so universal, you wouldn’t think it would matter.” But what Eberly and Yu found is that noise has unexpectedly different consequences when a two-part, or bipartite, quantum open system is considered. They found that while degradation is certainly still present when viewed through the “entanglement lens,” its surprising effect is termination of coherence abruptly rather than smoothly. "
Termination of coherence... hmmm
That sounds a lot like a reason for specific, discreet jumps in energy.
Could it be that there is a reason for QM's postulate? Has no one asked this either?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "“Noise is so weak, so universal, you wouldn’t think it would matter.” But what Eberly and Yu found is that noise has unexpectedly different consequences when a two-part, or bipartite, quantum open system is considered. They found that while degradation is certainly still present when viewed through the “entanglement lens,” its surprising effect is termination of coherence abruptly rather than smoothly. " |
Termination of coherence... hmmm
That sounds a lot like a reason for specific, discreet jumps in energy.
Could it be that there is a reason for QM's postulate? Has no one asked this either?
"It’s surprising and counter-intuitive, that by recognizing two parts, rather than one, noise has this unexpected effect.”
Not to me! Very logical, very predictable, no surprise.
QUOTE
"“Infinitesimal noise, usually completely ignorable, has effects no one would have predicted.” "
This points to a problem with the math associated with the model. Infinitely divisible intervals. Heim saw his way around this, and made the interval discreet. Maybe his theory is not all correct, but he has generated the masses of the Standard Model. I have as well, yet with far less assumptions, and very little complexity.
Some of you will be familiar with a sure-fire way to eliminate "cross-talk" between signals: DON'T use equispaced intervals. (fiber optics)
hmmm..
The inverse of that statement is: if you WANT "cross-talk", make the intervals equidistant/discreet.
Some "exhaustive" math will show you the limit needed to make equidistant intervals between the Fundamental Resonance that occurs from 1:2 . A little deductive reasoning will have you realize that the lasers that are being used will follow this same ratio. This is the "octave" of visible light; we can even extend down into IR, and up into UV, and maintain this harmonic relationship.
When you work this out, you end up with quite a lot of possible "happy endings" for the frequencies: they find resonance with each other. "A lot", but certainly with a LIMIT. The "nodes" that exist in this limited way define all that we will ever "see" with the key players involved .
Back to the experiment (any experiment that "divides" light into 2 parts).
The 2 slits are the same size, and form a discreet interval between them. All the waves that pass through here are equally divided by this interval. "Cross-talk", or "interference", or "coherence", or "resonance" happens because of this. This is the classic interference pattern.
C2,
The 2 differences are this: in a linear medium, the interactions are limited to higher harmonics of the wave; in a non-linear medium, both the lower, and the upper harmonics can be "accessed". This separates the phenomenon into 2 different models. "Starlight" models of the very big, and "Quantum light" that models the very small.
The frame of reference for the observer is key to joining these 2 models. While we may be able to understand the concept of "light years" worth of time, the fact is, we can not "experience" it. We can not measure those things, in the inverse way that we can not measure the very small (HUP). Our lifetimes are not that "stable"; generations of us would come and go before we could even record a difference in the buildup of the pattern.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hey C2, Good Elf, fivedoughnut, yquantum, TRoc, et al.
C2 - I am an equal opportunity drinker but prefer the side of the bar that's buying!
But to poke my own hole in the biggest "thin spot" (which I tried to thinly vale in making arm B one light year long) of the thought experiment... By determining (measuring) the time information, we automatically determine the "which path" information. As we know, by determining the “which path” information, we cause that damned probability wave to collapse and loose all hope of detecting interference. So if we really ran this experiment, we would only see interference when the idler photon detector was turned off. “Spooky action at a distance” is still “spooky”, but the zillions of double slit and interferometer experiments all come to the same conclusions - the quantum mechanical Kool-Aid is a tough drink to swallow!
TRoc – I dug up the paper referenced in the article you cited. It is here, if you are interested. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0603/0603256.pdf While the paper discusses the sudden decoherence (by noise interaction) of an entangled two qubit system, it might provide some insight into WPD if WPD is examined as a “self-entangled” state that decoheres when a specific property is examined…
C2 - I am an equal opportunity drinker but prefer the side of the bar that's buying!
But to poke my own hole in the biggest "thin spot" (which I tried to thinly vale in making arm B one light year long) of the thought experiment... By determining (measuring) the time information, we automatically determine the "which path" information. As we know, by determining the “which path” information, we cause that damned probability wave to collapse and loose all hope of detecting interference. So if we really ran this experiment, we would only see interference when the idler photon detector was turned off. “Spooky action at a distance” is still “spooky”, but the zillions of double slit and interferometer experiments all come to the same conclusions - the quantum mechanical Kool-Aid is a tough drink to swallow!
TRoc – I dug up the paper referenced in the article you cited. It is here, if you are interested. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0603/0603256.pdf While the paper discusses the sudden decoherence (by noise interaction) of an entangled two qubit system, it might provide some insight into WPD if WPD is examined as a “self-entangled” state that decoheres when a specific property is examined…
QUOTE
This is perhaps the most striking aspect of the properties described: they are properties of joint-system information rather than joint-system interaction.
Hi Why Not, Good Elf, fivedoughnut, yquantum, TRoc, et al.
By determining (measuring) the time information, we automatically determine the "which path" information. As we know, by determining the “which path” information, we cause that damned probability wave to collapse and loose all hope of detecting interference.
Such logic confirms my view that Why Not has team leader potential. Yes, closer to answering this and the original question (which I have now forgotten) than anything I've seen yet.
Simply knowing the time is enough .. I wish I'd seen that
-C2 .
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
By determining (measuring) the time information, we automatically determine the "which path" information. As we know, by determining the “which path” information, we cause that damned probability wave to collapse and loose all hope of detecting interference.
Such logic confirms my view that Why Not has team leader potential. Yes, closer to answering this and the original question (which I have now forgotten) than anything I've seen yet.
Simply knowing the time is enough .. I wish I'd seen that
-C2
.
WN?, GE, C2, YQ, 5D ...
Thanks for posting the link WN?, the paper was even better than I expected. It will save me quite a bit of work!
I think that it would be a good choice of terminology, given its' popularity right now, to make the "self-entangled" analogy with the DSE, and the WPD that it has helped to "define".
As I said, the focus must be on the interval between the slits. It sets the "rhythm", or the time where "nothing" happens between events (beat frequencies). These Bf's are valid vibrational "entities" in themselves, no different than anti-nodes setting the stage for the nodes that we measure. This is a true duality; either/or and both. (not: either/or but never both)
The line before the one that you quoted:
I think this is where I have used the term "beat free resonance", or 100%. (Doppler free spectroscopy) This is NOT happening with the phenomenon that the paper describes. Perhaps not technically a "transaction", but at least a good "feeling out", where the wavelets "probe" each other without collapsing. "Interference" still seems to be a good term, though I have used "dissonance" too. The point to take home is that Resonance comes in degrees, and not just the 100% kind.
Only that kind of resonance transfers a quantum of energy. That is the 1:2 ratio, where the Bf is f1 ( f1 - f2 = f1). It would be the only 100% resonance for the 2party system, whereas, in a 3party, you get an additional order of effect.
I think that my method will be shown to be the general case, and SHG within 4-wave mixing (and all that falls in that category) to be a result. At least, that is my intention.
regards,
T.Roc
Thanks for posting the link WN?, the paper was even better than I expected. It will save me quite a bit of work!
I think that it would be a good choice of terminology, given its' popularity right now, to make the "self-entangled" analogy with the DSE, and the WPD that it has helped to "define".
As I said, the focus must be on the interval between the slits. It sets the "rhythm", or the time where "nothing" happens between events (beat frequencies). These Bf's are valid vibrational "entities" in themselves, no different than anti-nodes setting the stage for the nodes that we measure. This is a true duality; either/or and both. (not: either/or but never both)
The line before the one that you quoted:
QUOTE
"It must be emphasized that none of our key AB results come from interaction or communication between the A and B parts of the two-party system, or between their separate reservoirs"
I think this is where I have used the term "beat free resonance", or 100%. (Doppler free spectroscopy) This is NOT happening with the phenomenon that the paper describes. Perhaps not technically a "transaction", but at least a good "feeling out", where the wavelets "probe" each other without collapsing. "Interference" still seems to be a good term, though I have used "dissonance" too. The point to take home is that Resonance comes in degrees, and not just the 100% kind.
Only that kind of resonance transfers a quantum of energy. That is the 1:2 ratio, where the Bf is f1 ( f1 - f2 = f1). It would be the only 100% resonance for the 2party system, whereas, in a 3party, you get an additional order of effect.
I think that my method will be shown to be the general case, and SHG within 4-wave mixing (and all that falls in that category) to be a result. At least, that is my intention.
regards,
T.Roc
.
Hi TRoc!
Excellent posts, mate!
Just an observation for your further consideration.
Take the wave behaviour and your 'cavities'; add the observed fact that waves reflect/refract at "boundaries"; add all that to Zephir's excellent illustrations of flowing/rotating "boundary layers" separating various "streamline/vortex-ring" phases/flows/features in so-called "spacetime" (ie, Aether etc)....
....,and voila!...
A universal "system" of variously-scaled/motive self-formed/defined "spacetime cavities/waveguides" features carrying their "internal-wave energy/matter" phenomena with them until "interference/decoherence" etc interactions either 'aggregate/re-inforce' them or 'de-aggregate/destroy' (or otherwise 'enhance/diminish') them in "resonance steps" of scale/energy etc....with any inbetween "excesses/insufficiencies' lost to/gained from the ambient "AETHER" (or whatever 'medium/field' gives rise to the formation/substance of the 'cavity features').
Something to ponder/discuss further in our TOE threads, do you think?
PS: I've just returned from some medical tests in Sydney (everything OK as can be for me)....and I will be finishing my 'implications' inputs to the relevant threads any day now....so 'see' ya there soon!
RC.
.
Hi TRoc!
Excellent posts, mate!
Just an observation for your further consideration.
Take the wave behaviour and your 'cavities'; add the observed fact that waves reflect/refract at "boundaries"; add all that to Zephir's excellent illustrations of flowing/rotating "boundary layers" separating various "streamline/vortex-ring" phases/flows/features in so-called "spacetime" (ie, Aether etc)....
....,and voila!...
A universal "system" of variously-scaled/motive self-formed/defined "spacetime cavities/waveguides" features carrying their "internal-wave energy/matter" phenomena with them until "interference/decoherence" etc interactions either 'aggregate/re-inforce' them or 'de-aggregate/destroy' (or otherwise 'enhance/diminish') them in "resonance steps" of scale/energy etc....with any inbetween "excesses/insufficiencies' lost to/gained from the ambient "AETHER" (or whatever 'medium/field' gives rise to the formation/substance of the 'cavity features').
Something to ponder/discuss further in our TOE threads, do you think?
PS: I've just returned from some medical tests in Sydney (everything OK as can be for me)....and I will be finishing my 'implications' inputs to the relevant threads any day now....so 'see' ya there soon!
RC.
.
Hi Why Not, Good Elf, fivedoughnut, yquantum, TRoc, RC, et al.
Still on the modified MM. With one path a metre long and the other path a light year long.
We turn the laser on. EM comfortably predicts no inteference during the first 12 months .. and interference after 12 months. QM must do the same.
We turn the laser on for six months. EM predicts no interference. It seems to me that QM needs to know the duration of the beam to decide whether or not to exhibit interference. Any thoughts?
Troc/RC .. sorry, the theory you are discussing is mostly too alien to me for me to make any comment. (Good to hear RC news though).
-C2.
Still on the modified MM. With one path a metre long and the other path a light year long.
We turn the laser on. EM comfortably predicts no inteference during the first 12 months .. and interference after 12 months. QM must do the same.
We turn the laser on for six months. EM predicts no interference. It seems to me that QM needs to know the duration of the beam to decide whether or not to exhibit interference. Any thoughts?
Troc/RC .. sorry, the theory you are discussing is mostly too alien to me for me to make any comment. (Good to hear RC news though).
-C2.
Hey C2, TRoc, RC, GE, yq, et al.
TRoc, I am happy the link helped. But I must confess that without seeing your theory spelled out, I am still a bit in the dark. I would speculate that the distance between the slits (or the difference in distance between the arm lengths of an interferometer) as well as the wavelength(s) involved’ set the geometry of the interaction (the cavity - as Good Elf has pointed out numerous times). I infer from the entangled two qubit paper that the "slits" can be any number of things (including noise); the base requirement seems to be the ability to cause (force, participate in) an interaction.
C2, First, point a clarification: With one arm a light year long, "EM comfortably predicts no interference during the first (24) months". A year out and a year back.
I may be off base here, so feel free (anyone) to correct me where I've erred...
First, let’s use a constant beam of light from the laser and focus on the waves only. When we turn the laser on, the intensity of light received at the detector should be 1/2 of the total intensity entering the apparatus during the first 2 years of the run. When the arms are equal multiples of the wavelength of light apart, after two years into the run, the intensity registered at the detector should double, equaling the total output of the laser (complete constructive interference at the beam splitter). Now, with the laser still running, we adjust the mirror on the short leg (just for convenience) so that it is 1/4 of a wavelength further away, the two beams of light, split at the beam splitter on the way into the apparatus, will recombine back at the beam splitter 180 degrees out of phase. As a result, the intensity at the detector should drop to zero (complete destructive interference). QUESTION 1: Does this capture what “EM comfortably predicts”?
Now let’s adjust the laser and introduce a down converting crystal so that one photon per second is entering the apparatus (verified by counting the idler photons). Since the QM approach should produce the same results, we should register, on average, 1 photon every 2 seconds during the first two years of the run. After two years, the number of photons registered at the detector should double. We can verify this by comparing the total number of photons detected by the total number of idler photons counted. This, of course, assumes that the beam splitter will send (on average) one photon to the long leg for each photon sent to the short leg. This also assumes that, after a photon has reflected off the mirror at the end of each arm, it will (when again reaching the beam splitter) do the opposite of what it did when it first met the beam splitter. QUESTION 2: Are these two assumptions correct?
If they are correct, then the detector should register two photons every two seconds – but it should register these photons in pairs (two simultaneous photons in the fist second, no photons in the second, two simultaneous photons in the third second and so forth). Since we are counting the idler photons, we know the “which path” information and thus are destroying the interference. Therefore, the photons returning from the short leg are not interfering with those returning from the long leg. They are simple retuning simultaneously because the length of the arms are equal multiples of the wavelength apart.
Here is where the fun begins! We now adjust the mirror on the short leg (again just for convenience) 1/4 of the wavelength further away. QUESTION 3: What do we register at the detector?
Answer A: Nothing, because we should have interference, just like in the EM version of the run.
Answer B: We continue to register two photons every two seconds – but now no longer in pairs, that is, a constant rate of one photon per second.
Answer C: Neither answer A or B.
My speculation is that answer B is correct. Since we are counting the idler photons, we are determining the “which path” information, and are thus destroying the possibility of interference. In doing so, we are permitted to have a different result than the EM version of the experiment (just as we would if we covered one of the slits in the two slit experiment).
QUESTION 4: What will be registered at the detector if (sometime after the first two years of the run) we stop counting the idler photons?
My speculation is that we will no longer register any events at the detector. Since we are no longer determining the “which path” information, we should see interference at the beam splitter, just as we did in the EM version.
If these speculations are correct, it is worth noting that, even without counting the idler photons, we are still able to determine the “which path” information at any time during the first two years of the run – simply because the photons will obey the speed of light when we are looking. Only after the first two years, will the photons interfere with themselves when we are not counting (determining the “which path” information). So, C2, I believe you are correct. QM needs to know the duration of the beam (and the experiment needs to run longer than the minimum duration) before QM interference is possible.
TRoc, I am happy the link helped. But I must confess that without seeing your theory spelled out, I am still a bit in the dark. I would speculate that the distance between the slits (or the difference in distance between the arm lengths of an interferometer) as well as the wavelength(s) involved’ set the geometry of the interaction (the cavity - as Good Elf has pointed out numerous times). I infer from the entangled two qubit paper that the "slits" can be any number of things (including noise); the base requirement seems to be the ability to cause (force, participate in) an interaction.
C2, First, point a clarification: With one arm a light year long, "EM comfortably predicts no interference during the first (24) months". A year out and a year back.
I may be off base here, so feel free (anyone) to correct me where I've erred...
First, let’s use a constant beam of light from the laser and focus on the waves only. When we turn the laser on, the intensity of light received at the detector should be 1/2 of the total intensity entering the apparatus during the first 2 years of the run. When the arms are equal multiples of the wavelength of light apart, after two years into the run, the intensity registered at the detector should double, equaling the total output of the laser (complete constructive interference at the beam splitter). Now, with the laser still running, we adjust the mirror on the short leg (just for convenience) so that it is 1/4 of a wavelength further away, the two beams of light, split at the beam splitter on the way into the apparatus, will recombine back at the beam splitter 180 degrees out of phase. As a result, the intensity at the detector should drop to zero (complete destructive interference). QUESTION 1: Does this capture what “EM comfortably predicts”?
Now let’s adjust the laser and introduce a down converting crystal so that one photon per second is entering the apparatus (verified by counting the idler photons). Since the QM approach should produce the same results, we should register, on average, 1 photon every 2 seconds during the first two years of the run. After two years, the number of photons registered at the detector should double. We can verify this by comparing the total number of photons detected by the total number of idler photons counted. This, of course, assumes that the beam splitter will send (on average) one photon to the long leg for each photon sent to the short leg. This also assumes that, after a photon has reflected off the mirror at the end of each arm, it will (when again reaching the beam splitter) do the opposite of what it did when it first met the beam splitter. QUESTION 2: Are these two assumptions correct?
If they are correct, then the detector should register two photons every two seconds – but it should register these photons in pairs (two simultaneous photons in the fist second, no photons in the second, two simultaneous photons in the third second and so forth). Since we are counting the idler photons, we know the “which path” information and thus are destroying the interference. Therefore, the photons returning from the short leg are not interfering with those returning from the long leg. They are simple retuning simultaneously because the length of the arms are equal multiples of the wavelength apart.
Here is where the fun begins! We now adjust the mirror on the short leg (again just for convenience) 1/4 of the wavelength further away. QUESTION 3: What do we register at the detector?
Answer A: Nothing, because we should have interference, just like in the EM version of the run.
Answer B: We continue to register two photons every two seconds – but now no longer in pairs, that is, a constant rate of one photon per second.
Answer C: Neither answer A or B.
My speculation is that answer B is correct. Since we are counting the idler photons, we are determining the “which path” information, and are thus destroying the possibility of interference. In doing so, we are permitted to have a different result than the EM version of the experiment (just as we would if we covered one of the slits in the two slit experiment).
QUESTION 4: What will be registered at the detector if (sometime after the first two years of the run) we stop counting the idler photons?
My speculation is that we will no longer register any events at the detector. Since we are no longer determining the “which path” information, we should see interference at the beam splitter, just as we did in the EM version.
If these speculations are correct, it is worth noting that, even without counting the idler photons, we are still able to determine the “which path” information at any time during the first two years of the run – simply because the photons will obey the speed of light when we are looking. Only after the first two years, will the photons interfere with themselves when we are not counting (determining the “which path” information). So, C2, I believe you are correct. QM needs to know the duration of the beam (and the experiment needs to run longer than the minimum duration) before QM interference is possible.
C2, Why Not?, RealityCheck [long time], T.roc, et al,
C2 I want you to find the answers to your questions that only you can really understand the direction in which you want to go.
The fundamental feature of the microscopic world is a curious property of reality that can never actually be observed. All you see are the consequences of their existence - Results.
Going a few levels deeper might help you on your journey. Look into superposition, entanglement, wavefunction, and to see the results you must have interference.
Not to overload you just pick one and see where it takes you.
Best to all,
ciao_
yquantum
C2 I want you to find the answers to your questions that only you can really understand the direction in which you want to go.
The fundamental feature of the microscopic world is a curious property of reality that can never actually be observed. All you see are the consequences of their existence - Results.
Going a few levels deeper might help you on your journey. Look into superposition, entanglement, wavefunction, and to see the results you must have interference.
Not to overload you just pick one and see where it takes you.
Best to all,
ciao_
yquantum
C2,
BTW, if you really want to open up the Pandora paradox check into DECORHERENCE.
ciao_
y
BTW, if you really want to open up the Pandora paradox check into DECORHERENCE.
ciao_
y
Hi Confused2, yquantum, RealityCheck, Ron, Why Not?, Areal, T.roc, Zephir et al,
Lets have a little thinky about abstract quantum "noise". As long as we are going to discuss the measurement of the quantum rather than to "observe" the undisturbed quantum state we better look a little carefully at the nature of this quantum. The word "classical" has been used quite a bit in the literature and it actually has far too broad a meaning to be a complete description here. Not everything called "classical" is classical. Not everything called "quantum" is really "quantum". What test can we make of a measurement to really convince us that we are dealing with a quantum measurement rather than a non-quantum measurement that may consist predominantly of "analog" noise. Recently in the literature much has been made of the Quantum Zeno Effect and Quantum Back Action.
It is very important to be able to distinguish a true quantum state from that which is only a simple "measurement".
Wikipedia: Quantum Zeno Effect
Quantum Backaction PhysOrg
It is apparent to me at least that a quantum has become the "particle description" of a more "resonant" situation that particles are not "classically" prone to, individual marbles in a box do not resonate do they? However real particles do. Of course if we are speaking about "waves" and not particles, then they are much more extended phenomena than a classical particle and may indeed fill a cavity.
The quantum "state" is able to be "collapsed" into a particular eigenstate (or not) depending on the nature of our "measurement". Considered as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle the wave and particle properties of that "entity"... I hesitate to nominate what it really is... can be represented as an "area under a curve".... a length by a height .... one dimension of this calculation is a quanta in energy multiplied by a quanta in time (the frequency and the time domain)
∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π
What we might do is make frequent and rapid "measurements" that keep our "state" fixed and this may even be a photon in a high meta-stable state... trapping it "almost forever". Alternatively we may choose to make fewer and less probing "measurements" where this "inner product" or "projection" is less intrusive and thus this represents a gentle nudge only. This nudge can be toward the eigen state and thus the state can migrate toward this purer state through successive "nudges" in the right direction. This is often termed resonance. This phenomenon as I have mentioned before is used in various devices such as Lasers and Resonance can "purify" the state... effectively removing noise and resulting in a single bosonic state. Another example may be the Bose-Einstein Condensate. Alternatively we can just make one "determination" and put up with the fact that we are about to measure noise and accept that the state measured has a component which is the pure state plus noise generated through "decoherence". Check out this reference...
Heisenberg uncertainty principle - measurement limits - reciprocity relations
Of course what I am asserting here is a more wider principle than even seen in this link. The Heisenberg Uncertainty "product" is not necessarily a fixed concept and there are many ways to skin the Schrodinger Cat, one of which is shown in this Harvard reference to the wave packet and to Fourier Theory. What I would like to point out is while the state is not collapsed (T -> Infinity), the state may be made "pure" but in a collapsed "decohered" state it may appear "noisy".... the difference is to be seen in the Wheeler-Feynman Theory of the Emitter-Absorber Concept where the noise is introduced by your measurement process by "sampling errors", not truly taking into account the extended nature of the quantum phenomena in space and time (reaching to all places and all times). What is measured is a property of the time domain and a property in the frequency domain, the product always being greater than a nominated value. This is the "duality" of the two domains and treading the delicate boundary between the two. The Michelson-Morley Experiment with arms a light second in length is a very poorly conditioned experiment just to determine where a photon may be. My view is that the particle description of the slit leads to only two times, when a wave description leads to a continuum of times with the actual time of "detection" depending on purely random orientation imprecision of the caustic. The experiment as proposed remains unfortunately a Gedanken Experiment.
Pretty colors represent phase... 30 Kepler Periods of an electron in a "circular orbit". The electron (and the photon... not shown here) can and will interfere with itself and in the case of an electron it can also interfere with other electrons as well, the "grouped" electrons are usually referred to as "Cooper Pairs" which are "bosons" when you add up the quantum numbers, and are "special" as we all know.
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
To illustrate this "principle" I have shown you this image before of a confined electron in a simplified single atomic "cavity". The question arises where is the electron? Notice as it becomes "confined" it is necessarily spread out spatially. This time evolving picture is not absolutely identical to the non-time evolving picture of the photon but the cavity (any cavity even the MMI) will respond in a similar fashion to the various modes. A photon in a cavity will sweep out a very static picture that for the instant the photon exists in, its own time does not change. To paint this photon picture in time is like completing a Rembrandt Painting building up all the parts of the one entire picture. Unlike Rembrandt the Universe does not need to go over again any part of this picture to correct his/her "mistakes" due to the subject "moving" during the "sitting". In the electron case the Phase Velocity and the Group Velocity are widely different... one of these is above the speed of light and the other far below the speed of light, as we all know. I have discussed de Broglie waves before and why the fermion is different from the boson. With the photon these two velocities are one and the same both at the speed of light along the direction of propagation and the phase velocity is infinite perpendicular to the direction of propagation everywhere. I would also add... this phenomena is not able to observed directly other than in the "projections" as a particle on to our space with the attendant measurement noise.
I hope this put this into a wider context than just observing photons but photons are a special case of of any wavelike particle, similar but not the same. This animation above shows an electron in a spherical cavity indicating the complex values of the wave in color. Measurement instruments will project these values into the normalized squares of the amplitudes but the "real picture" is what you see here. When dealing with the complex nature of phenomena the projections will result in "quantum noise". Quantum numbers naturally arise from an analysis of the surface harmonics of these systems. The image shows a multiple state in which the circumference is an integer numbers of wavelengths of some "virtual photon".
Those Feynman Programs of Prof Taylor (previously referenced) illustrate this phenomena for light in a "snapshot" fashion. A similar "temporal" picture would be required to show how electrons "work" when confined to cavities. More complicated but not essentially different. The best theoretical way to indicate this phenomena would be to try and understand the internal cavities of fermion particles and to only map the equivalent "photons" as "bosons", and not try and describe the "fermions", confined to the cavities (the "polarization" mentioned by Feynman). This would provide a consistent description of time and space as "frozen moments" centered around a relativistic reference frame centered on some origin around the sources.
Cheers
Lets have a little thinky about abstract quantum "noise". As long as we are going to discuss the measurement of the quantum rather than to "observe" the undisturbed quantum state we better look a little carefully at the nature of this quantum. The word "classical" has been used quite a bit in the literature and it actually has far too broad a meaning to be a complete description here. Not everything called "classical" is classical. Not everything called "quantum" is really "quantum". What test can we make of a measurement to really convince us that we are dealing with a quantum measurement rather than a non-quantum measurement that may consist predominantly of "analog" noise. Recently in the literature much has been made of the Quantum Zeno Effect and Quantum Back Action.
It is very important to be able to distinguish a true quantum state from that which is only a simple "measurement".
Wikipedia: Quantum Zeno Effect
Quantum Backaction PhysOrg
It is apparent to me at least that a quantum has become the "particle description" of a more "resonant" situation that particles are not "classically" prone to, individual marbles in a box do not resonate do they? However real particles do. Of course if we are speaking about "waves" and not particles, then they are much more extended phenomena than a classical particle and may indeed fill a cavity.
The quantum "state" is able to be "collapsed" into a particular eigenstate (or not) depending on the nature of our "measurement". Considered as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle the wave and particle properties of that "entity"... I hesitate to nominate what it really is... can be represented as an "area under a curve".... a length by a height .... one dimension of this calculation is a quanta in energy multiplied by a quanta in time (the frequency and the time domain)
∆E ∆t ≥ h/4π
What we might do is make frequent and rapid "measurements" that keep our "state" fixed and this may even be a photon in a high meta-stable state... trapping it "almost forever". Alternatively we may choose to make fewer and less probing "measurements" where this "inner product" or "projection" is less intrusive and thus this represents a gentle nudge only. This nudge can be toward the eigen state and thus the state can migrate toward this purer state through successive "nudges" in the right direction. This is often termed resonance. This phenomenon as I have mentioned before is used in various devices such as Lasers and Resonance can "purify" the state... effectively removing noise and resulting in a single bosonic state. Another example may be the Bose-Einstein Condensate. Alternatively we can just make one "determination" and put up with the fact that we are about to measure noise and accept that the state measured has a component which is the pure state plus noise generated through "decoherence". Check out this reference...
Heisenberg uncertainty principle - measurement limits - reciprocity relations
Of course what I am asserting here is a more wider principle than even seen in this link. The Heisenberg Uncertainty "product" is not necessarily a fixed concept and there are many ways to skin the Schrodinger Cat, one of which is shown in this Harvard reference to the wave packet and to Fourier Theory. What I would like to point out is while the state is not collapsed (T -> Infinity), the state may be made "pure" but in a collapsed "decohered" state it may appear "noisy".... the difference is to be seen in the Wheeler-Feynman Theory of the Emitter-Absorber Concept where the noise is introduced by your measurement process by "sampling errors", not truly taking into account the extended nature of the quantum phenomena in space and time (reaching to all places and all times). What is measured is a property of the time domain and a property in the frequency domain, the product always being greater than a nominated value. This is the "duality" of the two domains and treading the delicate boundary between the two. The Michelson-Morley Experiment with arms a light second in length is a very poorly conditioned experiment just to determine where a photon may be. My view is that the particle description of the slit leads to only two times, when a wave description leads to a continuum of times with the actual time of "detection" depending on purely random orientation imprecision of the caustic. The experiment as proposed remains unfortunately a Gedanken Experiment.
Pretty colors represent phase... 30 Kepler Periods of an electron in a "circular orbit". The electron (and the photon... not shown here) can and will interfere with itself and in the case of an electron it can also interfere with other electrons as well, the "grouped" electrons are usually referred to as "Cooper Pairs" which are "bosons" when you add up the quantum numbers, and are "special" as we all know.
Motion of a Circular Orbit Wave Packet
To illustrate this "principle" I have shown you this image before of a confined electron in a simplified single atomic "cavity". The question arises where is the electron? Notice as it becomes "confined" it is necessarily spread out spatially. This time evolving picture is not absolutely identical to the non-time evolving picture of the photon but the cavity (any cavity even the MMI) will respond in a similar fashion to the various modes. A photon in a cavity will sweep out a very static picture that for the instant the photon exists in, its own time does not change. To paint this photon picture in time is like completing a Rembrandt Painting building up all the parts of the one entire picture. Unlike Rembrandt the Universe does not need to go over again any part of this picture to correct his/her "mistakes" due to the subject "moving" during the "sitting". In the electron case the Phase Velocity and the Group Velocity are widely different... one of these is above the speed of light and the other far below the speed of light, as we all know. I have discussed de Broglie waves before and why the fermion is different from the boson. With the photon these two velocities are one and the same both at the speed of light along the direction of propagation and the phase velocity is infinite perpendicular to the direction of propagation everywhere. I would also add... this phenomena is not able to observed directly other than in the "projections" as a particle on to our space with the attendant measurement noise.
I hope this put this into a wider context than just observing photons but photons are a special case of of any wavelike particle, similar but not the same. This animation above shows an electron in a spherical cavity indicating the complex values of the wave in color. Measurement instruments will project these values into the normalized squares of the amplitudes but the "real picture" is what you see here. When dealing with the complex nature of phenomena the projections will result in "quantum noise". Quantum numbers naturally arise from an analysis of the surface harmonics of these systems. The image shows a multiple state in which the circumference is an integer numbers of wavelengths of some "virtual photon".
Those Feynman Programs of Prof Taylor (previously referenced) illustrate this phenomena for light in a "snapshot" fashion. A similar "temporal" picture would be required to show how electrons "work" when confined to cavities. More complicated but not essentially different. The best theoretical way to indicate this phenomena would be to try and understand the internal cavities of fermion particles and to only map the equivalent "photons" as "bosons", and not try and describe the "fermions", confined to the cavities (the "polarization" mentioned by Feynman). This would provide a consistent description of time and space as "frozen moments" centered around a relativistic reference frame centered on some origin around the sources.
Cheers
Hi Why Not?, Good Elf, yquantum, RealityCheck, Ron, Areal, T.roc, Zephir et al,
Why Not? .. I've written this down as I thought it .. could well be wrong.. suggestions/corrections welcome.
Q1/Q2. (No idler photon detection used) For the first two years we get one a photon every two seconds on average .. with the same heads (tails) distribution as tossing a coin. (this may be wrong and/or disturb some people). Given that the equipment is whatever we want I would introduce a 100% mirror to ensure no loss of signal from the long arm.
"After 2 years the number of photons detected should double". The distribution of the returning photons will be the 'tails' for each one of the short path detections ('heads') that we saw two years earlier .. hence 0,1 or 2 photons with the same distribution as tossing two coins. Our data from the first two years shows (100% probability) the detections from the short arm so we should expect 100% detection of the chaps returning via the long path. This situation persists for a further two years .. a total of four years before interference becomes an option ++. I think this contradicts our initial (Q1) EM expectation.
After 4 years the apparatus is full of photons for which we have no 'which way' information. .. with full constructive interference we get one photon a second out .. the idler photon is irrelevent .. it doesn't give 'which way' information. (Now my answer to your Q3 and Q4) As we change the path length towards interference we randomly miss more counts. If we modify the path length by moving the mirror at the end of the long path it will be a year before the 'whatever it is' that went out that way arrives back at the detector .. hence no FTL. The emerging crazy bit (to me) would appear to be that the 'whatever it is' on the long path can always find the other half of itself on the short path. If we were totally serious about this I think we should pulse the source at rate (say 3 days on and 4 days off) which will probe this further. I'll wait for your comments on this post before thinking any more about it.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit
++ ??!
Why Not? .. I've written this down as I thought it .. could well be wrong.. suggestions/corrections welcome.
Q1/Q2. (No idler photon detection used) For the first two years we get one a photon every two seconds on average .. with the same heads (tails) distribution as tossing a coin. (this may be wrong and/or disturb some people). Given that the equipment is whatever we want I would introduce a 100% mirror to ensure no loss of signal from the long arm.
"After 2 years the number of photons detected should double". The distribution of the returning photons will be the 'tails' for each one of the short path detections ('heads') that we saw two years earlier .. hence 0,1 or 2 photons with the same distribution as tossing two coins. Our data from the first two years shows (100% probability) the detections from the short arm so we should expect 100% detection of the chaps returning via the long path. This situation persists for a further two years .. a total of four years before interference becomes an option ++. I think this contradicts our initial (Q1) EM expectation.
After 4 years the apparatus is full of photons for which we have no 'which way' information. .. with full constructive interference we get one photon a second out .. the idler photon is irrelevent .. it doesn't give 'which way' information. (Now my answer to your Q3 and Q4) As we change the path length towards interference we randomly miss more counts. If we modify the path length by moving the mirror at the end of the long path it will be a year before the 'whatever it is' that went out that way arrives back at the detector .. hence no FTL. The emerging crazy bit (to me) would appear to be that the 'whatever it is' on the long path can always find the other half of itself on the short path. If we were totally serious about this I think we should pulse the source at rate (say 3 days on and 4 days off) which will probe this further. I'll wait for your comments on this post before thinking any more about it.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Edit
++ ??!
Hi Good Elf, fivedoughnut, yquantum, TRoc, Why Not? et al.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The Michelson-Morley Experiment with arms a light second in length is a very poorly conditioned experiment just to determine where a photon may be.
One arm is a metre long and the other is a light year long.
The modified MM is intended to give an alternative insight into the nature of a photon. All assistance to verify that the results are 'real' and accurate would be greatly appreciated. Please ignore my occasional speculation about the cause of the result .. it is not important.
-C2.
One arm is a metre long and the other is a light year long.
The modified MM is intended to give an alternative insight into the nature of a photon. All assistance to verify that the results are 'real' and accurate would be greatly appreciated. Please ignore my occasional speculation about the cause of the result .. it is not important.
-C2.
Hi C2, Good Elf, yquantum, TRoc, RealityCheck, Ron, Aireal, Zephir, et al,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The Michelson-Morley Experiment with arms a light second in length is a very poorly conditioned experiment just to determine where a photon may be. My view is that the particle description of the slit leads to only two times, when a wave description leads to a continuum of times with the actual time of "detection" depending on purely random orientation imprecision of the caustic. The experiment as proposed remains unfortunately a Gedanken Experiment.
It may be poorly conditioned, and, of course, is a Gedanken Experiment. Regardless, if the experiment as proposed is fundamentally flawed in some way (as to always produce nonsense) please identity how so that the problem can be corrected. Otherwise, poorly conditioned or not, it is a way to apply all of the information discussed in this thread to an experiment that has not been performed (at least no one has been able to cite evidence of such an experiment) in an effort to see if we understand the information well enough to make reasonably correct predictions as to the outcomes. I appreciate the information you have presented throughout, as mind bending as some of it is, but I would be very interested in your predictions as to the outcomes of this particular one. The same goes for all of the others that have contributed as well.
It may be poorly conditioned, and, of course, is a Gedanken Experiment. Regardless, if the experiment as proposed is fundamentally flawed in some way (as to always produce nonsense) please identity how so that the problem can be corrected. Otherwise, poorly conditioned or not, it is a way to apply all of the information discussed in this thread to an experiment that has not been performed (at least no one has been able to cite evidence of such an experiment) in an effort to see if we understand the information well enough to make reasonably correct predictions as to the outcomes. I appreciate the information you have presented throughout, as mind bending as some of it is, but I would be very interested in your predictions as to the outcomes of this particular one. The same goes for all of the others that have contributed as well.
QUOTE (Confused 2+)
Q1/Q2. (No idler photon detection used) For the first two years we get one a photon every two seconds on average .. with the same heads (tails) distribution as tossing a coin.
Question 1 was strictly in relation to the first part of the experiment using "beams" as opposed to photons just to make sure we have the "wave" predictions correctly identified in the experiment.
The second phase of the experiment, leading to Question 2, introduces the idler photon. And I agree that we would see an average of one photon per second over the first two years with the head/tails distribution. It is important that we exactly record this distribution! The results would probably look something like: 1001011011101100001110101001000...
Question 1 was strictly in relation to the first part of the experiment using "beams" as opposed to photons just to make sure we have the "wave" predictions correctly identified in the experiment.
The second phase of the experiment, leading to Question 2, introduces the idler photon. And I agree that we would see an average of one photon per second over the first two years with the head/tails distribution. It is important that we exactly record this distribution! The results would probably look something like: 1001011011101100001110101001000...
QUOTE (Confused 2+)
Given that the equipment is whatever we want I would introduce a 100% mirror to ensure no loss of signal from the long arm.
I am assuming that everything in the experiment is perfect (at least for now), perfectly coherent monochromatic infinitely narrow light, perfect beam splitter, perfect mirrors, perfect alignment, perfect detectors, etc. Once we determine what the results should be in a perfect world, we can introduce the imperfection that will bring the experiment closer to reality.
I am assuming that everything in the experiment is perfect (at least for now), perfectly coherent monochromatic infinitely narrow light, perfect beam splitter, perfect mirrors, perfect alignment, perfect detectors, etc. Once we determine what the results should be in a perfect world, we can introduce the imperfection that will bring the experiment closer to reality.
QUOTE (Confused 2+)
"After 2 years the number of photons detected should double". The distribution of the returning photons will be the 'tails' for each one of the short path detections ('heads') that we saw two years earlier .. hence 0,1 or 2 photons with the same distribution as tossing two coins. Our data from the first two years shows (100% probability) the detections from the short arm so we should expect 100% detection of the chaps returning via the long path. This situation persists for a further two years.
Agreed. However, we can subtract the first two years of data from the second two years of data (matching up all of the heads to tails) and the remainder will provide new short arm "which path" information for the second two years of the run. We can continue doing this ad infinitum, thus always being able to determine the "which path" information as long as we continue to record the photon count entering the apparatus (thus the importance of the idler photons).
But, thank you for the correction, after two years will should register 0, 1, or 2 photons every second.
Agreed. However, we can subtract the first two years of data from the second two years of data (matching up all of the heads to tails) and the remainder will provide new short arm "which path" information for the second two years of the run. We can continue doing this ad infinitum, thus always being able to determine the "which path" information as long as we continue to record the photon count entering the apparatus (thus the importance of the idler photons).
But, thank you for the correction, after two years will should register 0, 1, or 2 photons every second.
QUOTE (Confused 2+)
After 4 years the apparatus is full of photons for which we have no 'which way' information. .. with full constructive interference we get one photon a second out .. the idler photon is irrelevant .. it doesn't give 'which way' information.
I disagree. As stated above, as long as we continue to count the photons going in and continue to record the results, we will always be able to match heads to tails by subtracting the previous two years worth of data.
Before we continue, lets try to reach concurrence on the predicted results thus far into our experiment. If you agree with my suppositions above, please feel free to move on to the next stage of the run. If I screwed something up, lets discuss how to fix it.
EDIT:
GE - I am speculating that by using the idler photon, we are invoking the Quantum Zeno effect to prevent interference.
I disagree. As stated above, as long as we continue to count the photons going in and continue to record the results, we will always be able to match heads to tails by subtracting the previous two years worth of data.
Before we continue, lets try to reach concurrence on the predicted results thus far into our experiment. If you agree with my suppositions above, please feel free to move on to the next stage of the run. If I screwed something up, lets discuss how to fix it.
EDIT:
GE - I am speculating that by using the idler photon, we are invoking the Quantum Zeno effect to prevent interference.
Hi Why Not?
If we start off set up for 100% constructive interference I think we should settle down to one photon out every second .. path unknown .. yes/no? If so then how long before we get to this state?
-C2.
Edit ..
RE: Zeno .. it might be best to leave the idler photon until we're happy with the 'normal' result. I think I will need a stiff drink before I can accept that connecting up the detector will make the interference go away. We're assuming a single photon but it should do the same to a full beam laser ( but for detector overload).
If we start off set up for 100% constructive interference I think we should settle down to one photon out every second .. path unknown .. yes/no? If so then how long before we get to this state?
-C2.
Edit ..
RE: Zeno .. it might be best to leave the idler photon until we're happy with the 'normal' result. I think I will need a stiff drink before I can accept that connecting up the detector will make the interference go away. We're assuming a single photon but it should do the same to a full beam laser ( but for detector overload).
Hey C2,
Yes, one every second, as long as we are not determining the which path. I believe it would take precisely two years to arrive at this state since we know that light will take this long to reach the long arm mirror and reflect back.
EDIT: It might be easier to think of it as a beam of light instead of individual photons for the time being. It takes two years to generate a continuous beam of light in both arms, thus having the conditions required for the beams to interfere. Yes?
Yes, one every second, as long as we are not determining the which path. I believe it would take precisely two years to arrive at this state since we know that light will take this long to reach the long arm mirror and reflect back.
EDIT: It might be easier to think of it as a beam of light instead of individual photons for the time being. It takes two years to generate a continuous beam of light in both arms, thus having the conditions required for the beams to interfere. Yes?
Hi Why Not?
OK, let's go with one every second after two years and see what happens.
Re your edit .. I think I got 4 years from considering your rolling 2 year problem without understanding it as clearly as you have. The EM beam result is pretty obvious but EM wasn't really designed for this .. to an extent we are looking at how good the EM metaphor really is (and the photon one too). For the present I take a photon to mean whatever it means .. this is what I'm hoping to find out more about.
OK, let's go with one every second after two years and see what happens.
Re your edit .. I think I got 4 years from considering your rolling 2 year problem without understanding it as clearly as you have. The EM beam result is pretty obvious but EM wasn't really designed for this .. to an extent we are looking at how good the EM metaphor really is (and the photon one too). For the present I take a photon to mean whatever it means .. this is what I'm hoping to find out more about.
Hey C2,
OK. Then I suppose we are on to what happens when we vary the distance of one arm by 1/4 wavelength. From the EM approach (ie. looking for wave interference), we should obtain complete destructive interference and register zero detections (regardless of whether we have a continuous beam or individual photons). Yes or no?
OK. Then I suppose we are on to what happens when we vary the distance of one arm by 1/4 wavelength. From the EM approach (ie. looking for wave interference), we should obtain complete destructive interference and register zero detections (regardless of whether we have a continuous beam or individual photons). Yes or no?
Yep
Half wave path difference (Note I go on path length mostly .. trivial point)
QM Zero detections
EM Zero amplitude
Half wave path difference (Note I go on path length mostly .. trivial point)
QM Zero detections
EM Zero amplitude
Hey C2,
Path length is a more appropriate term. So is it fair to say that using the experiment (as set up thus far), we should be able to obtain results corollary to those in the DSE when not determining which slit the particle goes through? If so, we know what happens in the DSE when we detect the which slit information. So how can we determine the "which path" information in our interferometer and what will the results be?
Path length is a more appropriate term.
So is it fair to say that using the experiment (as set up thus far), we should be able to obtain results corollary to those in the DSE when not determining which slit the particle goes through? If so, we know what happens in the DSE when we detect the which slit information. So how can we determine the "which path" information in our interferometer and what will the results be?
My turn?
1/4 wave path difference ..
QM Statistically 1/Sqrt(2) (0.7) counts/sec averaged over many seconds
EM Power = 1/Sqrt(2) (0.7) of full power
1/4 wave path difference ..
QM Statistically 1/Sqrt(2) (0.7) counts/sec averaged over many seconds
EM Power = 1/Sqrt(2) (0.7) of full power
Sorry, I got caught up in flood control.
Path length is a more appropriate term. So is it fair to say that using the experiment (as set up thus far), we should be able to obtain results corollary to those in the DSE when not determining which slit the particle goes through? [ YES (C2) ] If so, we know what happens in the DSE when we detect the which slit information. So how can we determine the "which path" information in our interferometer and what will the results be?
I think we have to construct something equivalent to the DCQE .. I don't know of a 'real' device than can detect a photon without killing it (which rather defeats the object).
-C2.
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
Path length is a more appropriate term. So is it fair to say that using the experiment (as set up thus far), we should be able to obtain results corollary to those in the DSE when not determining which slit the particle goes through? [ YES (C2) ] If so, we know what happens in the DSE when we detect the which slit information. So how can we determine the "which path" information in our interferometer and what will the results be?
I think we have to construct something equivalent to the DCQE .. I don't know of a 'real' device than can detect a photon without killing it (which rather defeats the object).
-C2.
Maybe we should pause here.
Q1. Do we accept that a photon can only interfere with itself?
-C2.
Q1. Do we accept that a photon can only interfere with itself?
-C2.
C2, et al,
You ask a question that I hope this simple explanation will give you some insight in which to build your post.
If to simple then we can go to the next level, but I want to make sure you have a good foundation on the subject. At the bottom the site seems to give you other material in which to search.
The Physics Journals would come at a price and not sure if you want to be bog down with the mathematics which I think at one point you will need to become comfortable with like reading a great book.
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doubleslit_2.htm
BTW, please give me credit I did not give you a site using CERN/LHC or Fermilab papers/work/experiment's as a source. Eh!
ciao_
yquantum
You ask a question that I hope this simple explanation will give you some insight in which to build your post.
If to simple then we can go to the next level, but I want to make sure you have a good foundation on the subject. At the bottom the site seems to give you other material in which to search.
The Physics Journals would come at a price and not sure if you want to be bog down with the mathematics which I think at one point you will need to become comfortable with like reading a great book.
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doubleslit_2.htm
BTW, please give me credit I did not give you a site using CERN/LHC or Fermilab papers/work/experiment's as a source. Eh!
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Confused2, yquantum, RealityCheck, Ron, Why Not?, Areal, T.roc, Zephir et al,
When an experiment is devised the essence of it is to keep it very simple. This the Michelson-Morley Experiment with a finite sized optical system which is a limitation right out the outset. The bigger you make it the more difficult you will find this experiment to maintain "control". The Double Slit experiment is really good because it is "very" simple. Unfortunately this experiment you have proposed is a very complex one and it could never be proposed in a practical sense. For instance any object even one light second long (300,000 Kilometers long) is so long that it has "broken locality" inside the region of our our Solar System. Even worse is an instrument one light year long. You have introduced a lot of unknowns about Relativity into the problem.
Next you have not suggested how you are going to exclude any stray light from the instrument and how you are going to determine if the detection of a photon is a coherent one or not. Of course individual photons you detect are all always "coherent" with themselves but you have no way of knowing if they have remained coherent with the source over those distances, those times, and those fluxes (one photon a second). Now what I have been referring to as "the eye of the hurricane" of a photon (the spin center), a classical property, it's position cannot be actually known (ever) for any particular photon (a priori) this is like taking a 38 pistol and firing at the far end of your MM chamber (one light second/year long), the longer the arms of this instrument the spread of that property will be so great only a small number will actually reflect off the end being sufficiently accurately aligned. Alternatively you will need to increase the size of the optics to subtend the same solid angle at that distance, an engineering effort that in the extreme case would exceed the total output of our civilization. The result of this group of unknowns is that experimental bounds have been exceeded and remember since all we can actually measure is that one flash of light due to one photon a second at a screen, nothing can be determined about the behavior of the space and the resonance we are looking for.
Now the most important point (I have kept this to last since this is a real "goodie"), about this weak coherent source, is that all of you seem to miss is you cannot determine exactly when a photon from the weak source is allowed into the system. While you can reduce the intensity of light to an average flux of one photon a second there is absolutely no way you can guarantee that photons through the instrument will occur at regular intervals of one second for you to perform "which way" on them. Any attempt to "enforce" this condition on our photons, cracks the entire experiment. My suggestion is you earn stripes in Physics by making your experiments cheap, simple, "transparent", affordable. You all know what I am going to say in the nicest possible way... KISS.
If on the other hand we are talking "Gedanken Experiments" then you need to use the results of existing experiments to infer the results. I think we have already done that? The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment have several versions and incarnations that suggest that the question around which this topic is centered "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later" is a problem that might be answered by my proposal. The results say nothing about the length of a system affecting the outcome. So rather than bog down like that thread about the plane trying to take off on a conveyor belt... we should "move on"... at least with things that can be practically addressed.
I have always been highly experimentally orientated and motivated. IMHO "Pure" Theoretical Physics (Mathematical Physics) is fine but without the "discipline" of experiment they are all fraught with "money for nothing". There will always be more Pure Mathematics than there are Physical Applications of it in the Universe. The experiments show what we know and what we do not know. Gödel has indicated that "absolute knowledge" will always never be accessible to mankind. I am "happy" with this and we can pull a lot of stuff out of our minds that are beyond any test mankind will ever have the ability to perform... and we all know some of those "untestable" theories that are proposed to supplant tried and tested theories don't we? Pure hubris.
Wikipedia: Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Gödel was a Theist and susceptible to arguements that center on outcomes that keep "God" in his place but allow us humans to aspire to him. Of course Gödel spent much of his life in and out of insane institutions... poor chap. He was a good friend of Einstein's. I guess what I would like to say is Gödel was an ill man and Einstein was not. See ... Physics is good for you and Philosophy is not!
Heaven help the Physicist that becomes a Philosopher.
What Gödel did not say was what we can do and need to do is to simply reduce the number of unknowns in our Universe through well designed experiment and "converge" on what is the best possible human description of our Universe that experiment can provide proof for. That will be just one explanation at most at any point in time that explains "everything" we presently know through experiment, and because it is not a model, it has "open ends" for prediction. Theories that do this are ones like Special and General Relativity and some aspects of Quantum Physics.
Cheers
When an experiment is devised the essence of it is to keep it very simple. This the Michelson-Morley Experiment with a finite sized optical system which is a limitation right out the outset. The bigger you make it the more difficult you will find this experiment to maintain "control". The Double Slit experiment is really good because it is "very" simple. Unfortunately this experiment you have proposed is a very complex one and it could never be proposed in a practical sense. For instance any object even one light second long (300,000 Kilometers long) is so long that it has "broken locality" inside the region of our our Solar System. Even worse is an instrument one light year long. You have introduced a lot of unknowns about Relativity into the problem.
Next you have not suggested how you are going to exclude any stray light from the instrument and how you are going to determine if the detection of a photon is a coherent one or not. Of course individual photons you detect are all always "coherent" with themselves but you have no way of knowing if they have remained coherent with the source over those distances, those times, and those fluxes (one photon a second). Now what I have been referring to as "the eye of the hurricane" of a photon (the spin center), a classical property, it's position cannot be actually known (ever) for any particular photon (a priori) this is like taking a 38 pistol and firing at the far end of your MM chamber (one light second/year long), the longer the arms of this instrument the spread of that property will be so great only a small number will actually reflect off the end being sufficiently accurately aligned. Alternatively you will need to increase the size of the optics to subtend the same solid angle at that distance, an engineering effort that in the extreme case would exceed the total output of our civilization. The result of this group of unknowns is that experimental bounds have been exceeded and remember since all we can actually measure is that one flash of light due to one photon a second at a screen, nothing can be determined about the behavior of the space and the resonance we are looking for.
Now the most important point (I have kept this to last since this is a real "goodie"), about this weak coherent source, is that all of you seem to miss is you cannot determine exactly when a photon from the weak source is allowed into the system. While you can reduce the intensity of light to an average flux of one photon a second there is absolutely no way you can guarantee that photons through the instrument will occur at regular intervals of one second for you to perform "which way" on them. Any attempt to "enforce" this condition on our photons, cracks the entire experiment. My suggestion is you earn stripes in Physics by making your experiments cheap, simple, "transparent", affordable. You all know what I am going to say in the nicest possible way... KISS.
If on the other hand we are talking "Gedanken Experiments" then you need to use the results of existing experiments to infer the results. I think we have already done that? The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment have several versions and incarnations that suggest that the question around which this topic is centered "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later" is a problem that might be answered by my proposal. The results say nothing about the length of a system affecting the outcome. So rather than bog down like that thread about the plane trying to take off on a conveyor belt... we should "move on"... at least with things that can be practically addressed.
I have always been highly experimentally orientated and motivated. IMHO "Pure" Theoretical Physics (Mathematical Physics) is fine but without the "discipline" of experiment they are all fraught with "money for nothing". There will always be more Pure Mathematics than there are Physical Applications of it in the Universe. The experiments show what we know and what we do not know. Gödel has indicated that "absolute knowledge" will always never be accessible to mankind. I am "happy" with this and we can pull a lot of stuff out of our minds that are beyond any test mankind will ever have the ability to perform... and we all know some of those "untestable" theories that are proposed to supplant tried and tested theories don't we? Pure hubris.
Wikipedia: Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Gödel was a Theist and susceptible to arguements that center on outcomes that keep "God" in his place but allow us humans to aspire to him. Of course Gödel spent much of his life in and out of insane institutions... poor chap. He was a good friend of Einstein's. I guess what I would like to say is Gödel was an ill man and Einstein was not. See ... Physics is good for you and Philosophy is not!
Heaven help the Physicist that becomes a Philosopher.What Gödel did not say was what we can do and need to do is to simply reduce the number of unknowns in our Universe through well designed experiment and "converge" on what is the best possible human description of our Universe that experiment can provide proof for. That will be just one explanation at most at any point in time that explains "everything" we presently know through experiment, and because it is not a model, it has "open ends" for prediction. Theories that do this are ones like Special and General Relativity and some aspects of Quantum Physics.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 29 2006, 01:48 AM)
What Gödel did not say was what we can do and need to do is to simply reduce the number of unknowns in our Universe through well designed experiment and "converge" on what is the best possible human description of our Universe that experiment can provide proof for. That will be just one explanation at most at any point in time that explains "everything" we presently know through experiment, and because it is not a model, it has "open ends" for prediction. Theories that do this are ones like Special and General Relativity and some aspects of Quantum Physics.
Cheers
GE etc,
This may be so ..... but my preference is a short term 'stint' of the ol' Sherlock Holmes philosophy: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" .... but in particular:
"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world without them."
....As you say...cheers.
Cheers
GE etc,
This may be so ..... but my preference is a short term 'stint' of the ol' Sherlock Holmes philosophy: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" .... but in particular:
"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world without them."
....As you say...cheers.
Hi Fivedoughnut,
It is up to "sane" people to prove those that they accused of being "insane" are in the wrong... Well, that is beyond "burning their books"!
Cheers
It is up to "sane" people to prove those that they accused of being "insane" are in the wrong... Well, that is beyond "burning their books"!
Cheers
Hey C2, Good Elf, yquantum, et al.
Good Elf – you really know how to put the kibosh on a party! C2, me and everyone else knows that the thought experiment, as proposed, is absurd. The point was to make it purposely absurd to help bring a level of understanding that does not otherwise come from reading the various links and opinions expressed. That said, the application of this “thought experiment” can be achieved in reality. The interferometer is different and the experiment is decidedly more complex, but it still arrives at the same conclusions that we would have, if our "thought experiment" was taken to fruition. Read the link below if you are interested (the first one (you'll probably find the second noteworthy as well)).
C2 - In response to your last question, "Do we accept that a photon can only interfere with itself?"
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?
Good Elf – you really know how to put the kibosh on a party!
C2, me and everyone else knows that the thought experiment, as proposed, is absurd. The point was to make it purposely absurd to help bring a level of understanding that does not otherwise come from reading the various links and opinions expressed. That said, the application of this “thought experiment” can be achieved in reality. The interferometer is different and the experiment is decidedly more complex, but it still arrives at the same conclusions that we would have, if our "thought experiment" was taken to fruition. Read the link below if you are interested (the first one (you'll probably find the second noteworthy as well)).C2 - In response to your last question, "Do we accept that a photon can only interfere with itself?"
Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?
QUOTE (From the link+)
In fact, it is not uncommon for people to think that in these types of two photon interference experiments the photons must arrive at the beam splitter at the same time, which seems to imply that some type of classical local interaction was required between two single photons meeting at the beam splitter and “agreeing” which way to go, or how to be polarized.
In this Letter, we hope to dispel this misconception by reporting on a similar type of two-photon experiment in which interference is observed, even though the photons arrive at the beam splitter at much different times. In this experiment a picture based on the interference between two individual photons is clearly inapplicable.
...I hope it helps. Best!
P.s. You may also be interested in this paper.
Experimental interference of independent photons
In this Letter, we hope to dispel this misconception by reporting on a similar type of two-photon experiment in which interference is observed, even though the photons arrive at the beam splitter at much different times. In this experiment a picture based on the interference between two individual photons is clearly inapplicable.
...I hope it helps. Best!
P.s. You may also be interested in this paper.
Experimental interference of independent photons
QUOTE (From the link+)
Partly motivated by the often overinterpreted quotation from Dirac that each photon interferes only with itself [11], follow-up experiments [12, 13] investigated the question whether one can observe interference of two photons if each one was generated by a different source.
Hi Why Not?,
When you say I hope it helps... I think you have settled the overall question with these experiments... though not easily.
The first experiment appears to show that down converted entangled photons do not mutually interfere with each other through "interference" and the "interference" is only within the individual photons. "Entanglement" is not strictly "interference". Of course it goes without saying if which way information is not stripped from the entangled pair, the idler photon remains intact and each photon may partake in interference. "For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons." Agreed.
The second experiment is more telling and is a real test of the way in which "cavities" work rather than just the idea that particles are simply interfering due to reflections along paths. It goes to the real heart of the quantum phenomena. The second experiment is with synchronized laser beams in step to within a fine portion of a wavelength. Then we have photons emitted along this double ended "cavity" and the photons from separate sources interfere, as I see it, not with each other but again with themselves but the effect of the double ended cavity provides outputs symmetrical regarding the source of photons. There is no "which way" information. The source of the photons are not the same but they both partake in a common boson state.
While great pains have been taken not to physically connect the two laser sources of the photons... in the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory these two sources are connected it you run time backwards. The theory as stated only "works" if you accept the one sided Feynman Electrodynamics. The Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory connects the two sources within a single overall "cavity" where individual photons are very capable of interference. In that sense the "cavity" is resonating like a gong and does not care where the photons are coming from. If you insist that we are dealing with particles and only the forward direction in time then you can rest quietly knowing that an a priori theory undoes this methodology. I take the view (that resolves some of the inconsistency of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment) that each photon is able to "seek all paths" and because of the greater cavity these paths include the other laser cavity.
It is as though each laser cavity is assisting the lasing of the other cavity through an optical feedback mechanism much the same way that an optical feedback mechanism "within the one cavity" causes spontaneous stimulated emission. The kink is this is the effect is occurring in "reverse time". Now how can "reverse time" operate a cavity? I point you to the fact that such effects are very common with photonics. I point to the phenomenon of negative phase. Cause can precede effects in some coherent optical processes. This is no joke but actual phenomena.
Here is the reference and it ties into the interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.
When you say I hope it helps... I think you have settled the overall question with these experiments... though not easily.
The first experiment appears to show that down converted entangled photons do not mutually interfere with each other through "interference" and the "interference" is only within the individual photons. "Entanglement" is not strictly "interference". Of course it goes without saying if which way information is not stripped from the entangled pair, the idler photon remains intact and each photon may partake in interference. "For this reason it is important to explicitly demonstrate that two-photon interference cannot simply be pictured as the interference between two single photons." Agreed.The second experiment is more telling and is a real test of the way in which "cavities" work rather than just the idea that particles are simply interfering due to reflections along paths. It goes to the real heart of the quantum phenomena. The second experiment is with synchronized laser beams in step to within a fine portion of a wavelength. Then we have photons emitted along this double ended "cavity" and the photons from separate sources interfere, as I see it, not with each other but again with themselves but the effect of the double ended cavity provides outputs symmetrical regarding the source of photons. There is no "which way" information. The source of the photons are not the same but they both partake in a common boson state.
While great pains have been taken not to physically connect the two laser sources of the photons... in the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory these two sources are connected it you run time backwards. The theory as stated only "works" if you accept the one sided Feynman Electrodynamics. The Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory connects the two sources within a single overall "cavity" where individual photons are very capable of interference. In that sense the "cavity" is resonating like a gong and does not care where the photons are coming from. If you insist that we are dealing with particles and only the forward direction in time then you can rest quietly knowing that an a priori theory undoes this methodology. I take the view (that resolves some of the inconsistency of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment) that each photon is able to "seek all paths" and because of the greater cavity these paths include the other laser cavity.
It is as though each laser cavity is assisting the lasing of the other cavity through an optical feedback mechanism much the same way that an optical feedback mechanism "within the one cavity" causes spontaneous stimulated emission. The kink is this is the effect is occurring in "reverse time". Now how can "reverse time" operate a cavity? I point you to the fact that such effects are very common with photonics. I point to the phenomenon of negative phase. Cause can precede effects in some coherent optical processes. This is no joke but actual phenomena.
Here is the reference and it ties into the interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Kramer's Transactional Interpretation+)
The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer is an unusual interpretation of quantum mechanics that describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. The author argues that it avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and resolves various quantum paradoxes. Notably, it is claimed to be consistent with Shahriar Afshar's experiment.
The existence of both advanced and retarded waves as lawful solutions to Maxwell's equations was proposed by R. Feynman and J. Wheeler in 1945 (cited in original paper by J. Cramer). They used the idea to solve the problem of the self-energy of an electron.
Wikipedia: Cramer's Transactional Interpretation
I would also point to the concepts pioneered by John Pendry of real waves in which negative phase velocity is a phenomenon that actually occurs. These influences are in different disciplines and there is difficulty in getting people in these separate disciplines to talk to each other. My suggestion is time reversibility in optical matters is a reality because of the Electromagnetic Nature of these phenomena. To actually create these events in real time you need special materials but the complex mature of the EM wave is the underlying reality. See this reference...
Wikipedia: Negative frequency
Electromagnetic waves must be considered as complex entities.
That is a challenging idea "Why Not?", thanks for that. There may be some interpretational disagreements about the nature of "cavities" and so on... I hope not. In this broader context we can see that EM waves do satisfy the problems that Quantum Theory creates as a particle theory. Wave theory "interprets" the odd particle interpretations of the events, but only if you open it out into the Wheeler-Feyman Theory.
Cheers
The existence of both advanced and retarded waves as lawful solutions to Maxwell's equations was proposed by R. Feynman and J. Wheeler in 1945 (cited in original paper by J. Cramer). They used the idea to solve the problem of the self-energy of an electron.
Wikipedia: Cramer's Transactional Interpretation
I would also point to the concepts pioneered by John Pendry of real waves in which negative phase velocity is a phenomenon that actually occurs. These influences are in different disciplines and there is difficulty in getting people in these separate disciplines to talk to each other. My suggestion is time reversibility in optical matters is a reality because of the Electromagnetic Nature of these phenomena. To actually create these events in real time you need special materials but the complex mature of the EM wave is the underlying reality. See this reference...
Wikipedia: Negative frequency
Electromagnetic waves must be considered as complex entities.
That is a challenging idea "Why Not?", thanks for that. There may be some interpretational disagreements about the nature of "cavities" and so on... I hope not. In this broader context we can see that EM waves do satisfy the problems that Quantum Theory creates as a particle theory. Wave theory "interprets" the odd particle interpretations of the events, but only if you open it out into the Wheeler-Feyman Theory.
Cheers
Deleted in the light of GE's post
Hi Why Not?, Good Elf, yquantum, et al.
Wonderful papers! Many thanks.
After a few hours on the first ( http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/p...nterference.pdf )
I can't say I found this easy to follow and my conclusion could well be nonsense but here goes..
The paper begins by discussing photon wave packets which we are generally agreed travel at 'c' at the leading edge of something we might like to call a wavefront . The purpose of the experiment is demonstrate interference even though the photons (by which I assume they mean wave packets) arrive at the beam splitter at different times. I think at this point we have to chuck our classical notions in the trash-can and go quantum. I think this only works on the basis of 'probability of detection'. The wavefunction of (say) Photon A exists after the 'wavefront' has passed, likewise the wavefunction for Photon B. The experiment is used to determine whether the wavefunctions interfere. Now the really contraversial bit .. the wavefunction takes into account all the delays , bits of wire, life on mars and everything else. The wavefunction is in the whole shooting match .. the optical path is just one part of it with no properties any more or less special than the rest of the caboodle. A shift in the wavefunction after the optical path is no different to a shift in the optical path itself .. because the only thing an optical path EVER contains is a wavefunction.
Not read the second paper fully yet.
I hope that wasn't too contraversial
. Could have written complete nonsense .. comments welcome.
-C2.
Has QM got teeth and claws, or not?
Wonderful papers! Many thanks.
After a few hours on the first ( http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/p...nterference.pdf )
I can't say I found this easy to follow and my conclusion could well be nonsense but here goes..
The paper begins by discussing photon wave packets which we are generally agreed travel at 'c' at the leading edge of something we might like to call a wavefront . The purpose of the experiment is demonstrate interference even though the photons (by which I assume they mean wave packets) arrive at the beam splitter at different times. I think at this point we have to chuck our classical notions in the trash-can and go quantum. I think this only works on the basis of 'probability of detection'. The wavefunction of (say) Photon A exists after the 'wavefront' has passed, likewise the wavefunction for Photon B. The experiment is used to determine whether the wavefunctions interfere. Now the really contraversial bit .. the wavefunction takes into account all the delays , bits of wire, life on mars and everything else. The wavefunction is in the whole shooting match .. the optical path is just one part of it with no properties any more or less special than the rest of the caboodle. A shift in the wavefunction after the optical path is no different to a shift in the optical path itself .. because the only thing an optical path EVER contains is a wavefunction.
Not read the second paper fully yet.
I hope that wasn't too contraversial
. Could have written complete nonsense .. comments welcome.-C2.
Has QM got teeth and claws, or not?
Hi C2,
Once again we have this disagreement about "wavefunctions" being able to interfere. Nothing in the box until the "wavefunctions" are collapsed. So what is happening inside an interferometer... waves of "probability"... or waves of electromagnetism?
If we believe in "electromagnetic phenomena" then probability describes a vector field or a complex quantity varying spatially throughout the chamber. Alternatively you could square it and normalize this "effect" over a volume and this gives probability density. Still in the case of interference fringes we know that the build up of the patterns over time is a continuous process made with discrete photon events. To do this something like this standing wave phenomena shown below must occur inside the cavity. You can't say that this does not exist just because we are not measuring it since a "flux" of energy is passing through the cavity.
The "flux" is a measurable. Instantaneously probability is not. There are no probability meters. Its a Gedanken Instrument. Every experiment uses real measurables and not direct probability which is an "abstraction". Admittedly once you measure the photon "flux" you have destroyed it but we know that if the measurements were not taken the "flux" would eventually impinge on the screens and produce the predicted pattern. Moving the screen toward the slits in small increments and observing the dynamic pattern would show slices of something in between the previous positions of the screen and the slit. It is hard to completely abstract that concept and insist that everywhere else our photon is exploring all paths including the points in between.
As a believer in Bohmian Mechanics I believe that the view that something is actually traveling in the space is acceptable and it should not be termed probability since it has never been "collapsed" and read. A small test probe could be placed in the cavity and a continuous measurement made. Some pattern will be lost but "who cares". It is not about saying that a particle interpretation is "wrong"... it actually gives excellent results. What I am saying is have a look at the wave interpretation instead and find out how much missing information is being lost through that "projection". The maths is the same except where a particle in a box has probability, a wave in a box has complex patterns related to measurables.
Waves are extended objects and particles are not. You can force the physics to fit the unnatural state but you really gain nothing except a whole lot of necessary quantum postulates to compensate for the shortcomings. I know that both ways work. But one way is easier to work with (particles) but in the end restricts the physics.
Cheers
Once again we have this disagreement about "wavefunctions" being able to interfere. Nothing in the box until the "wavefunctions" are collapsed. So what is happening inside an interferometer... waves of "probability"... or waves of electromagnetism?
If we believe in "electromagnetic phenomena" then probability describes a vector field or a complex quantity varying spatially throughout the chamber. Alternatively you could square it and normalize this "effect" over a volume and this gives probability density. Still in the case of interference fringes we know that the build up of the patterns over time is a continuous process made with discrete photon events. To do this something like this standing wave phenomena shown below must occur inside the cavity. You can't say that this does not exist just because we are not measuring it since a "flux" of energy is passing through the cavity.
The "flux" is a measurable. Instantaneously probability is not. There are no probability meters. Its a Gedanken Instrument. Every experiment uses real measurables and not direct probability which is an "abstraction". Admittedly once you measure the photon "flux" you have destroyed it but we know that if the measurements were not taken the "flux" would eventually impinge on the screens and produce the predicted pattern. Moving the screen toward the slits in small increments and observing the dynamic pattern would show slices of something in between the previous positions of the screen and the slit. It is hard to completely abstract that concept and insist that everywhere else our photon is exploring all paths including the points in between.
As a believer in Bohmian Mechanics I believe that the view that something is actually traveling in the space is acceptable and it should not be termed probability since it has never been "collapsed" and read. A small test probe could be placed in the cavity and a continuous measurement made. Some pattern will be lost but "who cares". It is not about saying that a particle interpretation is "wrong"... it actually gives excellent results. What I am saying is have a look at the wave interpretation instead and find out how much missing information is being lost through that "projection". The maths is the same except where a particle in a box has probability, a wave in a box has complex patterns related to measurables.
Waves are extended objects and particles are not. You can force the physics to fit the unnatural state but you really gain nothing except a whole lot of necessary quantum postulates to compensate for the shortcomings. I know that both ways work. But one way is easier to work with (particles) but in the end restricts the physics.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Once again we have this disagreement about "wavefunctions" being able to interfere.
To answer such questions we need the modified MM, we need to feed it single photons and say how a single photon can interfere with itself under such circumstances. Can you give an EM explanation?
-C2.
Please assume everything is 'perfect' .. it really doesn't affect the principle.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Once again we have this disagreement about "wavefunctions" being able to interfere.
To answer such questions we need the modified MM, we need to feed it single photons and say how a single photon can interfere with itself under such circumstances. Can you give an EM explanation?
-C2.
Please assume everything is 'perfect' .. it really doesn't affect the principle.
Hey C2 and Good Elf,
I think C2 wrapped it up all in one sentence!
I think C2 wrapped it up all in one sentence!
QUOTE (Confused 2+)
I think at this point we have to chuck our classical notions in the trash-can and go quantum.
And when we "go quantum", it all boils down to the properties that we choose to measure and the way in which we measure them. Beyond that, the rest is about "interpretation". Personally, I have not found a palatable interpretation of QM. TIQM comes the closest to being "reasonable" with respect to EM, as long as you can accept that the advanced waves of the photons that comprise the Hubble Deep Field picture, emanate from the "detector" in the telescope that was constructed ~13 Gyrs after the retarded waves of these same photons were emitted from the sources. But since they travel in the reverse time direction, this should actually make sense!
On that note, did either of you see this article? Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards? I would like to read the actual paper but cannot find a copy to share. If by chance, someone has a link to it, please post. The experiment is done with a light "pulse" but it does not discuss any of the details. I wonder if the same type of experiment could be done with individual, long wavelength, photons.
EDIT: Maybe I am reading to much into this, but did you take note of Fig. 3©. in the paper Experimental interference of independent photons ?
On that note, did either of you see this article? Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards? I would like to read the actual paper but cannot find a copy to share. If by chance, someone has a link to it, please post. The experiment is done with a light "pulse" but it does not discuss any of the details. I wonder if the same type of experiment could be done with individual, long wavelength, photons.
EDIT: Maybe I am reading to much into this, but did you take note of Fig. 3©. in the paper Experimental interference of independent photons ?
QUOTE (From the link+)
Unpolarized input photons show limited interference due to partial distinguishability. The observed visibility was (26 ± 3) %.
I had always assumed distinguishability had to be either/or.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again we have this disagreement about "wavefunctions" being able to interfere. To answer such questions we need the modified MM, we need to feed it single photons and say how a single photon can interfere with itself under such circumstances. Can you give an EM explanation? |
I could simply say that Quantum Mechanics makes no attempt to explain it ... it is "shut up and calculate". Sure .... it works! What I am saying is this works too. The difference is this gives more details about the process. This "detail" leads to the examination of higher dimensions.
How does it work? I suppose you are asking me a question of how can a single photon being launched into the Universe can know instantly at that moment of being launched what the future state of the Universe will be since we observers do not. Once more it is also relying on the past state of the "unknown" Universe to also "work things out" according to the Wheeler-Feynman Theory.
The electromagnetic effect we are seeing "propagating" through spacetime is like a shadow from a higher space... quantum space... the interior nature of which we are not privy to... it hides the events occurring in that space from us. In that reciprocal space what is enormously large in our Universe is "reciprocally" nearly infinitely small and things which are small in our Universe are as large as they can be in reciprocal space. The exterior/interior geometry of this space is hyper-spherical but finite in size. In fact some of these "spheres" are sub-atomic particles and the descriptions are simply the way we choose to describe these "marbles", from the inside or from the outside. The technical term for this kind of space is a Hilbert space (in particular an anti-de sitter space, I recently posted a link to a Scientific American article by Juan Maldacena on this phenomenon) and it is the theory that defines all "interior" particle spaces known including QED and QCD. The Holographic Principle and the AdS/CFT correspondence are not just pure theory they represent a thoroughly mathematically tested concept.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
The consequences of which are as I have stated lead to geometries in reciprocal spaces which are reciprocal spatial frequencies and temporal frequency instead of space and time respectively. Quantum Field Theory simply becomes a conformal field theory in that space and not the primary reason for the phenomena after all. QFT is then neatly tucked into the "Holographic Universe" as one of the many pieces of the jigsaw for a Theory of Everything. Now you may wonder "why" the Universe is built this way but other than saying that it makes Universes easy to construct on "optical" principles what I will say is "because".... the answer you give a child when to fully answer the question would take a University Course in Physics. Don't worry we elves were not born with this stuff and we did not ingest it with our mothers milk either.
None of us are unfamiliar with this "game". When we were in the lower classes of school and we had science class the teachers would condescendingly pontificate about the mysteries of the Universe and oversimplify and reduce phenomena to the most simple of terms. As our minds matured the story was retold in such a way that at first we thought they were telling us a lie because we had already learned the laws of Newton and now they were telling us about Einstein and a whole new batch of laws. Why did they lie to us in the first place? The answer is "because"...
We now realize that the Laws of Newton are far too simple to describe everything, especially the extended nature of extended irregular particles. The descriptions of primary electric charges as points is impossible and we add to the theory to prevent difficulties arising, we have learned fudge techniques to extend these ideas into the 21st Century but in the end they will always be "incomplete". What we all learn is to get over it and see what we can do to solve things in relationship to the new regime we need to address. This must happen at the interface of every new science. This topic I am referring to is definitely new science... at least an interpretation of it that provides insight into the way the Universe really works using principles that do not involve probability. The quanta in this theory arise naturally from the discrete nature of sources (they start at some time and then they finish) and not from some innate noisy behavior of the universe around the distance of a Planck Length.
What science is learning with all those new materials and processes that exploit this effect is a way to see things without the limitations once thought "built into" the Universe as some unbreakable law. For example negative refractive index materials allow us to resolve the inner details of evanescent regions of particles without restriction other than pure optical restrictions of element size. We can regularly resolve details below the wavelength of light used to probe it. This immediately breaks the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship as it has been interpreted for nearly a Century. Optical devices have already been built that do just this and you can actually buy them now. Theoretically the ultimate resolution of such devices does not depend on the Laws of Physics but on the Laws of Metamaterial Manufacture and our ability to limit defects in its construction. The more perfectly we build the materials the more details we will know about the subatomic realm at optical frequencies by "reconstruction" using the evanescent waves.
"Why Not?" has posted yet another unusual phenomena that relates to some of the recent discoveries regarding electromagnetic propagation. These are "real" examples of that complex principle previously noted. I could not find this example so it took Why Not to get it for us... Thanks Why Not. The phase and group velocities can be quite different to what we might expect when dealing with "optics". What I have said many times over and over is that the Schrodinger Wave Equation is an equation that describes the behavior of "particles" in a cavity. This has direct analog in the Electromagnetic Wave Equation in the same cavity.
These two equations describe the same things, one as particles and the other as waves. Your choice... Clearly they describe cavities depending on the kind of cavity. The cavity may be an atomic cavity or it may be a cavity the size of the universe with all sorts of obstructions in it. The equation explains all possibilities but obviously the functions are going to be a little tricky.
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen
See page 2 and 3. I am not hiding anything about this and we have all known about it for an awful long time but as long as we are unable to grasp what is required then we remain stuck in Kindergarten. The limiting behavior for photons (which also can be trapped in cavities) relate to different geometries inside or outside the cavity (reciprocals) and in order to map across these two regions as if "distances" and "times" mean the same, the idea of renormalization was required to stop functions like 1/x "blowing up" as x -> 0. We can try and do this with string theory... and it works after a fashion. Does this explain your question?
Cheers
How does it work? I suppose you are asking me a question of how can a single photon being launched into the Universe can know instantly at that moment of being launched what the future state of the Universe will be since we observers do not. Once more it is also relying on the past state of the "unknown" Universe to also "work things out" according to the Wheeler-Feynman Theory.
The electromagnetic effect we are seeing "propagating" through spacetime is like a shadow from a higher space... quantum space... the interior nature of which we are not privy to... it hides the events occurring in that space from us. In that reciprocal space what is enormously large in our Universe is "reciprocally" nearly infinitely small and things which are small in our Universe are as large as they can be in reciprocal space. The exterior/interior geometry of this space is hyper-spherical but finite in size. In fact some of these "spheres" are sub-atomic particles and the descriptions are simply the way we choose to describe these "marbles", from the inside or from the outside. The technical term for this kind of space is a Hilbert space (in particular an anti-de sitter space, I recently posted a link to a Scientific American article by Juan Maldacena on this phenomenon) and it is the theory that defines all "interior" particle spaces known including QED and QCD. The Holographic Principle and the AdS/CFT correspondence are not just pure theory they represent a thoroughly mathematically tested concept.
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
The consequences of which are as I have stated lead to geometries in reciprocal spaces which are reciprocal spatial frequencies and temporal frequency instead of space and time respectively. Quantum Field Theory simply becomes a conformal field theory in that space and not the primary reason for the phenomena after all. QFT is then neatly tucked into the "Holographic Universe" as one of the many pieces of the jigsaw for a Theory of Everything. Now you may wonder "why" the Universe is built this way but other than saying that it makes Universes easy to construct on "optical" principles what I will say is "because".... the answer you give a child when to fully answer the question would take a University Course in Physics. Don't worry we elves were not born with this stuff and we did not ingest it with our mothers milk either.
None of us are unfamiliar with this "game". When we were in the lower classes of school and we had science class the teachers would condescendingly pontificate about the mysteries of the Universe and oversimplify and reduce phenomena to the most simple of terms. As our minds matured the story was retold in such a way that at first we thought they were telling us a lie because we had already learned the laws of Newton and now they were telling us about Einstein and a whole new batch of laws. Why did they lie to us in the first place? The answer is "because"...
We now realize that the Laws of Newton are far too simple to describe everything, especially the extended nature of extended irregular particles. The descriptions of primary electric charges as points is impossible and we add to the theory to prevent difficulties arising, we have learned fudge techniques to extend these ideas into the 21st Century but in the end they will always be "incomplete". What we all learn is to get over it and see what we can do to solve things in relationship to the new regime we need to address. This must happen at the interface of every new science. This topic I am referring to is definitely new science... at least an interpretation of it that provides insight into the way the Universe really works using principles that do not involve probability. The quanta in this theory arise naturally from the discrete nature of sources (they start at some time and then they finish) and not from some innate noisy behavior of the universe around the distance of a Planck Length.
What science is learning with all those new materials and processes that exploit this effect is a way to see things without the limitations once thought "built into" the Universe as some unbreakable law. For example negative refractive index materials allow us to resolve the inner details of evanescent regions of particles without restriction other than pure optical restrictions of element size. We can regularly resolve details below the wavelength of light used to probe it. This immediately breaks the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship as it has been interpreted for nearly a Century. Optical devices have already been built that do just this and you can actually buy them now. Theoretically the ultimate resolution of such devices does not depend on the Laws of Physics but on the Laws of Metamaterial Manufacture and our ability to limit defects in its construction. The more perfectly we build the materials the more details we will know about the subatomic realm at optical frequencies by "reconstruction" using the evanescent waves.
"Why Not?" has posted yet another unusual phenomena that relates to some of the recent discoveries regarding electromagnetic propagation. These are "real" examples of that complex principle previously noted. I could not find this example so it took Why Not to get it for us... Thanks Why Not. The phase and group velocities can be quite different to what we might expect when dealing with "optics". What I have said many times over and over is that the Schrodinger Wave Equation is an equation that describes the behavior of "particles" in a cavity. This has direct analog in the Electromagnetic Wave Equation in the same cavity.
These two equations describe the same things, one as particles and the other as waves. Your choice... Clearly they describe cavities depending on the kind of cavity. The cavity may be an atomic cavity or it may be a cavity the size of the universe with all sorts of obstructions in it. The equation explains all possibilities but obviously the functions are going to be a little tricky.
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen
See page 2 and 3. I am not hiding anything about this and we have all known about it for an awful long time but as long as we are unable to grasp what is required then we remain stuck in Kindergarten.
The limiting behavior for photons (which also can be trapped in cavities) relate to different geometries inside or outside the cavity (reciprocals) and in order to map across these two regions as if "distances" and "times" mean the same, the idea of renormalization was required to stop functions like 1/x "blowing up" as x -> 0. We can try and do this with string theory... and it works after a fashion. Does this explain your question?Cheers
Everyone ..
The paper linked by WN? is a fine example of the "interpretation" of a backwards moving wave. This is an example of the weak methodology that is being used to describe the "phenomenon".
Snips from the article:
The basic experiments that we are talking about. "Splitting" waves, creating a reference (by beat frequencies) though (by different methods) changing the parameters of 1 arm (or more) of the wave, and then comparing it back to the reference (unchanged) wave. DSE, MME, etc
The basic experiments that we are talking about. "Splitting" waves, creating a reference (by beat frequencies) though (by different methods) changing the parameters of 1 arm (or more) of the wave, and then comparing it back to the reference (unchanged) wave. DSE, MME, etc
"The peak of the pulse emerged from the other end of the fiber before the peak entered the front of the fiber, and well ahead of the peak of the reference pulse."
This is the heart of the problem (of current models).
The 1/2 wave (peak) is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the "fundamental" (the unchanged arm) and its' first (Primary) harmonic. This is because the beat frequencies are THE SAME. We are "measuring" the same quanta of energy; E = hf .
The article goes on to say:
The paper linked by WN? is a fine example of the "interpretation" of a backwards moving wave. This is an example of the weak methodology that is being used to describe the "phenomenon".
Snips from the article:
QUOTE
"..sent a burst of laser light through an optical fiber that had been laced with the element erbium. As the pulse exited the laser, it was split into two. One pulse went into the erbium fiber and the second traveled along undisturbed as a reference. "
The basic experiments that we are talking about. "Splitting" waves, creating a reference (by beat frequencies) though (by different methods) changing the parameters of 1 arm (or more) of the wave, and then comparing it back to the reference (unchanged) wave. DSE, MME, etc
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "..sent a burst of laser light through an optical fiber that had been laced with the element erbium. As the pulse exited the laser, it was split into two. One pulse went into the erbium fiber and the second traveled along undisturbed as a reference. " |
The basic experiments that we are talking about. "Splitting" waves, creating a reference (by beat frequencies) though (by different methods) changing the parameters of 1 arm (or more) of the wave, and then comparing it back to the reference (unchanged) wave. DSE, MME, etc
"The peak of the pulse emerged from the other end of the fiber before the peak entered the front of the fiber, and well ahead of the peak of the reference pulse."
This is the heart of the problem (of current models).
The 1/2 wave (peak) is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the "fundamental" (the unchanged arm) and its' first (Primary) harmonic. This is because the beat frequencies are THE SAME. We are "measuring" the same quanta of energy; E = hf .
The article goes on to say:
QUOTE
"By arranging that data and playing it back in a time sequence, Boyd was able to depict, for the first time, that the pulse of light was moving backward within the fiber."
(emphasis added)QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "By arranging that data and playing it back in a time sequence, Boyd was able to depict, for the first time, that the pulse of light was moving backward within the fiber." |
(emphasis added)
"We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. "
Science defines the peak as the real part, because it is what RESONATES with the measuring device. This is where information is conveyed to us, the observers.
This last quote sums up the article, as well as this conversation. The "leading edge" has a frequency too! It "carries" the information. The PEAK frequency makes the counter "click", so we determine/define that as REAL. Is it any more real than the frequency that is doing "the work"?
The equations in place DISREGARD these other frequencies. That is why experimental evidence continues to "refine" the theories. Only a "probabilistic" approach will give the right answer (most of the time).
C2, do you really want the EM version of this? The third order "susceptibility" (nonlinear) is a 4th rank tensor with 81 elements. Each element is a sum of 48 terms. [M. D. Levenson and S. S. Kano, Introduction to Nonlinear Laser Spectroscopy, (Academic Press, San Diego, 1988)] Then, each coupling having its' own polarization, which is inserted into Maxwell's equations, which creates (from the fields) 4 coupled wave equations. This is about 1/2 way, because those equations are not solvable in general. Plane wave solutions are then "uncoupled" to solve the field intensities. [N. Bloembergen, “Recent Progress in Four-Wave Mixing Spectroscopy,” in Laser Spectroscopy IV, edited by H. Walther and K. W. Rothe, (Springer, Berlin, 1979)] This is a lot of "cut and paste" for me, but I might find something to PM to you.
This is the "great variety" of resonance; the reason for so many darn chords! (~10,000) However, the relative "sucess" of Rock & Roll (compared to the great Symphonies) tells us that a simple combination of 3 chords will usually do the trick!
regards,
T.Roc
"We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. "
Science defines the peak as the real part, because it is what RESONATES with the measuring device. This is where information is conveyed to us, the observers.
QUOTE
"The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially 'reconstructs' the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber."
This last quote sums up the article, as well as this conversation. The "leading edge" has a frequency too! It "carries" the information. The PEAK frequency makes the counter "click", so we determine/define that as REAL. Is it any more real than the frequency that is doing "the work"?
The equations in place DISREGARD these other frequencies. That is why experimental evidence continues to "refine" the theories. Only a "probabilistic" approach will give the right answer (most of the time).
C2, do you really want the EM version of this? The third order "susceptibility" (nonlinear) is a 4th rank tensor with 81 elements. Each element is a sum of 48 terms. [M. D. Levenson and S. S. Kano, Introduction to Nonlinear Laser Spectroscopy, (Academic Press, San Diego, 1988)] Then, each coupling having its' own polarization, which is inserted into Maxwell's equations, which creates (from the fields) 4 coupled wave equations. This is about 1/2 way, because those equations are not solvable in general. Plane wave solutions are then "uncoupled" to solve the field intensities. [N. Bloembergen, “Recent Progress in Four-Wave Mixing Spectroscopy,” in Laser Spectroscopy IV, edited by H. Walther and K. W. Rothe, (Springer, Berlin, 1979)] This is a lot of "cut and paste" for me, but I might find something to PM to you.
This is the "great variety" of resonance; the reason for so many darn chords! (~10,000) However, the relative "sucess" of Rock & Roll (compared to the great Symphonies) tells us that a simple combination of 3 chords will usually do the trick!
regards,
T.Roc
truncated... posting error... See next post
Hi TRoc,
(emphasis added)
(emphasis added)
"We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. "
...
..silence...
OK, C2, I didn't mention the elimination of redundancies. You will not end up with as many terms as that. For example, in the music chords, we have 10 octaves of sound to deal with, so we are immediately down to ~ 1000. Then there are chord types like the Minor, the seventh, etc. This is not a music primer, though; the point there is that there are "degrees of resonance" that do very little to change the fundamental frequency, which is what we are looking for.
But, you will still have to take your table, and then do your nonlinear Schroedinger equation on them. Then you have the probabilities. That is not my personal method of choice. If those equations were weapons, I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag with them! If you take away my Sci. calculator, Maxima, and a few resource books, I will fail! I have heard about a way to represent this table of resonant possibilities, but not seen it. This is exactly what I have done, though. The Resonance Matrix show all the possibilities, and you can estimate reactions (of frequencies in a shared medium) by simple symmetrical "mapping".
Let me get back on track.
Everyone:
If the "leading edge" of a wave, represented by upper harmonic frequencies of said wave, contain all the information necessary for "recreation" at the other end, then you can get the results from my last post (WN?'s link). I think everyone can follow that logic.
Now, let's take this thinking to the DSE. The "tooth" that is between the slits has a specific, finite width. This "tooth" is REFLECTING BACK the upper harmonics of the wave; remember, this device is very accurately aimed at the slits. The "front scattering" of the higher harmonics would be "near perfect".
If (radar too) the front of the wave has the "information" in it, and the information is a resonance, and the pattern on the screen (light/dark bands) represents this resonance, what happens if we take away the information?
A worm is a strange, but interesting analogy: if we cut off its' head, thus its' "information", its' movement will seem "unpredictable", compared to when it still had its' head. The worm has a very SLOW frequency: eventually, if our experiment was long enough, its' head would grow back, and the "pattern" of its' movement would return.
Light is the opposite, it is so fast, that NO time expires between the coupled oscillations (E & M). In order to lengthen the TIME available for the "observation", we must "bounce it around" for a bit. This is what is happening in the cavity of the laser. The EM waves systematically remove any frequencies that have a BEAT, because the EM wave wants NO TIME to be between them.
Whether you want to trace the front scattered wave all the way back into the laser, or consider the "chamber" between the laser and the slit as a new cavity, the results are the same. The "over-some-time", apparently "random" build up of the resonance pattern on the screen. This is not "mystical". The part of the wave that was removed, slowly (and "randomly") gets absorbed back into parts of the wave that are going through the slits. (very much like water molecules caught up in an eddy on the side of the river, they go with the flow eventually)
One hole or slit: no pattern. The information goes through "uncut" into equal, harmonic pieces, and remains as "one".
Open the side door : no pattern. The instructions for the pattern is "lost".
"Erasing" the information in the "which way path" is the same. That path contains the beat frequencies, and the information necessary to produce the pattern.
This is a self consistent explanation, with NO HOLES, or "quantum weirdness". I'm not asking you to believe a 1mm particle will go through a .5mm slit. I'm not asking you to believe that the "single photon" goes along every possible path to the screen at the same time. I am not asking for a waiver on the "repeatability" of this experiment by my peers. (this is what "probabilities" do) My approach is repeatable, and predictive, as well as simple.
ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE
"By arranging that data and playing it back in a time sequence, Boyd was able to depict, for the first time, that the pulse of light was moving backward within the fiber."
(emphasis added)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "By arranging that data and playing it back in a time sequence, Boyd was able to depict, for the first time, that the pulse of light was moving backward within the fiber." |
(emphasis added)
"We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. "
Science defines the peak as the real part, because it is what RESONATES with the measuring device. This is where information is conveyed to us, the observers.
The equations in place DISREGARD these other frequencies. That is why experimental evidence continues to "refine" the theories. Only a "probabilistic" approach will give the right answer (most of the time).
QUOTE
"The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially 'reconstructs' the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber."
This last quote sums up the article, as well as this conversation. The "leading edge" has a frequency too! It "carries" the information. The PEAK frequency makes the counter "click", so we determine/define that as REAL. Is it any more real than the frequency that is doing "the work"?The equations in place DISREGARD these other frequencies. That is why experimental evidence continues to "refine" the theories. Only a "probabilistic" approach will give the right answer (most of the time).
Any "pure" measuring instrument will not normally "see" the"pulse" as being composed classically of a mixture of frequencies but they all blend together as a kind of "cloud" of "measurement". The classic measuring instruments will ignore much of the phase and this "projects" the "packet" into a moving "impulse" rather than its true quality which is not being measured. If we could decompose this "cloud" into its true components we would see two simultaneous planes of information a real plane and the complex conjugate plane. The problem with a lot of physics is the inability to record (perhaps I should say the inattention to the frequency and phase information) the full picture. It would come as a surprise to many that a wave is far more complex than a plane sinusoid.
Many analytical tools try and reduce this complexity since in the past our ability to analyze this detail has lagged our instrumentation. It has led to an incomplete description of physical phenomena. Have a look at this applet that describes various complex plane Fourier operations that describe the "simple" pulse train as a complex Fourier multiple plane function...
Harmonic Phasors and the Fourier Series
My suggestion, after a little play, check out the nature of the impulse train and the various windowing functions and "play" them. Notice the multiple quadrant nature of the "phasors". These could be probability but probability (a scaler) will not construct this complex pulse. Make sure you use a largish number of "harmonics" to construct this picture.
Try a sketch of a rough sine wave (both +ve and -ve amplitude) in the right hand pane and then see where this results in complex plane physics. Draw it in different positions at different phases. Watch the tiny vector sweeping and spinning in that complex space constructing the path in a complex space. These correlate with the Feynman Constructions of the "seek all paths" methods as previously discussed and this is the way construction would have to proceed in "real physics" measuring the necessary quantities to capture that complex plane picture. Alternatively a "snapshot" can be made of this information creating "Holograms". Now extend this into the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Then make the next step into an "Atomic Universe" in which phenomena propagate in complex space and "construction" is "a-temporal".
The idea is very difficult to grasp but it needs to be "played with" a bit to see just what may be happening. Naturally, "real waves" are "extended objects" in complex space not flat lines you see here on a screen. They are more than just three dimensional... you got to add in all the "complex dimensions" too in the complex directions of {ix,iy,iz}. Next question is are they real??? Of course they are... ask any Radio Technician. Are these "strings" or "membranes"?
Cheers
Many analytical tools try and reduce this complexity since in the past our ability to analyze this detail has lagged our instrumentation. It has led to an incomplete description of physical phenomena. Have a look at this applet that describes various complex plane Fourier operations that describe the "simple" pulse train as a complex Fourier multiple plane function...
Harmonic Phasors and the Fourier Series
My suggestion, after a little play, check out the nature of the impulse train and the various windowing functions and "play" them. Notice the multiple quadrant nature of the "phasors". These could be probability but probability (a scaler) will not construct this complex pulse. Make sure you use a largish number of "harmonics" to construct this picture.
Try a sketch of a rough sine wave (both +ve and -ve amplitude) in the right hand pane and then see where this results in complex plane physics. Draw it in different positions at different phases. Watch the tiny vector sweeping and spinning in that complex space constructing the path in a complex space. These correlate with the Feynman Constructions of the "seek all paths" methods as previously discussed and this is the way construction would have to proceed in "real physics" measuring the necessary quantities to capture that complex plane picture. Alternatively a "snapshot" can be made of this information creating "Holograms". Now extend this into the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Then make the next step into an "Atomic Universe" in which phenomena propagate in complex space and "construction" is "a-temporal".
The idea is very difficult to grasp but it needs to be "played with" a bit to see just what may be happening. Naturally, "real waves" are "extended objects" in complex space not flat lines you see here on a screen. They are more than just three dimensional... you got to add in all the "complex dimensions" too in the complex directions of {ix,iy,iz}. Next question is are they real??? Of course they are... ask any Radio Technician. Are these "strings" or "membranes"?
Cheers
.....silence...
OK, C2, I didn't mention the elimination of redundancies. You will not end up with as many terms as that. For example, in the music chords, we have 10 octaves of sound to deal with, so we are immediately down to ~ 1000. Then there are chord types like the Minor, the seventh, etc. This is not a music primer, though; the point there is that there are "degrees of resonance" that do very little to change the fundamental frequency, which is what we are looking for.
But, you will still have to take your table, and then do your nonlinear Schroedinger equation on them. Then you have the probabilities. That is not my personal method of choice. If those equations were weapons, I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag with them! If you take away my Sci. calculator, Maxima, and a few resource books, I will fail! I have heard about a way to represent this table of resonant possibilities, but not seen it. This is exactly what I have done, though. The Resonance Matrix show all the possibilities, and you can estimate reactions (of frequencies in a shared medium) by simple symmetrical "mapping".
Let me get back on track.
Everyone:
If the "leading edge" of a wave, represented by upper harmonic frequencies of said wave, contain all the information necessary for "recreation" at the other end, then you can get the results from my last post (WN?'s link). I think everyone can follow that logic.
Now, let's take this thinking to the DSE. The "tooth" that is between the slits has a specific, finite width. This "tooth" is REFLECTING BACK the upper harmonics of the wave; remember, this device is very accurately aimed at the slits. The "front scattering" of the higher harmonics would be "near perfect".
If (radar too) the front of the wave has the "information" in it, and the information is a resonance, and the pattern on the screen (light/dark bands) represents this resonance, what happens if we take away the information?
A worm is a strange, but interesting analogy: if we cut off its' head, thus its' "information", its' movement will seem "unpredictable", compared to when it still had its' head. The worm has a very SLOW frequency: eventually, if our experiment was long enough, its' head would grow back, and the "pattern" of its' movement would return.
Light is the opposite, it is so fast, that NO time expires between the coupled oscillations (E & M). In order to lengthen the TIME available for the "observation", we must "bounce it around" for a bit. This is what is happening in the cavity of the laser. The EM waves systematically remove any frequencies that have a BEAT, because the EM wave wants NO TIME to be between them.
Whether you want to trace the front scattered wave all the way back into the laser, or consider the "chamber" between the laser and the slit as a new cavity, the results are the same. The "over-some-time", apparently "random" build up of the resonance pattern on the screen. This is not "mystical". The part of the wave that was removed, slowly (and "randomly") gets absorbed back into parts of the wave that are going through the slits. (very much like water molecules caught up in an eddy on the side of the river, they go with the flow eventually)
One hole or slit: no pattern. The information goes through "uncut" into equal, harmonic pieces, and remains as "one".
Open the side door : no pattern. The instructions for the pattern is "lost".
"Erasing" the information in the "which way path" is the same. That path contains the beat frequencies, and the information necessary to produce the pattern.
This is a self consistent explanation, with NO HOLES, or "quantum weirdness". I'm not asking you to believe a 1mm particle will go through a .5mm slit. I'm not asking you to believe that the "single photon" goes along every possible path to the screen at the same time. I am not asking for a waiver on the "repeatability" of this experiment by my peers. (this is what "probabilities" do) My approach is repeatable, and predictive, as well as simple.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi GE,
Our posts "crossed paths"; I'm not ignoring you.
The only thing I can say, is you are right about the sine wave, Fourier transform, and dimensions.
The reason I continue to "debate" is that my method is dimensionless.
This really changes the expectations!
I'd like to invite a new member to this conversation. I am posting a copy of his/her post, and making them aware of that.
QUOTE (geirlade @ Aug 21 2006, 09:07 PM)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../mmhist.html#c2
Take two light sources and let the beams inter-cross. The light beams can pass straight through each other, there are no interactions between the photons. Waves through matter from different sources would create a total mess. At best you could get some interesting interference patterns, but the end result is totally different. Another example: Large waves move faster in water than small waves. Light moves at the same speed in vacuum, independent of wavelength.
--
GR
Geirtade
How do you explain holograms? They are based on interference patterns
generated by different beams of light interacting across a medium. Also, light
is "bent" by the effects of gravity which is not a physical component but a
theoretical wave, so there is interaction between waves in the form of phase
shifts and directional deviation from the normal straight path. Also, consider
how photons and their electric and magnetic fields interact in a laser beam
where the photons and their fields are aligned in coherent phase. If it were
possible to perfectly align 2 beams head on, but 180 degrees out of phase, they
should cancel by destructive interference. Conversely, two beams aligned and
in phase should interfere constructively.
Photons have no mass, but they do have electric and magnetic energy components
that are discrete and interactively phased. You can say that they travel in
waves for reasons of simplicity, but in actuality they travel as discrete,
self -perpetuating, inductively coupled, randomly oriented*, quantum energy
packets (*except in the case of a coherent laser beam). Wavelength is
merely a representation of the time it takes for the E and H fields to complete
one 360 degree measured time cycle over a fixed distance. Once set in motion, photons
are self propagating along a directional vector via the circular interaction of their
E and H fields by virtue of the right hand rule.
Your comments are appreciated, I'm open for alternative opinions.
Thanks, Laserlight
For now, I'm just going to say (about crossed beams of light) is that IF they are not at just the right angles to each other, they will not "interact" in a "visible" way. The Ultimate Beat frequency approaches ZERO because of the constant speed of light. There is no time between the coupled E/M wave to interact with another EM wave. Unless we change the geometry.
ciao!
T.Roc
Our posts "crossed paths"; I'm not ignoring you.
The only thing I can say, is you are right about the sine wave, Fourier transform, and dimensions.
The reason I continue to "debate" is that my method is dimensionless.
This really changes the expectations!
I'd like to invite a new member to this conversation. I am posting a copy of his/her post, and making them aware of that.
QUOTE
QUOTE (geirlade @ Aug 21 2006, 09:07 PM)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../mmhist.html#c2
Take two light sources and let the beams inter-cross. The light beams can pass straight through each other, there are no interactions between the photons. Waves through matter from different sources would create a total mess. At best you could get some interesting interference patterns, but the end result is totally different. Another example: Large waves move faster in water than small waves. Light moves at the same speed in vacuum, independent of wavelength.
--
GR
Geirtade
How do you explain holograms? They are based on interference patterns
generated by different beams of light interacting across a medium. Also, light
is "bent" by the effects of gravity which is not a physical component but a
theoretical wave, so there is interaction between waves in the form of phase
shifts and directional deviation from the normal straight path. Also, consider
how photons and their electric and magnetic fields interact in a laser beam
where the photons and their fields are aligned in coherent phase. If it were
possible to perfectly align 2 beams head on, but 180 degrees out of phase, they
should cancel by destructive interference. Conversely, two beams aligned and
in phase should interfere constructively.
Photons have no mass, but they do have electric and magnetic energy components
that are discrete and interactively phased. You can say that they travel in
waves for reasons of simplicity, but in actuality they travel as discrete,
self -perpetuating, inductively coupled, randomly oriented*, quantum energy
packets (*except in the case of a coherent laser beam). Wavelength is
merely a representation of the time it takes for the E and H fields to complete
one 360 degree measured time cycle over a fixed distance. Once set in motion, photons
are self propagating along a directional vector via the circular interaction of their
E and H fields by virtue of the right hand rule.
Your comments are appreciated, I'm open for alternative opinions.
Thanks, Laserlight
For now, I'm just going to say (about crossed beams of light) is that IF they are not at just the right angles to each other, they will not "interact" in a "visible" way. The Ultimate Beat frequency approaches ZERO because of the constant speed of light. There is no time between the coupled E/M wave to interact with another EM wave. Unless we change the geometry.
ciao!
T.Roc
T.Roc, I will try to catch up on prior discussions before making any comments
or raising questions.
Laserlight
or raising questions.
Laserlight
T.Roc there has been a lot of very enlightened and passionate dialog
from many people encompassing a plethora of varying topics regarding
everything from nature of light, energy, theoretical physics, mathematics,
experimental methods, etc. I am pleasantly amazed at the non-confrontational
free expression of opinions by so many. Kudo's to you all!
Back to the original question regarding the problem with the two slit experiment.
I think the answer is fairly simple when comparing a light stream of
randomly oriented photons entering two slits vs a single photon entering
only 1 slit of the same 2 slit experimental device.
A non-cohesive beam of white light is comprised of randomly oriented photons
at different energy levels, with different spectral frequencies, and each with its
own E and H field, and wavelength. Each of these randomly oriented quantum
energy packets will pass thru the slits differently, they won't all pass thru the
slits the same way. Some will pass straight thru, others will interact with the
electric and magnetic molecular fields of sidewalls of the slit "cavity" and bounce
off at a tangent to the surface of the walls like a billiard ball, which will effectively
change their directionality as they exit the output of the slit. Depending upon
the cavity width of the slit certain frequencies might even have too large of
a wavelength and be reflected back toward the source, like the effect of an
rf filter screen. It is possible that there are also some phase interactions of the
E and H fields of the various quantum packets that might change the directionality component of the interacting photons causing them to scatter or disperse. The resultant observed interference wave patterns are an exaple of standing wave interference. This could be from doppler
like timing reflections from the end wall of the exit cavity, or coherence interactions as the scattered photons become "phased" by their
timing delays induced as they traversed the cavities of
the slits.
In the case of an individual single frequency photon (where the photon is
a discrete quantum unit) which is small enough to pass thru one slit or the
other (but not both slits simultaneously), it will either go straight thru, or if it
enters the slit at a slightly skewed incidence angle close to a sidewall of the slit
cavity, it might have an EM field interaction with the atoms of the sidewalls and
bounce off at a tangent before striking the photodetector surface. It would be
a good experiment to map the impact marker patterns locations on the
sensor to measure the amount of scatter from interaction with the slit cavity.
Your comments and disagreements are welcome.
Laserlight
You might find this article on nanoparticle antenna focusing of light interesting
it explains the interaction of laserlight on a tuned nano antenna.....
--------
How to Burn a Three Terabyte CD
Technology Review ^ | 15 September 2006 | Kate Greene
A new nano-optical device can focus laser light tighter than traditional optics, which could lead to higher-density data storage.
A computer simulation of the optical nano antenna that Harvard researchers have fabricated. Consisting of two gold-coated nano rods separated by a 30-nanometer gap, the antenna can focus light from a commercial laser to a spot just 40 nanometers wide. It could be used to write terabytes, rather than gigabytes, of data to a CD or DVD. (Credit: Ertugrul Cubukcu)
As gigabytes of movies, pictures, audio, and text fill up more and more CDs and DVDs, there's clearly a need for better ways to save more data. A research team at Harvard University has developed a technique that could help to significantly boost the capacity of conventional optical discs. They've fabricated a nano antenna--built directly onto an inexpensive, off-the-shelf laser--that focuses light to a much smaller spot size than is possible with even the best traditional lenses, potentially enabling more bits to be written onto an optical disc.
The storage capacity of a disc increases as the wavelength of light used to write data to it decreases; CDs are written and read using light with a wavelength of 780 nanometers, DVDs use 650 nanometers, and HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs use 405 nanometers. Wavelengths shorter than 405 nanometers would require light sources far too expensive for consumer electronics.
The problem is that conventional lenses can only focus light to half their wavelength, a physical barrier called the diffraction limit. The Harvard researchers sidestepped this limit, however, by abandoning traditional optics in favor of nano-optical techniques. "We can get around the wavelength limitation by using an antenna," says Ken Crozier, assistant professor of electrical engineering at Harvard.
The team of Crozier, Federico Capasso, professor of applied physics at the university, and graduate students Eric Kort and Ertugrul Cubukcu designed the optical antenna to focus light from a commercial laser (with a wavelength of 830 nanometers) to a spot size of 40 nanometers. With this resolution, "you'd be able to pack more than three terabytes [3,000 gigabytes] worth of data onto something the size of a CD," Crozier estimates. That's enough to hold more than 300 feature-length movies. By comparison, a dual-layer HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc can hold 30 gigabytes or 50 gigabytes, respectively.
<B>The antenna consists of two gold-coated nano rods, separated by a 30-nanometer-wide gap, according to Crozier. When light from the laser hits the nano rods, it applies a force to the electrons in the gold, nudging them out of place. The electrons don't stay displaced for long, however, and are pulled back toward their original position. But they overshoot it, Crozier says, and bounce back out of place, oscillating "like a mass on a spring."
These oscillating electrons affect the tiny gap between the nano rods. If you took a snapshot of the antenna, Crozier says, you'd see that positive charges collect on one side of the gap, and negative charges on the other. The nano rods and gap act as a tiny capacitor--with opposite charges on opposite sides of the gap--that effectively concentrates the energy from the laser light into a spot about the size of the gap. This spot maintains its size to about 10 nanometers away from the antenna before it starts to spread out.</B>
Although the 10-nanometer gap is minuscule, researchers could build a new type of optical reading and writing head using the technology, suggests Crozier. The magnetic storage industry, he points out, works with a similarly small gap between the head and medium.
Using nano antennas to focus optical light is not an entirely new idea, Crozier says, but their work, published in Applied Physics Letters, is the first time an antenna has been integrated directly onto a laser. This offers an advantage in production because the light source and antenna are in one package. "It's extremely compact and easier to use because alignment with the laser and the antenna is all done in fabrication," he says.
There's a lot of research activity to reduce the spot size of light, but it's especially attractive to the data storage industry, says Bae-Ian Wu, a research scientist in the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT. Using a nano antenna is just one way to gain "super resolution smaller than the wavelength of light." But, he says, the Harvard researchers work "is very good in the sense that they are doing optical experiments to back up their theory, while some papers are only in the realm of theory." The Harvard scientists, he adds, "just did it."
Crozier says his team is exploring fabrication techniques that can further decrease the spot size to 20 nanometers. They're also exploring alternatives to the gold metal that currently coats their nano rods. Silver, for instance, could focus light more efficiently than gold at the wavelengths used by the consumer electronics industry.
from many people encompassing a plethora of varying topics regarding
everything from nature of light, energy, theoretical physics, mathematics,
experimental methods, etc. I am pleasantly amazed at the non-confrontational
free expression of opinions by so many. Kudo's to you all!
Back to the original question regarding the problem with the two slit experiment.
I think the answer is fairly simple when comparing a light stream of
randomly oriented photons entering two slits vs a single photon entering
only 1 slit of the same 2 slit experimental device.
A non-cohesive beam of white light is comprised of randomly oriented photons
at different energy levels, with different spectral frequencies, and each with its
own E and H field, and wavelength. Each of these randomly oriented quantum
energy packets will pass thru the slits differently, they won't all pass thru the
slits the same way. Some will pass straight thru, others will interact with the
electric and magnetic molecular fields of sidewalls of the slit "cavity" and bounce
off at a tangent to the surface of the walls like a billiard ball, which will effectively
change their directionality as they exit the output of the slit. Depending upon
the cavity width of the slit certain frequencies might even have too large of
a wavelength and be reflected back toward the source, like the effect of an
rf filter screen. It is possible that there are also some phase interactions of the
E and H fields of the various quantum packets that might change the directionality component of the interacting photons causing them to scatter or disperse. The resultant observed interference wave patterns are an exaple of standing wave interference. This could be from doppler
like timing reflections from the end wall of the exit cavity, or coherence interactions as the scattered photons become "phased" by their
timing delays induced as they traversed the cavities of
the slits.
In the case of an individual single frequency photon (where the photon is
a discrete quantum unit) which is small enough to pass thru one slit or the
other (but not both slits simultaneously), it will either go straight thru, or if it
enters the slit at a slightly skewed incidence angle close to a sidewall of the slit
cavity, it might have an EM field interaction with the atoms of the sidewalls and
bounce off at a tangent before striking the photodetector surface. It would be
a good experiment to map the impact marker patterns locations on the
sensor to measure the amount of scatter from interaction with the slit cavity.
Your comments and disagreements are welcome.
Laserlight
You might find this article on nanoparticle antenna focusing of light interesting
it explains the interaction of laserlight on a tuned nano antenna.....
--------
How to Burn a Three Terabyte CD
Technology Review ^ | 15 September 2006 | Kate Greene
A new nano-optical device can focus laser light tighter than traditional optics, which could lead to higher-density data storage.
A computer simulation of the optical nano antenna that Harvard researchers have fabricated. Consisting of two gold-coated nano rods separated by a 30-nanometer gap, the antenna can focus light from a commercial laser to a spot just 40 nanometers wide. It could be used to write terabytes, rather than gigabytes, of data to a CD or DVD. (Credit: Ertugrul Cubukcu)
As gigabytes of movies, pictures, audio, and text fill up more and more CDs and DVDs, there's clearly a need for better ways to save more data. A research team at Harvard University has developed a technique that could help to significantly boost the capacity of conventional optical discs. They've fabricated a nano antenna--built directly onto an inexpensive, off-the-shelf laser--that focuses light to a much smaller spot size than is possible with even the best traditional lenses, potentially enabling more bits to be written onto an optical disc.
The storage capacity of a disc increases as the wavelength of light used to write data to it decreases; CDs are written and read using light with a wavelength of 780 nanometers, DVDs use 650 nanometers, and HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs use 405 nanometers. Wavelengths shorter than 405 nanometers would require light sources far too expensive for consumer electronics.
The problem is that conventional lenses can only focus light to half their wavelength, a physical barrier called the diffraction limit. The Harvard researchers sidestepped this limit, however, by abandoning traditional optics in favor of nano-optical techniques. "We can get around the wavelength limitation by using an antenna," says Ken Crozier, assistant professor of electrical engineering at Harvard.
The team of Crozier, Federico Capasso, professor of applied physics at the university, and graduate students Eric Kort and Ertugrul Cubukcu designed the optical antenna to focus light from a commercial laser (with a wavelength of 830 nanometers) to a spot size of 40 nanometers. With this resolution, "you'd be able to pack more than three terabytes [3,000 gigabytes] worth of data onto something the size of a CD," Crozier estimates. That's enough to hold more than 300 feature-length movies. By comparison, a dual-layer HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc can hold 30 gigabytes or 50 gigabytes, respectively.
<B>The antenna consists of two gold-coated nano rods, separated by a 30-nanometer-wide gap, according to Crozier. When light from the laser hits the nano rods, it applies a force to the electrons in the gold, nudging them out of place. The electrons don't stay displaced for long, however, and are pulled back toward their original position. But they overshoot it, Crozier says, and bounce back out of place, oscillating "like a mass on a spring."
These oscillating electrons affect the tiny gap between the nano rods. If you took a snapshot of the antenna, Crozier says, you'd see that positive charges collect on one side of the gap, and negative charges on the other. The nano rods and gap act as a tiny capacitor--with opposite charges on opposite sides of the gap--that effectively concentrates the energy from the laser light into a spot about the size of the gap. This spot maintains its size to about 10 nanometers away from the antenna before it starts to spread out.</B>
Although the 10-nanometer gap is minuscule, researchers could build a new type of optical reading and writing head using the technology, suggests Crozier. The magnetic storage industry, he points out, works with a similarly small gap between the head and medium.
Using nano antennas to focus optical light is not an entirely new idea, Crozier says, but their work, published in Applied Physics Letters, is the first time an antenna has been integrated directly onto a laser. This offers an advantage in production because the light source and antenna are in one package. "It's extremely compact and easier to use because alignment with the laser and the antenna is all done in fabrication," he says.
There's a lot of research activity to reduce the spot size of light, but it's especially attractive to the data storage industry, says Bae-Ian Wu, a research scientist in the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT. Using a nano antenna is just one way to gain "super resolution smaller than the wavelength of light." But, he says, the Harvard researchers work "is very good in the sense that they are doing optical experiments to back up their theory, while some papers are only in the realm of theory." The Harvard scientists, he adds, "just did it."
Crozier says his team is exploring fabrication techniques that can further decrease the spot size to 20 nanometers. They're also exploring alternatives to the gold metal that currently coats their nano rods. Silver, for instance, could focus light more efficiently than gold at the wavelengths used by the consumer electronics industry.
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, RealityCheck, Ron, Why Not?, Areal, TRoc, Zephir et al,
I have had a read of the original paper in Science and this is what it says in part...
Reversing Light: Negative Refraction, John B. Pendry and David R. Smith
This is an "old" reference to Pendry and recently he is gaining a lot of publicity from inventing a practical "Invisibility Cloak" using similiar techniques to that on the front page of this article. Metamaterials have since been developed in the optical region to create many of the proposed developments noted in this paper. Shen's Paper would be also a great intro to a lot of these phenomena as noted above...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen
Cheers
I have had a read of the original paper in Science and this is what it says in part...
QUOTE
Observation of Backward Pulse Propagation Through a Medium with a Negative Group Velocity
George M. Gehring,1* Aaron Schweinsberg,1 Christopher Barsi,3 Natalie Kostinski,1,4 Robert W. Boyd1,2
The nature of pulse propagation through a material with a negative value of the group velocity has been mysterious, as simple models seem to predict that pulses will propagate ‘‘backward’’ through such a material. Using an erbium-doped optical fiber and measuring the time evolution of the pulse intensity at many points within the fiber, we demonstrate that the peak of the pulse does propagate backward inside the fiber, even though the energy flow is always in the forward direction. [...]
[In the conclusion] As a further investigation into the nature of negative group velocities, we performed a second experiment to determine the direction of energy flow within the medium. The layout is shown in Fig. 1B. We observed that the signal strength measured at output ports A and C of the bidirectional 1% taps was barely above the noise floor of our detection system and was consistent with the small amount of back-reflection expected from the large number of splices present in this configuration. In contrast, strong signals were measured from ports B and D, thus demonstrating that the energy flow was only in the forward direction, even though the group velocity was negative. We also observed that the peak of the pulse arrived at port D before it did at port B, thus confirming the backward motion of the peak of the pulse within the optical fiber.
Our experiment shows that within a medium with a negative group velocity, the peak of a propagating pulse does in fact move in the backward direction, even though energy flow is always in the forward direction. These results can be understood in terms of the time dependence of the saturation of the gain of the material, whereby the leading edge of the incident pulse experiences more gain than does the trailing edge. Thus, the peak of the pulse within the medium occurs initially at the distant end of the fiber and progressively moves toward the front end of the fiber. Furthermore, all of these results are consistent with the principle of causality in that these effects are initiated by the far leading edge of the pulse.
12 MAY 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE
It seems to me that a backward propagation in time of one pulse as shown in the animation within the glass block is consistent with a reflection every bit as real as the incoming pulse but opposite in phase. As this is happening a "duplicate" pulse is exiting the block to the right carrying the energy 'forward". A form of "optical antimatter" as described by John Pendry in some of his papers. Comments welcome.George M. Gehring,1* Aaron Schweinsberg,1 Christopher Barsi,3 Natalie Kostinski,1,4 Robert W. Boyd1,2
The nature of pulse propagation through a material with a negative value of the group velocity has been mysterious, as simple models seem to predict that pulses will propagate ‘‘backward’’ through such a material. Using an erbium-doped optical fiber and measuring the time evolution of the pulse intensity at many points within the fiber, we demonstrate that the peak of the pulse does propagate backward inside the fiber, even though the energy flow is always in the forward direction. [...]
[In the conclusion] As a further investigation into the nature of negative group velocities, we performed a second experiment to determine the direction of energy flow within the medium. The layout is shown in Fig. 1B. We observed that the signal strength measured at output ports A and C of the bidirectional 1% taps was barely above the noise floor of our detection system and was consistent with the small amount of back-reflection expected from the large number of splices present in this configuration. In contrast, strong signals were measured from ports B and D, thus demonstrating that the energy flow was only in the forward direction, even though the group velocity was negative. We also observed that the peak of the pulse arrived at port D before it did at port B, thus confirming the backward motion of the peak of the pulse within the optical fiber.
Our experiment shows that within a medium with a negative group velocity, the peak of a propagating pulse does in fact move in the backward direction, even though energy flow is always in the forward direction. These results can be understood in terms of the time dependence of the saturation of the gain of the material, whereby the leading edge of the incident pulse experiences more gain than does the trailing edge. Thus, the peak of the pulse within the medium occurs initially at the distant end of the fiber and progressively moves toward the front end of the fiber. Furthermore, all of these results are consistent with the principle of causality in that these effects are initiated by the far leading edge of the pulse.
12 MAY 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE
Reversing Light: Negative Refraction, John B. Pendry and David R. Smith
This is an "old" reference to Pendry and recently he is gaining a lot of publicity from inventing a practical "Invisibility Cloak" using similiar techniques to that on the front page of this article. Metamaterials have since been developed in the optical region to create many of the proposed developments noted in this paper. Shen's Paper would be also a great intro to a lot of these phenomena as noted above...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen
Cheers
GE- "optical antimatter?" more like reflected optical inversion...keep in mind
that when you look into a mirror the image is always reversed. JMHO.
Laserlight
that when you look into a mirror the image is always reversed. JMHO.
Laserlight
Hi laserlight,
Cheers
QUOTE
GE- "optical antimatter?" more like reflected optical inversion...keep in mind
that when you look into a mirror the image is always reversed. JMHO.
Laserlight
Point taken, it is an unusual description I will grant you that. In the "real world" optical images never actually "cancel". I am only using the same terminology that Pendry has used in his work. He is the world's leading authority in Photonics. There is a strong analogy between matter / anti-matter reactions and these formerly theoretical optical phenomena, now a practical reality. With Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Theory an antiparticle creation annihilation event is identical to a particle traveling back in time... hence the "optical anti-matter" description. This ties in with the Nobel Prize winning Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.that when you look into a mirror the image is always reversed. JMHO.
Laserlight
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 1 2006, 04:20 PM)
There is a strong analogy between matter / anti-matter reactions and these formerly theoretical optical phenomena, now a practical reality. With Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Theory an antiparticle creation annihilation event is identical to a particle traveling back in time... hence the "optical anti-matter" description. This ties in with the Nobel Prize winning Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory.
GE- Hmmm, one might simplify the terminology and say:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If this is true in
Newtonian physics, it is likely true at all size scales even at photonic levels.
Is it all just a matter of semanics where the words are different but essentially
saying the same thing? The main idea is that inversion is a reactionary
consequence of physical causality. To call it antimatter and going back in time
is questionable, it is merely a slightly out of phase reflection. IMO.
Laserrlight
GE- Hmmm, one might simplify the terminology and say:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If this is true in
Newtonian physics, it is likely true at all size scales even at photonic levels.
Is it all just a matter of semanics where the words are different but essentially
saying the same thing? The main idea is that inversion is a reactionary
consequence of physical causality. To call it antimatter and going back in time
is questionable, it is merely a slightly out of phase reflection. IMO.
Laserrlight
I just don't know.
I'm sure (?) we're all familiar with the 'wobbly man' toy .. you try to push it over and it stands up again. After you've pushed it over once, if you time it right you could easily claim (quite correctly) that it ws coming back towards you before you pushed it over. I don't know how much the wobbly man can tell us about some of the newer optical tricks and materials but he'd certainly be the one I'd ask first before looking for anything very spooky.
I just don't know.
-C2.
I'm sure (?) we're all familiar with the 'wobbly man' toy .. you try to push it over and it stands up again. After you've pushed it over once, if you time it right you could easily claim (quite correctly) that it ws coming back towards you before you pushed it over. I don't know how much the wobbly man can tell us about some of the newer optical tricks and materials but he'd certainly be the one I'd ask first before looking for anything very spooky.
I just don't know.
-C2.
GE- I re-read the exerpt about the reverse pulse tha you posted, again.
Might an explanation be that as the pulse procedes thru the fiberoptic
media that the atoms and electrons in the fiber are excited to a high energy
state by the pulse, which sets them "ringing" thus continuing the propogation of
the energy photonic wave? After the electrons and
atoms have released the majority of the energy that they have stored to
assist in propagating the pulse forward, and past their immediate
influence, there might still be some latent ringing in the electrons
that have been stiimulated, as they seek to return to their steady state.
Perhaps this latent ringing produces a moving reflection shadow that is
opposite in polarity to the original pulse and appears to move backwards
because of second order harmonics of the electrons that are ringing.
Does this make sense?
opposing viewpoints welcome....
Laserlight
Might an explanation be that as the pulse procedes thru the fiberoptic
media that the atoms and electrons in the fiber are excited to a high energy
state by the pulse, which sets them "ringing" thus continuing the propogation of
the energy photonic wave? After the electrons and
atoms have released the majority of the energy that they have stored to
assist in propagating the pulse forward, and past their immediate
influence, there might still be some latent ringing in the electrons
that have been stiimulated, as they seek to return to their steady state.
Perhaps this latent ringing produces a moving reflection shadow that is
opposite in polarity to the original pulse and appears to move backwards
because of second order harmonics of the electrons that are ringing.
Does this make sense?
opposing viewpoints welcome....
Laserlight
Hi C2 and Laserlight,
I am unsure what the wobbly toy has in common with a light pulse. I can see a strong analogy with the Higgs Mechanism and the Sombrero Function. There are exchanges of energy … Kinetic to Potential and visa versa. You will need to help me on this one as to what you are thinking here C2.
I have been thinking about Laserlight's theory in his last post. This is interesting and goes to the heart of another thread StevenA and I, as well as others, were working with lately. The nature of "reflections" and what they may constitute.
Perpetual motion?, Cyclic photon reflections
Maybe StevenA is reading this and see what I mean and the relationships here that overlap with what was discussed there.
In this case of backward propagating group velocities of pulses, what appears to be happening is an approaching wave nears a “glass” block (specially doped) as the leading edge touches the left margin of the block that margin “appears” to be exiting the block on the right hand margin. Internally a “ghostly” pulse appears to be rushing toward the incoming pulse and canceling it almost point for point. As much of the leading edge of the pulse that enters the block is canceled “exactly” by the retrograde backward traveling pulse which is disappearing at the internal left edge of the block. As the last bit of this forward propagating pulse “disappears” into the left edge of the block and the trailing edge of the retrograde mirror image is “sucked” into this same margin on the left of the block… a “real” pulse is exiting the right margin of the block intact. This is carrying the energy of the original pulse with it. The appearance of the retrograde “ghost pulse” is consistent with a “creation event” earlier in time at the right hand “margin??” of the block of glass. This ghost travels backwards to the left margin and begins to be canceled by the real pulse that is “coincidently” entering the block of glass at the exact instant our “phantom” gets there as if it knew that it was coming. It then annihilates the incoming pulse at that margin. At that exact instant some distance away (several meters at the other end of the glass block … erbium doped fiber) the incoming pulse emerges from the block as if the distance between the left edge and the right edge was “zero”. It is a form of optical “teleportation”. To give it some concrete idea it is similar to a “Stargate” where our intrepid travelers enter one end of a reflective optical surface and are “optically” canceled there and instantaneously “reconstructed” on the other end of the “wormhole fiber" light years away. The distance in between being optically “canceled”. Energy through the system remains in the forward direction throughout.
I will call everybody’s attention, especially Laserlight, to some critical points in this operation pointed out in the original paper.
I am unsure what the wobbly toy has in common with a light pulse. I can see a strong analogy with the Higgs Mechanism and the Sombrero Function. There are exchanges of energy … Kinetic to Potential and visa versa. You will need to help me on this one as to what you are thinking here C2.
I have been thinking about Laserlight's theory in his last post. This is interesting and goes to the heart of another thread StevenA and I, as well as others, were working with lately. The nature of "reflections" and what they may constitute.
Perpetual motion?, Cyclic photon reflections
Maybe StevenA is reading this and see what I mean and the relationships here that overlap with what was discussed there.
In this case of backward propagating group velocities of pulses, what appears to be happening is an approaching wave nears a “glass” block (specially doped) as the leading edge touches the left margin of the block that margin “appears” to be exiting the block on the right hand margin. Internally a “ghostly” pulse appears to be rushing toward the incoming pulse and canceling it almost point for point. As much of the leading edge of the pulse that enters the block is canceled “exactly” by the retrograde backward traveling pulse which is disappearing at the internal left edge of the block. As the last bit of this forward propagating pulse “disappears” into the left edge of the block and the trailing edge of the retrograde mirror image is “sucked” into this same margin on the left of the block… a “real” pulse is exiting the right margin of the block intact. This is carrying the energy of the original pulse with it. The appearance of the retrograde “ghost pulse” is consistent with a “creation event” earlier in time at the right hand “margin??” of the block of glass. This ghost travels backwards to the left margin and begins to be canceled by the real pulse that is “coincidently” entering the block of glass at the exact instant our “phantom” gets there as if it knew that it was coming. It then annihilates the incoming pulse at that margin. At that exact instant some distance away (several meters at the other end of the glass block … erbium doped fiber) the incoming pulse emerges from the block as if the distance between the left edge and the right edge was “zero”. It is a form of optical “teleportation”. To give it some concrete idea it is similar to a “Stargate” where our intrepid travelers enter one end of a reflective optical surface and are “optically” canceled there and instantaneously “reconstructed” on the other end of the “wormhole fiber" light years away. The distance in between being optically “canceled”. Energy through the system remains in the forward direction throughout.
I will call everybody’s attention, especially Laserlight, to some critical points in this operation pointed out in the original paper.
QUOTE (Observation of Backward Pulse Propagation Through a Medium with a Negative Group Velocity+)
We report on our investigations of backward propagation of an optical pulse through an erbium-doped optical fiber (EDOF) that is pumped in such a manner as to produce a negative value of the group velocity. By measuring the time evolution of the pulse intensity at many points within the fiber, our results demonstrate that the peak of the pulse does indeed propagate in the backward direction within the fiber. However, the energy flow is always in the forward direction, as the velocity of energy transport is equal to the group velocity only under special cases, notably the absence of gain or loss in the medium (25).
The suggestion is that the phenomenon neither creates energy nor destroys it and is acting under strict conservation laws. The pulse is never perfect and some photons are always “damaged” in this process and this is illustrated by a slight distortion in the shape of the wave being affected by the modes in the fiber. What will be happening is some photons are being measured to supply information about the nature of this process. If this was one photon at a time we would be at a loss to describe this phenomenon as anything other than a quantum process that like the dual slit interference experiment can be disturbed if we make measurements on the system while it is in operation. This is obviously under strong illumination conditions. The system is finely balanced to minimize losses that is "quantum demolition processes". IMHO you cannot affect a single photon's qubit and still have a single photon result with this phenomenon. A small sample of the total number of the photons are "destroyed" to measure the waves in the medium.
What is also clear and not stated because it is probably “obvious”… None of these effects precede the original laser pulse, which means before the pulse actually exists there are no retrograde pulses in the block. It “seems” to me that as soon as the LASER produces the pulse, some distance from the block on the left, inside the "space" of the glass block a “phantom” pulse must suddenly appear off to the right, a virtual image of the original laser (an anti-laser producing anti-photons), it’s physical position inside the light path depending on the refractive index of the block. These two “events” rush toward each other at their respective “speed of light” in the mediums. Even though I am referring to one of them as a “phantom” it is very “real” in that it can be measured and sensed just like the original pulse. It is very delicate though according to the "commentary" above. We have seen these type of events before as real and virtual images in optics. The only difference here is this image has an optical "anti-image". I will try and provide a schematic of this phenomenon in the near future.
I have been thinking about real particle and antiparticle annihilation events. We are more or less conditioned to think of these as very energetic processes releasing vast quantities of diffuse energy. It occurs to me that this kind of phenomenon with real particles may actually be a far different process in which there is simply a "change of state" occurring and qubits are conserved. If you think about it carefully there may not be any actual chaos involved in particle antiparticle annihilation at all. It may be a very ordered process having precise "geometric" significance. It may be possible to tame this phenomenon by "optical means". A radical concept indeed but when you think about it carefully there may be no disruption of the particles as such but simple replacement of fermion with bosons or visa versa. I wonder if particle antiparticle annihilation resulting in the release of photons is "optically" completely reversible??
Check out this reference before jumping to conclusions...
Wikipedia: Antiparticle
... And what our favorite scientist Richard Feynman thought about it all.
Cheers
What is also clear and not stated because it is probably “obvious”… None of these effects precede the original laser pulse, which means before the pulse actually exists there are no retrograde pulses in the block. It “seems” to me that as soon as the LASER produces the pulse, some distance from the block on the left, inside the "space" of the glass block a “phantom” pulse must suddenly appear off to the right, a virtual image of the original laser (an anti-laser producing anti-photons), it’s physical position inside the light path depending on the refractive index of the block. These two “events” rush toward each other at their respective “speed of light” in the mediums. Even though I am referring to one of them as a “phantom” it is very “real” in that it can be measured and sensed just like the original pulse. It is very delicate though according to the "commentary" above. We have seen these type of events before as real and virtual images in optics. The only difference here is this image has an optical "anti-image". I will try and provide a schematic of this phenomenon in the near future.
I have been thinking about real particle and antiparticle annihilation events. We are more or less conditioned to think of these as very energetic processes releasing vast quantities of diffuse energy. It occurs to me that this kind of phenomenon with real particles may actually be a far different process in which there is simply a "change of state" occurring and qubits are conserved. If you think about it carefully there may not be any actual chaos involved in particle antiparticle annihilation at all. It may be a very ordered process having precise "geometric" significance. It may be possible to tame this phenomenon by "optical means". A radical concept indeed but when you think about it carefully there may be no disruption of the particles as such but simple replacement of fermion with bosons or visa versa. I wonder if particle antiparticle annihilation resulting in the release of photons is "optically" completely reversible??
Check out this reference before jumping to conclusions...
Wikipedia: Antiparticle
... And what our favorite scientist Richard Feynman thought about it all.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I thought everyone could see lines of wobbly-men. (It's the clowns that really worry me)
These are the best examples of optical resonances I could find ..
http://205.214.33.28/glossary/imagesDir/FS.gif
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=35385
The one shows an RI of less than 1 and the other looks like it's heading for less than zero transmission.
It may well be that the game in some of these exotic effects is to choose frequencies which excite such resonances. Some optical fibres are also amplifiers in their own right which further complicates analysis.
-C2.
I thought everyone could see lines of wobbly-men. (It's the clowns that really worry me)
These are the best examples of optical resonances I could find ..
http://205.214.33.28/glossary/imagesDir/FS.gif
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=35385
The one shows an RI of less than 1 and the other looks like it's heading for less than zero transmission.
It may well be that the game in some of these exotic effects is to choose frequencies which excite such resonances. Some optical fibres are also amplifiers in their own right which further complicates analysis.
-C2.
Good Elf, I'm a bit puzzled by how the inverse pulse is generated and how
to perhaps develop a better understanding of how and why the inverse pulse
propagates. Is it a molecular leading edge"shock wave" effect due to the impact
of the photonic energy pulse against the erbium doped leading edge flat surface
of the block and a reflection return energy propagation from the trailing edge
flat surface of the block (think of it like a drum head membrane where both top
and bottom surfaces of the membrane move in tandem)? There is a
material and diffraction change between the two conducting fiberoptic materials. In other
words the pressure applied to the leading edge of the block is also equally
transmitted to the trailing edge of the block due to "compression" of the block
material, and the springing back of the trailing edge to its normal non stressed
state causes an instantaneous mirror reflection of the pulse in opposition
to the pressure applied at the leading edge.
To that end I am wondering what would happen experimentally
if a different approach was tried to perhaps control or change reflection
effect.
Experiment: Instead of a flat interface between the undoped fiber and the erbium doped
fiber, what is predicted to happen if there was a doping gradient where, instead of
a flat refractive surface where the interfaces join, there was a gradual
diffusing increase of doping of erbium in the normally undoped fiberoptic cable
so the transition interface between media was a buffered refractive transition
rather than a flat transition. This would allow the light pulse to diffuse into the
doped cable and minimize the shock wave. This doping gradient could be
accomplished by implanting erbium into the undoped fiber via an implanter to
minimize disrupting the shape of the undoped fiber.
My guess is that if the incoming shock wave was distributed and absorbed by
a doping gradient that the reflecting shock wave would either be significantly
diminished in relative amplitude or not appear at all until the full energy of
the light pulse reached the right hand trailing edge of the flat exit interface that did
not have a doping gradient between refractive interfaces. At that interface
I would expect a reflection to be generated back into the arriving pulse.
Your thoughts?
Laserlight
to perhaps develop a better understanding of how and why the inverse pulse
propagates. Is it a molecular leading edge"shock wave" effect due to the impact
of the photonic energy pulse against the erbium doped leading edge flat surface
of the block and a reflection return energy propagation from the trailing edge
flat surface of the block (think of it like a drum head membrane where both top
and bottom surfaces of the membrane move in tandem)? There is a
material and diffraction change between the two conducting fiberoptic materials. In other
words the pressure applied to the leading edge of the block is also equally
transmitted to the trailing edge of the block due to "compression" of the block
material, and the springing back of the trailing edge to its normal non stressed
state causes an instantaneous mirror reflection of the pulse in opposition
to the pressure applied at the leading edge.
To that end I am wondering what would happen experimentally
if a different approach was tried to perhaps control or change reflection
effect.
Experiment: Instead of a flat interface between the undoped fiber and the erbium doped
fiber, what is predicted to happen if there was a doping gradient where, instead of
a flat refractive surface where the interfaces join, there was a gradual
diffusing increase of doping of erbium in the normally undoped fiberoptic cable
so the transition interface between media was a buffered refractive transition
rather than a flat transition. This would allow the light pulse to diffuse into the
doped cable and minimize the shock wave. This doping gradient could be
accomplished by implanting erbium into the undoped fiber via an implanter to
minimize disrupting the shape of the undoped fiber.
My guess is that if the incoming shock wave was distributed and absorbed by
a doping gradient that the reflecting shock wave would either be significantly
diminished in relative amplitude or not appear at all until the full energy of
the light pulse reached the right hand trailing edge of the flat exit interface that did
not have a doping gradient between refractive interfaces. At that interface
I would expect a reflection to be generated back into the arriving pulse.
Your thoughts?
Laserlight
Hi everyone,
GE, are you in agreement now about the question of a single "photon"? (I ask because of this statement):
From my point of view, which is why I always put the word "photon" in quotation marks, there is no THING that can be called a "photon".
A "photon" is a process, not an entity. It is a form of resonance between electrons. It is definitely not a particle.
A wave is also "a process" : it is not "localized". One wave will always have 2 parts, which can always be further changed by multiplying or dividing by 2. The dualistic interaction is what drives resonance. This sets the size of "the octave", and the "full" resonant process of transferring a bit of energy from 1 electron to another.
Laserlight is pretty much right on the money. This "backwards" traveling energy is created by a shock-wave traveling through the specially prepared electrons.
The "phonons" wiggle the electrons, creating a new field of interaction; these new fields, in turn oscillate harmonically. Now we have "solitons". It has been established that energy is conserved through this process.
The shock wave can move through this lattice at superluminal speed, ala a Casimir type effect. At near the halfway point, this wave turns around, because there is a stronger amplitude of the resonant frequency at the point of origin, than the end point.
This is just the movement of energy, which Science still knows "next to nothing" about. This is not a "crank" statement, this is repeated by nearly every author of the dozens of papers I have on this subject. Its' all very new, and exciting.
It would be a big deal if a particle turned around in mid-flight without a known force. This is NOT what we are talking about here.
Some papers to read:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
Quantum Chaotic Scattering in Atomic Physics: Ericson Fluctuations in Photoionization
Towards Laserlight's original question:
Geometric Phase Associated with Mode Transformations of Optical Beams Bearing Orbital Angular Momentum
If you can't visualize the "middle chamber" being a secondary "cavity", and creating the geometry for nonlinear resonance (NLR):
TUNABLE SINGLE-MODE SOURCE_FABRY–PEROT LASER DIODE WITH A BUILT-IN EXTERNAL CAVITY
Please realize that this is for "ease of mental digestion", because the cavity is NOT necessary for NLR:
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
The abstract is informative:
From my point of view, which is why I always put the word "photon" in quotation marks, there is no THING that can be called a "photon".
A "photon" is a process, not an entity. It is a form of resonance between electrons. It is definitely not a particle.
A wave is also "a process" : it is not "localized". One wave will always have 2 parts, which can always be further changed by multiplying or dividing by 2. The dualistic interaction is what drives resonance. This sets the size of "the octave", and the "full" resonant process of transferring a bit of energy from 1 electron to another.
Laserlight is pretty much right on the money. This "backwards" traveling energy is created by a shock-wave traveling through the specially prepared electrons.
The "phonons" wiggle the electrons, creating a new field of interaction; these new fields, in turn oscillate harmonically. Now we have "solitons". It has been established that energy is conserved through this process.
The shock wave can move through this lattice at superluminal speed, ala a Casimir type effect. At near the halfway point, this wave turns around, because there is a stronger amplitude of the resonant frequency at the point of origin, than the end point.
This is just the movement of energy, which Science still knows "next to nothing" about. This is not a "crank" statement, this is repeated by nearly every author of the dozens of papers I have on this subject. Its' all very new, and exciting.
It would be a big deal if a particle turned around in mid-flight without a known force. This is NOT what we are talking about here.
Some papers to read:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
Quantum Chaotic Scattering in Atomic Physics: Ericson Fluctuations in Photoionization
Towards Laserlight's original question:
Geometric Phase Associated with Mode Transformations of Optical Beams Bearing Orbital Angular Momentum
If you can't visualize the "middle chamber" being a secondary "cavity", and creating the geometry for nonlinear resonance (NLR):
TUNABLE SINGLE-MODE SOURCE_FABRY–PEROT LASER DIODE WITH A BUILT-IN EXTERNAL CAVITY
Please realize that this is for "ease of mental digestion", because the cavity is NOT necessary for NLR:
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
The abstract is informative:
Abstract
We demonstrate an efficient nonlinear process in which Stokes and anti-Stokes
components are generated spontaneously in a Raman-like, near resonant me-
dia driven by low power counter-propagating fields. Oscillation of this kind
does not require optical cavity and can be viewed as a spontaneous formation
of atomic coherence grating.
Last, but not least, here is another wrench is the "single particle called photon", REASONLESS QM interaction: (E=hf=pc)
Nonlinear optics with less than one photon
Good reading!
T.Roc
GE, are you in agreement now about the question of a single "photon"? (I ask because of this statement):
QUOTE
"IMHO you cannot affect a single photon's qubit and still have a single photon result with this phenomenon. "
From my point of view, which is why I always put the word "photon" in quotation marks, there is no THING that can be called a "photon".
A "photon" is a process, not an entity. It is a form of resonance between electrons. It is definitely not a particle.
A wave is also "a process" : it is not "localized". One wave will always have 2 parts, which can always be further changed by multiplying or dividing by 2. The dualistic interaction is what drives resonance. This sets the size of "the octave", and the "full" resonant process of transferring a bit of energy from 1 electron to another.
Laserlight is pretty much right on the money. This "backwards" traveling energy is created by a shock-wave traveling through the specially prepared electrons.
The "phonons" wiggle the electrons, creating a new field of interaction; these new fields, in turn oscillate harmonically. Now we have "solitons". It has been established that energy is conserved through this process.
The shock wave can move through this lattice at superluminal speed, ala a Casimir type effect. At near the halfway point, this wave turns around, because there is a stronger amplitude of the resonant frequency at the point of origin, than the end point.
This is just the movement of energy, which Science still knows "next to nothing" about. This is not a "crank" statement, this is repeated by nearly every author of the dozens of papers I have on this subject. Its' all very new, and exciting.
It would be a big deal if a particle turned around in mid-flight without a known force. This is NOT what we are talking about here.
Some papers to read:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
Quantum Chaotic Scattering in Atomic Physics: Ericson Fluctuations in Photoionization
Towards Laserlight's original question:
Geometric Phase Associated with Mode Transformations of Optical Beams Bearing Orbital Angular Momentum
If you can't visualize the "middle chamber" being a secondary "cavity", and creating the geometry for nonlinear resonance (NLR):
TUNABLE SINGLE-MODE SOURCE_FABRY–PEROT LASER DIODE WITH A BUILT-IN EXTERNAL CAVITY
Please realize that this is for "ease of mental digestion", because the cavity is NOT necessary for NLR:
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
The abstract is informative:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "IMHO you cannot affect a single photon's qubit and still have a single photon result with this phenomenon. " |
From my point of view, which is why I always put the word "photon" in quotation marks, there is no THING that can be called a "photon".
A "photon" is a process, not an entity. It is a form of resonance between electrons. It is definitely not a particle.
A wave is also "a process" : it is not "localized". One wave will always have 2 parts, which can always be further changed by multiplying or dividing by 2. The dualistic interaction is what drives resonance. This sets the size of "the octave", and the "full" resonant process of transferring a bit of energy from 1 electron to another.
Laserlight is pretty much right on the money. This "backwards" traveling energy is created by a shock-wave traveling through the specially prepared electrons.
The "phonons" wiggle the electrons, creating a new field of interaction; these new fields, in turn oscillate harmonically. Now we have "solitons". It has been established that energy is conserved through this process.
The shock wave can move through this lattice at superluminal speed, ala a Casimir type effect. At near the halfway point, this wave turns around, because there is a stronger amplitude of the resonant frequency at the point of origin, than the end point.
This is just the movement of energy, which Science still knows "next to nothing" about. This is not a "crank" statement, this is repeated by nearly every author of the dozens of papers I have on this subject. Its' all very new, and exciting.
It would be a big deal if a particle turned around in mid-flight without a known force. This is NOT what we are talking about here.
Some papers to read:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
Quantum Chaotic Scattering in Atomic Physics: Ericson Fluctuations in Photoionization
Towards Laserlight's original question:
Geometric Phase Associated with Mode Transformations of Optical Beams Bearing Orbital Angular Momentum
If you can't visualize the "middle chamber" being a secondary "cavity", and creating the geometry for nonlinear resonance (NLR):
TUNABLE SINGLE-MODE SOURCE_FABRY–PEROT LASER DIODE WITH A BUILT-IN EXTERNAL CAVITY
Please realize that this is for "ease of mental digestion", because the cavity is NOT necessary for NLR:
Parametric Self-Oscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing
The abstract is informative:
Abstract
We demonstrate an efficient nonlinear process in which Stokes and anti-Stokes
components are generated spontaneously in a Raman-like, near resonant me-
dia driven by low power counter-propagating fields. Oscillation of this kind
does not require optical cavity and can be viewed as a spontaneous formation
of atomic coherence grating.
Last, but not least, here is another wrench is the "single particle called photon", REASONLESS QM interaction: (E=hf=pc)
Nonlinear optics with less than one photon
Good reading!
T.Roc
Hey Good Elf, Laserlight, C2, TRoc, et al.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I have been thinking about real particle and antiparticle annihilation events. We are more or less conditioned to think of these as very energetic processes releasing vast quantities of diffuse energy. It occurs to me that this kind of phenomenon with real particles may actually be a far different process in which there is simply a "change of state" occurring and qubits are conserved. If you think about it carefully there may not be any actual chaos involved in particle antiparticle annihilation at all. It may be a very ordered process having precise "geometric" significance. It may be possible to tame this phenomenon by "optical means". A radical concept indeed but when you think about it carefully there may be no disruption of the particles as such but simple replacement of fermion with bosons or visa versa. I wonder if particle antiparticle annihilation resulting in the release of photons is "optically" completely reversible??
Are you alluding to gamma gamma --> e- e+ events, as in "Two-photon physics"? Or possible Lorentz symmetry breaking? Or something totally different?
As an aside, I have been reading up on TIQM and had an interesting thought... If the advanced wave can be thought of as moving in the reverse time direction (but still in a light-like manner) some of the neutrino anomalies could be resolved if we consider that they move in the reverse time direction as well - ie., in a space-like manner instead of a time-like manner. (I know this seems off-topic, but if it is not totally hallucinatory, it could pertain to the discussing at hand.)
Are you alluding to gamma gamma --> e- e+ events, as in "Two-photon physics"? Or possible Lorentz symmetry breaking? Or something totally different?
As an aside, I have been reading up on TIQM and had an interesting thought... If the advanced wave can be thought of as moving in the reverse time direction (but still in a light-like manner) some of the neutrino anomalies could be resolved if we consider that they move in the reverse time direction as well - ie., in a space-like manner instead of a time-like manner. (I know this seems off-topic, but if it is not totally hallucinatory, it could pertain to the discussing at hand.)
In an effort to keep the thread mildly convergent .. please ignore my comments about wobbly men and synthesising exotic effects (maybe another day) .
-C2.
-C2.
T.Roc, (and all)
Some things you inferred in multiple posts got me to thinking (that could be
dangerous) and I have given consideration to your comments about the base
nature of energy and how it interacts and the mechanism of how it propagates
thru different types of media.
I will state the obvious about certain known characteristics of energy and
hopefully, by simplifying how I phrase my comments, it will entice others to
offer their insights and examples and perhaps generate some spontaneous
intuitive mental creativity to help advance our general understanding of the
topic.
Anyone is welcome to modify, improve, change, or clarify my assertions:
1. All pure energy has the nature of a wave function, consisting of
frequency, amplitude, wavelength, and energy level over distance
relative to a time base. It also can be considered as a photonic self
perpetuating massless energetic entity.
(Seems like there should always be a cosine function component also)
2. All forms of pure energy are sub harmonics of some fundamental base
frequency. (Hmmm, could the base frequency be the graviton wavelength?
Just a random thought.)
3. All energy is generated by and radiates from matter which is a point source
of origin.
4. All energy is a spontaneous byproduct affect of matter changing location or
state.
5. Energy is propagating everywhere in the universe in some form or other.
Pick any point in space and energy can be measured there at some level.
6. As long as there is a temperature above absolute zero, energy will propagate
thru space and occupy it everywhere.
7. Time is irrelevant to energy unless energy interacts with matter and changes
its form, which is an interactive sub function with time.
8. Absolute zero temperature is the cessation of the propagation of energy
and all movement of matter, and by deduction time, as it relates to
matter and energy.
9. Time is an interactive function of energy and matter.
10. Gravity is a form of energy derived from the collective presence of matter.
(Without matter there is no gravity)
11. Pure energy has an interactive electromagnetic wave, sin-cosine, right angle
90 degree relationship, and spontaneously propagates in free form as matter
changes state. Energy moves in a vector direction.
12. The electromagnetic sin-cosine components of free wave energy interact
and are perpetually self propagating until they react with matter.
13. The distribution of energy intensity/density from a point source diminishes
as a function of the square of the distance from the source.
14. All free forms of energy in space are wave based and electromagnetic/
photonic in nature. (Hmmm, not so sure about gravity but since energy
and gravity are both effects of matter there must me a causality link)
Comments, discussion, disagreements welcome.
Laserlight.
Some things you inferred in multiple posts got me to thinking (that could be
dangerous) and I have given consideration to your comments about the base
nature of energy and how it interacts and the mechanism of how it propagates
thru different types of media.
I will state the obvious about certain known characteristics of energy and
hopefully, by simplifying how I phrase my comments, it will entice others to
offer their insights and examples and perhaps generate some spontaneous
intuitive mental creativity to help advance our general understanding of the
topic.
Anyone is welcome to modify, improve, change, or clarify my assertions:
1. All pure energy has the nature of a wave function, consisting of
frequency, amplitude, wavelength, and energy level over distance
relative to a time base. It also can be considered as a photonic self
perpetuating massless energetic entity.
(Seems like there should always be a cosine function component also)
2. All forms of pure energy are sub harmonics of some fundamental base
frequency. (Hmmm, could the base frequency be the graviton wavelength?
Just a random thought.)
3. All energy is generated by and radiates from matter which is a point source
of origin.
4. All energy is a spontaneous byproduct affect of matter changing location or
state.
5. Energy is propagating everywhere in the universe in some form or other.
Pick any point in space and energy can be measured there at some level.
6. As long as there is a temperature above absolute zero, energy will propagate
thru space and occupy it everywhere.
7. Time is irrelevant to energy unless energy interacts with matter and changes
its form, which is an interactive sub function with time.
8. Absolute zero temperature is the cessation of the propagation of energy
and all movement of matter, and by deduction time, as it relates to
matter and energy.
9. Time is an interactive function of energy and matter.
10. Gravity is a form of energy derived from the collective presence of matter.
(Without matter there is no gravity)
11. Pure energy has an interactive electromagnetic wave, sin-cosine, right angle
90 degree relationship, and spontaneously propagates in free form as matter
changes state. Energy moves in a vector direction.
12. The electromagnetic sin-cosine components of free wave energy interact
and are perpetually self propagating until they react with matter.
13. The distribution of energy intensity/density from a point source diminishes
as a function of the square of the distance from the source.
14. All free forms of energy in space are wave based and electromagnetic/
photonic in nature. (Hmmm, not so sure about gravity but since energy
and gravity are both effects of matter there must me a causality link)
Comments, discussion, disagreements welcome.
Laserlight.
Hi Laserlight,
"It also can be considered as a photonic self perpetuating massless energetic entity."
If the word 'photonic' encapsulates all the known behaviour of a photon then this is fine. There are possible 'photonic' definitions which only match the DSE .. hence my suggestion (earlier in the thread) that more than one experiment should be taken into consideration.
Please, a more precise definition of 'photonic'.. do you wish to test it (needs equations) or would you prefer it to stand as a definition?
-C2.
"It also can be considered as a photonic self perpetuating massless energetic entity."
If the word 'photonic' encapsulates all the known behaviour of a photon then this is fine. There are possible 'photonic' definitions which only match the DSE .. hence my suggestion (earlier in the thread) that more than one experiment should be taken into consideration.
Please, a more precise definition of 'photonic'.. do you wish to test it (needs equations) or would you prefer it to stand as a definition?
-C2.
C-2,
I want to maintain a very basic and simplistic definition of the term photonic
as it relates to the state of a single photon regardless of its wavelength or
energy level.
Do you agree that a single photon has the following common attributes in relation
to all other photons?
1. Photons have no mass.
2. Photons are a pure form of quantized radiant energy.
3. Photons are a combination of mutually interactive self regenerating and self contained electric and magnetic fields that propagate in a vector direction via the right hand rule.
4. Photons are created by the interaction of kinetic energy and matter.
5. Photons have instantaneous constant velocity.
6. All photons have the same constant velocity, regardless of energy level.
7. The Photonic electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of progressive
exponential energy levels starting from the far infrared.
8. The energy of a photon is quantified by the rotational speed and amplitude
of its electromagnetic polarity interaction as it propagates along its vector path.
9. Photons are propagated when electrons have been externally charge stimulated out of their steady state orbital charge levels around a nucleus of an atom and return back to their steady state orbital charge level.
I want to maintain a very basic and simplistic definition of the term photonic
as it relates to the state of a single photon regardless of its wavelength or
energy level.
Do you agree that a single photon has the following common attributes in relation
to all other photons?
1. Photons have no mass.
2. Photons are a pure form of quantized radiant energy.
3. Photons are a combination of mutually interactive self regenerating and self contained electric and magnetic fields that propagate in a vector direction via the right hand rule.
4. Photons are created by the interaction of kinetic energy and matter.
5. Photons have instantaneous constant velocity.
6. All photons have the same constant velocity, regardless of energy level.
7. The Photonic electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of progressive
exponential energy levels starting from the far infrared.
8. The energy of a photon is quantified by the rotational speed and amplitude
of its electromagnetic polarity interaction as it propagates along its vector path.
9. Photons are propagated when electrons have been externally charge stimulated out of their steady state orbital charge levels around a nucleus of an atom and return back to their steady state orbital charge level.
Hi Laserlight,
I think the search is for an 'atom' of light, yes?
Looking at http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp .. a single photon double slit experiment (DSE).
----------
3. Photons are a combination of mutually interactive self regenerating and self contained electric and magnetic fields that propagate in a vector direction via the right hand rule.
I have to suggest this though I know you will reject it.
Alternatively magnetic and electric fields are made of photons .. hence photons can make EM but not vice versa. In the DSE we see the photon 'divide' somehow and regroup at a point .. this 'regeneration' takes on properties beyond the 'normal'. The paths in the DSE suggest that ExH is not the whole of the story .. and may not even be part of it.
5. Photons have instantaneous constant velocity.
In the DSE we see more than one interference maximum .. whatever is passing through the slits must be capeable of travelling different distances in the same amount of time. There may be much better demonstrations of interference over paths of (clearly) different lengths.
6. All photons have the same constant velocity, regardless of energy level.
constant velocity for a single photon is not yet established.
7. The Photonic electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of progressive
exponential energy levels starting from the far infrared.
I think it is generally accepted that all electromagnetic radiation is 'photonic'
8. The energy of a photon is quantified by the rotational speed and amplitude
of its electromagnetic polarity interaction as it propagates along its vector path.
Given the ability of a photon to pass through two slits and/or take different paths at the same time .. it is difficult to be sure of the structure.
--------------
Sorry it's a bit hurried .. my PC keeps crashing so I have to be quick.
Best wishes,
C2.
I think the search is for an 'atom' of light, yes?
Looking at http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp .. a single photon double slit experiment (DSE).
----------
3. Photons are a combination of mutually interactive self regenerating and self contained electric and magnetic fields that propagate in a vector direction via the right hand rule.
I have to suggest this though I know you will reject it.
Alternatively magnetic and electric fields are made of photons .. hence photons can make EM but not vice versa. In the DSE we see the photon 'divide' somehow and regroup at a point .. this 'regeneration' takes on properties beyond the 'normal'. The paths in the DSE suggest that ExH is not the whole of the story .. and may not even be part of it.
5. Photons have instantaneous constant velocity.
In the DSE we see more than one interference maximum .. whatever is passing through the slits must be capeable of travelling different distances in the same amount of time. There may be much better demonstrations of interference over paths of (clearly) different lengths.
6. All photons have the same constant velocity, regardless of energy level.
constant velocity for a single photon is not yet established.
7. The Photonic electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of progressive
exponential energy levels starting from the far infrared.
I think it is generally accepted that all electromagnetic radiation is 'photonic'
8. The energy of a photon is quantified by the rotational speed and amplitude
of its electromagnetic polarity interaction as it propagates along its vector path.
Given the ability of a photon to pass through two slits and/or take different paths at the same time .. it is difficult to be sure of the structure.
--------------
Sorry it's a bit hurried .. my PC keeps crashing so I have to be quick.
Best wishes,
C2.
Hi folks,
Laserlight, I am a lazy (and poor) typist..
I am shrinking your name, as with those other people I like to converse with.
"LL", GE, C2, WN? .. & ??
I'm sure you know this, but let's keep in mind:
"Light equals photons, but..
Photons do not equal light" (in the "visible" sense)
"Without (at least) 2 electrons, the "photon" has no meaning; a "photon" has never been directly observed.
"Photons have no mass, so any "answer" (theory) that wishes to make the photon-electron relationship "binding" MUST include an answer to HOW mass becomes an attribute of the electron, and not the "photon".
This seems almost easy, with an equation that defines the mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2 . However, trying to multiply c^2 by zero doesn't give us the energy that we can measure. The momentum postulate works fine, but is still "not very satisfying" to the mind, when you consider that that is supposed to be derived from mass x velocity. Again, no mass, and even a fixed velocity. There is no easy way out of this loop, and some "questionable" scientific answers are in place, to "patch this up".
I don't want to digress into a different conversation.
My point is, that if we are going to use experiments like MME, and DSE to DEFINE the "properties" of the "photon", we MUST first understand (thoroughly) the way the equipment works. Here we are (again) in a circular argument:
How can we clearly interpret the results (output) of the equipment/apparatus when we don't clearly understand the machinery itself?
An Intrinsic Limit to Quantum Coherence due to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
At the quantum level, we are using "groups" of the particles to define/measure the very same "phenomena".
Put very simply:
If a "photon" is a bit of energy that transfers, across some distance, from one electron to another, then the "perfect" experiment would have just 2 electrons. I don't think that this has ever been (or can be?) done.
If electrons are represented by letters, each different letter signifying a different ground state, or energy level of specific frequency, here is a representation:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D.........................................................................D
D........A>>>>>>>H>>>>>>>>>B....................D
D...E>^..................\......................^>M................D
D.............................\......................^....................D
D..............................R>>>>>>>>>M................D
D........................................................................D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
OK, not a great "picture", but here goes:
Can we say that "letter interactions" can only be represented by A~B ?
That is exactly what the experiments in question do. Luckily, we have other branches of Science to help us. We have other descriptions of Vibrational Resonance: phonons, solitons, magnons, spinons, etc. In the most general sense, they describe our "letter interactions".
We build a "box" with electrons, put several different components inside, also made up of electrons, and then try to have a controlled experiment with electron to electron transfer of energy. If we had complete and thorough understanding of the quantum process, this would be fine. BUT, we are still learning the fundamentals!
We can NOT fully understand something by manipulation of the very thing that we don't understand! Of course, we HAVE to try, because we are at the fundamental level, in which there is no other way to experiment. So, the "point to take home" is:
Let's not say that we have the final answer. Let's continue to feedback the results into the question itself. Changes in fundamentals MUST be made.
These links that I have given are not in any effort to over broaden the subject. They are specifically there to bring matter reaction itself back into the questioning process. I should have include relevant snips, but I didn't have the time. They are pretty short, and hand selected to each have a tidbit that I believe VERY relevant to the interpretation of experiments like DSE.
Here's another one. On the surface, it may seem totally irrelevant to this thread, but listen(read) to some of their statements, and take a general look at the processes.
Quantum Hall line junction with impurities as a multi-slit Luttinger liquid interferometer
At the quantum level, we are using "groups" of the particles to define/measure the very same "phenomena".
Put very simply:
If a "photon" is a bit of energy that transfers, across some distance, from one electron to another, then the "perfect" experiment would have just 2 electrons. I don't think that this has ever been (or can be?) done.
If electrons are represented by letters, each different letter signifying a different ground state, or energy level of specific frequency, here is a representation:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D.........................................................................D
D........A>>>>>>>H>>>>>>>>>B....................D
D...E>^..................\......................^>M................D
D.............................\......................^....................D
D..............................R>>>>>>>>>M................D
D........................................................................D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
OK, not a great "picture", but here goes:
Can we say that "letter interactions" can only be represented by A~B ?
That is exactly what the experiments in question do. Luckily, we have other branches of Science to help us. We have other descriptions of Vibrational Resonance: phonons, solitons, magnons, spinons, etc. In the most general sense, they describe our "letter interactions".
We build a "box" with electrons, put several different components inside, also made up of electrons, and then try to have a controlled experiment with electron to electron transfer of energy. If we had complete and thorough understanding of the quantum process, this would be fine. BUT, we are still learning the fundamentals!
We can NOT fully understand something by manipulation of the very thing that we don't understand! Of course, we HAVE to try, because we are at the fundamental level, in which there is no other way to experiment. So, the "point to take home" is:
Let's not say that we have the final answer. Let's continue to feedback the results into the question itself. Changes in fundamentals MUST be made.
These links that I have given are not in any effort to over broaden the subject. They are specifically there to bring matter reaction itself back into the questioning process. I should have include relevant snips, but I didn't have the time. They are pretty short, and hand selected to each have a tidbit that I believe VERY relevant to the interpretation of experiments like DSE.
Here's another one. On the surface, it may seem totally irrelevant to this thread, but listen(read) to some of their statements, and take a general look at the processes.
Quantum Hall line junction with impurities as a multi-slit Luttinger liquid interferometer
"The physical excitations of the boundary of these incompressible fluid states are gapless and propagate ballistically parallel to the confining edge potential along a direction determined by the magnetic field."
"Due to the chiral nature of the edge excitations, the coherence length of the edge excitations is expected to be extremely long and only limited by inter-edge backscattering processes."
"..the system enters a coherent tunneling regime where the condition for quantum interference can be realized and the conductance across the line junction exhibits the characteristic set of oscillations associated with the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) interference. We interpret these AB oscillations as the signature of a resonant state created by two tunneling centers that strongly couple the counter-propagating
edge states like a slit for quantum interferometer. Presumably these centers are created by a few widely separated small defects or impurities whose role is to strongly couple the two counterpropagating edge states through enhanced tunneling at these sites."
"In this framework the successive ZBC peaks are due to quantum phase transitions tuned by the magnetic field, caused by opening and closing of tunneling channels between the coupled edge states as the magnetic field is varied. In contrast to the Landau level mixing mechanism, the point-contact mechanism provides a natural mechanism for the AB effect, provided that there are multiple tunneling centers embedded within the barrier."
"In all cases conductance exhibits a reproducible set of small oscillations superimposed on slowly varying oscillations."
"Visually, these oscillation are quasi-periodic and demonstrate beating from presence of multiple frequencies."
"A realistic barrier possessing more than two point contacts will produce AB oscillations with a complex interference patterns due to many possible interference path ways. These “point contacts” may be the sites that contain an impurity or a defect that enhances tunneling at the particular location. Presence of two distinct oscillation frequencies, as obtained from the FFT analysis, suggests that there are two primary interference pathways likely established by at least three preferential tunneling spots or alternatively two pairs of resonant states along the length of the junction."
This last quote exactly obeys the rule for FWM, which this paper DOES NOT EVEN MENTION. They are using entirely different rules & equations to explain their case.
This is Resonance 101. Simple bifurcation of the "mixing process". At the fundamental level, reducing the degrees of freedom to 1, you still get the dualistic vibration reproduced recursively. "One" can not be measured by itself; it is ONLY represented by the equal separation (division) of Two. This sounds pretty basic, right? Unfortunately, our integer math system can NOT measure something Physical below 2. We lose the ability to manipulate numbers with multiplication and division at 1. This leaves us only with the "+/- 1" system of integers.
Unfortunately, this would be very "slow" math, but that's not the biggest problem. The fact is that EVERY quantity that is MEASURED in Physics is an irrational number. Think about that.. all of the "constants" of Physical things. The only integers worth mentioning are 2, which is FUNDAMENTAL to Resonance, and 1, which should be the logical beginning of a "from first principles" explanation.
When you "invent" a new math, people are not too quick to jump on the bandwagon. I hope to gain a few converts through simple exercises in logic, but ultimately, the "predictions" of VRT will be the deciding factor for most.
The unexplained concept of "quanta of energy" is explained by VRT this way:
"It is not energy, per se, that is quantized, but MATHEMATICS itself."
We have a "quantum math": its' quanta is One. This math is of integers, then. Of course, we have many kinds of mathematics, that can produce "imaginary" & irrationals, etc. --- but none of them were designed to reproduce resonance, or even take them specifically into consideration. And they ALL are "sent through" the "diffraction grating" of the Integer Quanta/Decimal Resonance. This is our NUMBER SYSTEM, it is INSIDE of all of our math systems. It DOES NOT reproduce things we measure in Physics. It must be FORCED to do "tricks" to produce the irrational answers we need, and still maintain the DOMINANCE of the integer 2 that is fundamental to resonance. Resonance ALWAYS contains the number 2, or its' inverse 1/2 , in the derivation; NOT 10, and its' .10 inverse... EVER!
The math of Resonance then, would start at >1 , and "end" at its' double (the octave) of >2 . It would be populated by irrationals, yet could be described by integers between irrational steps. Preferably, it would be autopoietic: recursive self-generation. This is my "new" math, that populates the Resonance Matrix. It is a 2 dimensional Frequency Comb. It uncannily measures, with a high degree of accuracy, all things that vibrate. That is obviously not trivial.
The point I want to make, because I will start my own thread on this soon, is that we need to remain open to small changes made at the fundamental level.
Controlled experiments are key to good Science. Sometimes, control means just understanding what is POSSIBLE. In these experiments, it remains possible that the "other electrons" in (and of) the "box" are influenced by the presence of a wave, generated by an electron, and sent to be measured by an electron.
Another quote, from the first linked paper, begs to be included in the conversation about the DUALITY between the 2 slits, and the "tooth" inbetween:
Also relevant: yesterdays new item from PhysOrg:
Quantum coherence possible in incommensurate electronic systems
Also relevant: yesterdays new item from PhysOrg:
Quantum coherence possible in incommensurate electronic systems
"At quantum dimensions, quantum mechanics says device components will couple together and act in a concerted manner, where everything affects everything else,"
"An important conclusion drawn from the present study is that coherent wave function engineering, as is traditionally carried out in lattice-matched epitaxial systems, is possible for incommensurate systems," the researchers wrote, "which can substantially broaden the selection of materials useful for coherent device architecture."
As well as the interpretations thereof.
ciao!
T.Roc.
It could be that finite values result from limiting measurements to what an observer is capable of detecting.
Assume for a moment that for every discrete photon detected in the twin slit experiment, there are a potentially infinite number of photons of other wavelengths that aren't absorbed by the detector and are "incompatible" with detector characteristics. (maybe these provide a mechanism by which the motion of a single photon is confined?)
You might imagine these other photons as being reflected, acting as backgound noise or being absorbed by alternate forms of matter that might not be easily detectable.
When a photon is detected, it's usually assumed that this represented the emission of only a single photon as well, but it ends up being that you can't control exactly when a photon will be emitted but can only alter the probability of one being emitted (though truly this isn't even directly verifiable and so you can't even be entirely certain of where or when it originated).
An interesting viewpoint I found is that you can see the universe as composed of multiple (possibly infinite, with only finite of these visible?) wavelength specific spaces or planes, similar to a multiverse, each operating within a specific wavelength and that reflections that occur for a photon could be analogous to being reflected off an "edge" of that space - a mirror capable of 100% reflection of all wavelengths would be similar to a common edge to all these universes, though distances could be determined by wavelengths, so after scaling relative to wavelengths the effective distance in one "plane" could be different than an alternate one.
The fact that blackbody radiation has characteristics of "white noise" resonanting within a fixed cavity size could agree with the idea that units of information and energy are observed as quantized, not because they necessarily are fundamentally, but that the space we make observations from only losslessly supports some cyclic forms of information and science can't deal with anything that isn't cyclic/reproducible.
By this view, matter alters wavelengths and can be seen as a wormhole through these spaces (and capable of performing useful computations on this information through non-linearities), similar to gravity associated with mass warping space around it, allowing these various wavelength specific planes to interact.
Coherent light could be seen as light or energy travelling along a specific path in a specific plane and a prism could be seen similar to wavelength specific routing, due to distances being relative to wavelength. So if matter performs such bending of light, then a medium that performs a constant rotation per unit of distance, if scaled relative to the wavelength of light, would act as a prism. In the extreme for very small wavelengths, you could potentially trap light/energy within a mass by having perform a complete 360 degree rotation within this area (and of course "destroying" the mass would release this energy).
You made a comment about resonances being based upon the integer 2 and I haven't followed the thread enough to understand why you made this statement. Though I'd agree that doubling is more in nature than tripling or quintupling something etc., I don't see these how these are rooted in doubling alone and irrational values seem to represent processes and not the instantaneous physical properties of anything.
Regarding the wavelength specific plane view of things, I don't believe there truly needs to be any physical separation of these planes, but instead that in order to understand and predict something, it needs to happen more than once and so repetitions, cycles and patterns etc. are the staple food of the mind and science, so if energies were resonating in a small cavity and an observer was making observations from a rather fixed point within this, you'd find reflections aliasing around in various ways within this and the wavelengths would be determined by how long of a path something took before returning.
(I just tossed this up here as a 'thanks' for your comment on the other thread ... yes, observational biases are very commonly overlooked probably because they're so pervasive that people forget or hardly recognize they exist because there aren't many opportunities to step out of a 'first person' perspective ... for example many people might assume you can determine average family size by surveying random people as to how many siblings they have, but you'll find larger families have more representation and thus the results are skewed, but it's not immediately obvious)
Laserlight, I am a lazy (and poor) typist..
I am shrinking your name, as with those other people I like to converse with.
"LL", GE, C2, WN? .. & ??
I'm sure you know this, but let's keep in mind:
"Light equals photons, but..
Photons do not equal light" (in the "visible" sense)
"Without (at least) 2 electrons, the "photon" has no meaning; a "photon" has never been directly observed.
"Photons have no mass, so any "answer" (theory) that wishes to make the photon-electron relationship "binding" MUST include an answer to HOW mass becomes an attribute of the electron, and not the "photon".
This seems almost easy, with an equation that defines the mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2 . However, trying to multiply c^2 by zero doesn't give us the energy that we can measure. The momentum postulate works fine, but is still "not very satisfying" to the mind, when you consider that that is supposed to be derived from mass x velocity. Again, no mass, and even a fixed velocity. There is no easy way out of this loop, and some "questionable" scientific answers are in place, to "patch this up".
I don't want to digress into a different conversation.
My point is, that if we are going to use experiments like MME, and DSE to DEFINE the "properties" of the "photon", we MUST first understand (thoroughly) the way the equipment works. Here we are (again) in a circular argument:
How can we clearly interpret the results (output) of the equipment/apparatus when we don't clearly understand the machinery itself?
An Intrinsic Limit to Quantum Coherence due to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
QUOTE
"In mainstream quantum measurement theory, the nature of the classical machine executing the measurement is treated rather casually—it is just asserted to exist, according to daily observations. However, eventually this machine is also subjected to the laws of quantum physics. After all, it is made of microscopic stuff similar to the small quantum system on which the machine acts. The description of this machine typically involves 10^24 strongly interacting quantum particles, and this is not an easy problem. In fact, the very existence of the machine seems to violate the basic laws of quantum physics."
At the quantum level, we are using "groups" of the particles to define/measure the very same "phenomena".
Put very simply:
If a "photon" is a bit of energy that transfers, across some distance, from one electron to another, then the "perfect" experiment would have just 2 electrons. I don't think that this has ever been (or can be?) done.
If electrons are represented by letters, each different letter signifying a different ground state, or energy level of specific frequency, here is a representation:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D.........................................................................D
D........A>>>>>>>H>>>>>>>>>B....................D
D...E>^..................\......................^>M................D
D.............................\......................^....................D
D..............................R>>>>>>>>>M................D
D........................................................................D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
OK, not a great "picture", but here goes:
Can we say that "letter interactions" can only be represented by A~B ?
That is exactly what the experiments in question do. Luckily, we have other branches of Science to help us. We have other descriptions of Vibrational Resonance: phonons, solitons, magnons, spinons, etc. In the most general sense, they describe our "letter interactions".
We build a "box" with electrons, put several different components inside, also made up of electrons, and then try to have a controlled experiment with electron to electron transfer of energy. If we had complete and thorough understanding of the quantum process, this would be fine. BUT, we are still learning the fundamentals!
We can NOT fully understand something by manipulation of the very thing that we don't understand! Of course, we HAVE to try, because we are at the fundamental level, in which there is no other way to experiment. So, the "point to take home" is:
Let's not say that we have the final answer. Let's continue to feedback the results into the question itself. Changes in fundamentals MUST be made.
These links that I have given are not in any effort to over broaden the subject. They are specifically there to bring matter reaction itself back into the questioning process. I should have include relevant snips, but I didn't have the time. They are pretty short, and hand selected to each have a tidbit that I believe VERY relevant to the interpretation of experiments like DSE.
Here's another one. On the surface, it may seem totally irrelevant to this thread, but listen(read) to some of their statements, and take a general look at the processes.
Quantum Hall line junction with impurities as a multi-slit Luttinger liquid interferometer
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "In mainstream quantum measurement theory, the nature of the classical machine executing the measurement is treated rather casually—it is just asserted to exist, according to daily observations. However, eventually this machine is also subjected to the laws of quantum physics. After all, it is made of microscopic stuff similar to the small quantum system on which the machine acts. The description of this machine typically involves 10^24 strongly interacting quantum particles, and this is not an easy problem. In fact, the very existence of the machine seems to violate the basic laws of quantum physics." |
At the quantum level, we are using "groups" of the particles to define/measure the very same "phenomena".
Put very simply:
If a "photon" is a bit of energy that transfers, across some distance, from one electron to another, then the "perfect" experiment would have just 2 electrons. I don't think that this has ever been (or can be?) done.
If electrons are represented by letters, each different letter signifying a different ground state, or energy level of specific frequency, here is a representation:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D.........................................................................D
D........A>>>>>>>H>>>>>>>>>B....................D
D...E>^..................\......................^>M................D
D.............................\......................^....................D
D..............................R>>>>>>>>>M................D
D........................................................................D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
OK, not a great "picture", but here goes:
Can we say that "letter interactions" can only be represented by A~B ?
That is exactly what the experiments in question do. Luckily, we have other branches of Science to help us. We have other descriptions of Vibrational Resonance: phonons, solitons, magnons, spinons, etc. In the most general sense, they describe our "letter interactions".
We build a "box" with electrons, put several different components inside, also made up of electrons, and then try to have a controlled experiment with electron to electron transfer of energy. If we had complete and thorough understanding of the quantum process, this would be fine. BUT, we are still learning the fundamentals!
We can NOT fully understand something by manipulation of the very thing that we don't understand! Of course, we HAVE to try, because we are at the fundamental level, in which there is no other way to experiment. So, the "point to take home" is:
Let's not say that we have the final answer. Let's continue to feedback the results into the question itself. Changes in fundamentals MUST be made.
These links that I have given are not in any effort to over broaden the subject. They are specifically there to bring matter reaction itself back into the questioning process. I should have include relevant snips, but I didn't have the time. They are pretty short, and hand selected to each have a tidbit that I believe VERY relevant to the interpretation of experiments like DSE.
Here's another one. On the surface, it may seem totally irrelevant to this thread, but listen(read) to some of their statements, and take a general look at the processes.
Quantum Hall line junction with impurities as a multi-slit Luttinger liquid interferometer
"The physical excitations of the boundary of these incompressible fluid states are gapless and propagate ballistically parallel to the confining edge potential along a direction determined by the magnetic field."
"Due to the chiral nature of the edge excitations, the coherence length of the edge excitations is expected to be extremely long and only limited by inter-edge backscattering processes."
"..the system enters a coherent tunneling regime where the condition for quantum interference can be realized and the conductance across the line junction exhibits the characteristic set of oscillations associated with the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) interference. We interpret these AB oscillations as the signature of a resonant state created by two tunneling centers that strongly couple the counter-propagating
edge states like a slit for quantum interferometer. Presumably these centers are created by a few widely separated small defects or impurities whose role is to strongly couple the two counterpropagating edge states through enhanced tunneling at these sites."
"In this framework the successive ZBC peaks are due to quantum phase transitions tuned by the magnetic field, caused by opening and closing of tunneling channels between the coupled edge states as the magnetic field is varied. In contrast to the Landau level mixing mechanism, the point-contact mechanism provides a natural mechanism for the AB effect, provided that there are multiple tunneling centers embedded within the barrier."
"In all cases conductance exhibits a reproducible set of small oscillations superimposed on slowly varying oscillations."
"Visually, these oscillation are quasi-periodic and demonstrate beating from presence of multiple frequencies."
"A realistic barrier possessing more than two point contacts will produce AB oscillations with a complex interference patterns due to many possible interference path ways. These “point contacts” may be the sites that contain an impurity or a defect that enhances tunneling at the particular location. Presence of two distinct oscillation frequencies, as obtained from the FFT analysis, suggests that there are two primary interference pathways likely established by at least three preferential tunneling spots or alternatively two pairs of resonant states along the length of the junction."
This last quote exactly obeys the rule for FWM, which this paper DOES NOT EVEN MENTION. They are using entirely different rules & equations to explain their case.
This is Resonance 101. Simple bifurcation of the "mixing process". At the fundamental level, reducing the degrees of freedom to 1, you still get the dualistic vibration reproduced recursively. "One" can not be measured by itself; it is ONLY represented by the equal separation (division) of Two. This sounds pretty basic, right? Unfortunately, our integer math system can NOT measure something Physical below 2. We lose the ability to manipulate numbers with multiplication and division at 1. This leaves us only with the "+/- 1" system of integers.
Unfortunately, this would be very "slow" math, but that's not the biggest problem. The fact is that EVERY quantity that is MEASURED in Physics is an irrational number. Think about that.. all of the "constants" of Physical things. The only integers worth mentioning are 2, which is FUNDAMENTAL to Resonance, and 1, which should be the logical beginning of a "from first principles" explanation.
When you "invent" a new math, people are not too quick to jump on the bandwagon. I hope to gain a few converts through simple exercises in logic, but ultimately, the "predictions" of VRT will be the deciding factor for most.
The unexplained concept of "quanta of energy" is explained by VRT this way:
"It is not energy, per se, that is quantized, but MATHEMATICS itself."
We have a "quantum math": its' quanta is One. This math is of integers, then. Of course, we have many kinds of mathematics, that can produce "imaginary" & irrationals, etc. --- but none of them were designed to reproduce resonance, or even take them specifically into consideration. And they ALL are "sent through" the "diffraction grating" of the Integer Quanta/Decimal Resonance. This is our NUMBER SYSTEM, it is INSIDE of all of our math systems. It DOES NOT reproduce things we measure in Physics. It must be FORCED to do "tricks" to produce the irrational answers we need, and still maintain the DOMINANCE of the integer 2 that is fundamental to resonance. Resonance ALWAYS contains the number 2, or its' inverse 1/2 , in the derivation; NOT 10, and its' .10 inverse... EVER!
The math of Resonance then, would start at >1 , and "end" at its' double (the octave) of >2 . It would be populated by irrationals, yet could be described by integers between irrational steps. Preferably, it would be autopoietic: recursive self-generation. This is my "new" math, that populates the Resonance Matrix. It is a 2 dimensional Frequency Comb. It uncannily measures, with a high degree of accuracy, all things that vibrate. That is obviously not trivial.
The point I want to make, because I will start my own thread on this soon, is that we need to remain open to small changes made at the fundamental level.
Controlled experiments are key to good Science. Sometimes, control means just understanding what is POSSIBLE. In these experiments, it remains possible that the "other electrons" in (and of) the "box" are influenced by the presence of a wave, generated by an electron, and sent to be measured by an electron.
Another quote, from the first linked paper, begs to be included in the conversation about the DUALITY between the 2 slits, and the "tooth" inbetween:
QUOTE
"Given that decoherence via the thin spectrum requires temperature to be finite, it is tempting to associate t_spon with the thermal fluctuations of the
order parameter in the finite system, as described by spin wave theory. However, this is not the case because these thermal fluctuations invoke the thermal excitation of the magnon states. These are exponentially suppressed by Boltzmann factors eJ=kBT, which depend on the energy scale J of the individual interactions. The origin of t_spon is more subtle: it is due to the hidden thin spectrum that reflects the zero point fluctuations of the order parameter
as a whole. This thin spectrum does not carry any thermodynamic weight, and turns into a heat bath destroying quantum information if temperature is finite."
order parameter in the finite system, as described by spin wave theory. However, this is not the case because these thermal fluctuations invoke the thermal excitation of the magnon states. These are exponentially suppressed by Boltzmann factors eJ=kBT, which depend on the energy scale J of the individual interactions. The origin of t_spon is more subtle: it is due to the hidden thin spectrum that reflects the zero point fluctuations of the order parameter
as a whole. This thin spectrum does not carry any thermodynamic weight, and turns into a heat bath destroying quantum information if temperature is finite."
Also relevant: yesterdays new item from PhysOrg:
Quantum coherence possible in incommensurate electronic systems
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Given that decoherence via the thin spectrum requires temperature to be finite, it is tempting to associate t_spon with the thermal fluctuations of the order parameter in the finite system, as described by spin wave theory. However, this is not the case because these thermal fluctuations invoke the thermal excitation of the magnon states. These are exponentially suppressed by Boltzmann factors eJ=kBT, which depend on the energy scale J of the individual interactions. The origin of t_spon is more subtle: it is due to the hidden thin spectrum that reflects the zero point fluctuations of the order parameter as a whole. This thin spectrum does not carry any thermodynamic weight, and turns into a heat bath destroying quantum information if temperature is finite." |
Also relevant: yesterdays new item from PhysOrg:
Quantum coherence possible in incommensurate electronic systems
"At quantum dimensions, quantum mechanics says device components will couple together and act in a concerted manner, where everything affects everything else,"
"An important conclusion drawn from the present study is that coherent wave function engineering, as is traditionally carried out in lattice-matched epitaxial systems, is possible for incommensurate systems," the researchers wrote, "which can substantially broaden the selection of materials useful for coherent device architecture."
As well as the interpretations thereof.
ciao!
T.Roc.
QUOTE
This thin spectrum does not carry any thermodynamic weight, and turns into a heat bath destroying quantum information if temperature is finite."
It could be that finite values result from limiting measurements to what an observer is capable of detecting.
Assume for a moment that for every discrete photon detected in the twin slit experiment, there are a potentially infinite number of photons of other wavelengths that aren't absorbed by the detector and are "incompatible" with detector characteristics. (maybe these provide a mechanism by which the motion of a single photon is confined?)
You might imagine these other photons as being reflected, acting as backgound noise or being absorbed by alternate forms of matter that might not be easily detectable.
When a photon is detected, it's usually assumed that this represented the emission of only a single photon as well, but it ends up being that you can't control exactly when a photon will be emitted but can only alter the probability of one being emitted (though truly this isn't even directly verifiable and so you can't even be entirely certain of where or when it originated).
An interesting viewpoint I found is that you can see the universe as composed of multiple (possibly infinite, with only finite of these visible?) wavelength specific spaces or planes, similar to a multiverse, each operating within a specific wavelength and that reflections that occur for a photon could be analogous to being reflected off an "edge" of that space - a mirror capable of 100% reflection of all wavelengths would be similar to a common edge to all these universes, though distances could be determined by wavelengths, so after scaling relative to wavelengths the effective distance in one "plane" could be different than an alternate one.
The fact that blackbody radiation has characteristics of "white noise" resonanting within a fixed cavity size could agree with the idea that units of information and energy are observed as quantized, not because they necessarily are fundamentally, but that the space we make observations from only losslessly supports some cyclic forms of information and science can't deal with anything that isn't cyclic/reproducible.
By this view, matter alters wavelengths and can be seen as a wormhole through these spaces (and capable of performing useful computations on this information through non-linearities), similar to gravity associated with mass warping space around it, allowing these various wavelength specific planes to interact.
Coherent light could be seen as light or energy travelling along a specific path in a specific plane and a prism could be seen similar to wavelength specific routing, due to distances being relative to wavelength. So if matter performs such bending of light, then a medium that performs a constant rotation per unit of distance, if scaled relative to the wavelength of light, would act as a prism. In the extreme for very small wavelengths, you could potentially trap light/energy within a mass by having perform a complete 360 degree rotation within this area (and of course "destroying" the mass would release this energy).
You made a comment about resonances being based upon the integer 2 and I haven't followed the thread enough to understand why you made this statement. Though I'd agree that doubling is more in nature than tripling or quintupling something etc., I don't see these how these are rooted in doubling alone and irrational values seem to represent processes and not the instantaneous physical properties of anything.
Regarding the wavelength specific plane view of things, I don't believe there truly needs to be any physical separation of these planes, but instead that in order to understand and predict something, it needs to happen more than once and so repetitions, cycles and patterns etc. are the staple food of the mind and science, so if energies were resonating in a small cavity and an observer was making observations from a rather fixed point within this, you'd find reflections aliasing around in various ways within this and the wavelengths would be determined by how long of a path something took before returning.
(I just tossed this up here as a 'thanks' for your comment on the other thread ... yes, observational biases are very commonly overlooked probably because they're so pervasive that people forget or hardly recognize they exist because there aren't many opportunities to step out of a 'first person' perspective ... for example many people might assume you can determine average family size by surveying random people as to how many siblings they have, but you'll find larger families have more representation and thus the results are skewed, but it's not immediately obvious)
C2- the experiment that you referenced was interesting in the method that
was used. I am still giving consideration to what the apparent interference
patterns are really indicating and have not made up my mind yet.
1. Are the patterns indicating interference?....YES. Undoubtedly.
2. Is the interference due to wave interactions of photons....UNCERTAIN,
(I will give it a perhaps when considering interference patterns generated
by holographic images)
3. Are the interference patterns potentially caused by another physical
phenomenon due to the configuration of the slit and mirror configuration?
Perhaps. The reasoning being that there are 2 reflective surfaces on a
glass mirror. One is the front plane of the mirror glass, the second is the
back plane of the glass where it contacts the silvered reflector. This
can create a diffraction timing phase shift of photons that creates
potentially two beams exiting from the 2 mirror surfaces but out of phase with
each other. (I'm still trying to rationalize this thought as to how it applies to
individual photons striking parallel glass planes at an angle)
The round metal wire placed in front of the slit also is worrysome do to
refractive scattering of photons hitting it at tangents to the arc of the wire.
While reading the initial set up (before reading the conclusion) this idea
came immediately to mind as a potential problem.
4. I suspect that if the experiment were done with a single 50u slit this
interference effect might also appear due to scattering as the photons
interact with the cavity walls of the slit, but I have no assurance of that
based on prior single slit experiments. However I am not sure of what
hardware was used in those cases.
was used. I am still giving consideration to what the apparent interference
patterns are really indicating and have not made up my mind yet.
1. Are the patterns indicating interference?....YES. Undoubtedly.
2. Is the interference due to wave interactions of photons....UNCERTAIN,
(I will give it a perhaps when considering interference patterns generated
by holographic images)
3. Are the interference patterns potentially caused by another physical
phenomenon due to the configuration of the slit and mirror configuration?
Perhaps. The reasoning being that there are 2 reflective surfaces on a
glass mirror. One is the front plane of the mirror glass, the second is the
back plane of the glass where it contacts the silvered reflector. This
can create a diffraction timing phase shift of photons that creates
potentially two beams exiting from the 2 mirror surfaces but out of phase with
each other. (I'm still trying to rationalize this thought as to how it applies to
individual photons striking parallel glass planes at an angle)
The round metal wire placed in front of the slit also is worrysome do to
refractive scattering of photons hitting it at tangents to the arc of the wire.
While reading the initial set up (before reading the conclusion) this idea
came immediately to mind as a potential problem.
4. I suspect that if the experiment were done with a single 50u slit this
interference effect might also appear due to scattering as the photons
interact with the cavity walls of the slit, but I have no assurance of that
based on prior single slit experiments. However I am not sure of what
hardware was used in those cases.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 3 2006, 07:36 PM)
Hi Laserlight,
I think the search is for an 'atom' of light, yes?
Looking at http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp .. a single photon double slit experiment (DSE).
----------
3. Photons are a combination of mutually interactive self regenerating and self contained electric and magnetic fields that propagate in a vector direction via the right hand rule.
I have to suggest this though I know you will reject it.
Alternatively magnetic and electric fields are made of photons .. hence photons can make EM but not vice versa. In the DSE we see the photon 'divide' somehow and regroup at a point .. this 'regeneration' takes on properties beyond the 'normal'. The paths in the DSE suggest that ExH is not the whole of the story .. and may not even be part of it.
5. Photons have instantaneous constant velocity.
In the DSE we see more than one interference maximum .. whatever is passing through the slits must be capeable of travelling different distances in the same amount of time. There may be much better demonstrations of interference over paths of (clearly) different lengths.
6. All photons have the same constant velocity, regardless of energy level.
constant velocity for a single photon is not yet established.
7. The Photonic electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of progressive
exponential energy levels starting from the far infrared.
I think it is generally accepted that all electromagnetic radiation is 'photonic'
8. The energy of a photon is quantified by the rotational speed and amplitude
of its electromagnetic polarity interaction as it propagates along its vector path.
Given the ability of a photon to pass through two slits and/or take different paths at the same time .. it is difficult to be sure of the structure.
--------------
Sorry it's a bit hurried .. my PC keeps crashing so I have to be quick.
Best wishes,
C2.
C-2, some commentary on your proposals:
Intuitively, this seems very incorrect. EM is the basis of a photon. Both must
coexist albeit at a 90% phase plane reference. When photons impart their
energy they do it in a magneic field plane and in an electric field plane. A photon's electric and magnetic fields cannot divide since they require each other
for existence. Field planes can however, interact by virtue of constructive and
destructive interference if the E and H planes are phased properly, which can
generate a standing wave interference pattern, alla the DSE.
Intuitively, this seems very incorrect. EM is the basis of a photon. Both must
coexist albeit at a 90% phase plane reference. When photons impart their
energy they do it in a magneic field plane and in an electric field plane. A photon's electric and magnetic fields cannot divide since they require each other
for existence. Field planes can however, interact by virtue of constructive and
destructive interference if the E and H planes are phased properly, which can
generate a standing wave interference pattern, alla the DSE.
5. In the DSE we see more than one interference maximum .. whatever is passing through the slits must be capeable of travelling different distances in the same amount of time. There may be much better demonstrations of interference over paths of (clearly) different lengths.
Hmmm, are the photons really travelling different distances, or is the interference
pattern caused by a timing or amplitude phase shift created by ExH field phase interactions?
Isn't there a universal constant the proves this? What is c ?
Isn't there a universal constant the proves this? What is c ?
8. Given the ability of a photon to pass through two slits and/or take different paths at the same time .. it is difficult to be sure of the structure.
I totally disagree with this statement. A photon cannot be divided but it can
generate harmonic frequencies if properly phased with another influencing
ExH fields/charges. Harmonics also generate standing wave interference patterns.
I propose that what the DSE is showing is harmonic standing wave interference
patters created by co-planer ExH constructive and destructive interference. Just
don't ask me to prove how it is done....I'm still rationalizing that one.
LL
I think the search is for an 'atom' of light, yes?
Looking at http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp .. a single photon double slit experiment (DSE).
----------
3. Photons are a combination of mutually interactive self regenerating and self contained electric and magnetic fields that propagate in a vector direction via the right hand rule.
I have to suggest this though I know you will reject it.
Alternatively magnetic and electric fields are made of photons .. hence photons can make EM but not vice versa. In the DSE we see the photon 'divide' somehow and regroup at a point .. this 'regeneration' takes on properties beyond the 'normal'. The paths in the DSE suggest that ExH is not the whole of the story .. and may not even be part of it.
5. Photons have instantaneous constant velocity.
In the DSE we see more than one interference maximum .. whatever is passing through the slits must be capeable of travelling different distances in the same amount of time. There may be much better demonstrations of interference over paths of (clearly) different lengths.
6. All photons have the same constant velocity, regardless of energy level.
constant velocity for a single photon is not yet established.
7. The Photonic electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of progressive
exponential energy levels starting from the far infrared.
I think it is generally accepted that all electromagnetic radiation is 'photonic'
8. The energy of a photon is quantified by the rotational speed and amplitude
of its electromagnetic polarity interaction as it propagates along its vector path.
Given the ability of a photon to pass through two slits and/or take different paths at the same time .. it is difficult to be sure of the structure.
--------------
Sorry it's a bit hurried .. my PC keeps crashing so I have to be quick.
Best wishes,
C2.
C-2, some commentary on your proposals:
QUOTE
3. Alternatively magnetic and electric fields are made of photons .. hence photons can make EM but not vice versa. In the DSE we see the photon 'divide' somehow and regroup at a point .. this 'regeneration' takes on properties beyond the 'normal'.
Intuitively, this seems very incorrect. EM is the basis of a photon. Both must
coexist albeit at a 90% phase plane reference. When photons impart their
energy they do it in a magneic field plane and in an electric field plane. A photon's electric and magnetic fields cannot divide since they require each other
for existence. Field planes can however, interact by virtue of constructive and
destructive interference if the E and H planes are phased properly, which can
generate a standing wave interference pattern, alla the DSE.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. Alternatively magnetic and electric fields are made of photons .. hence photons can make EM but not vice versa. In the DSE we see the photon 'divide' somehow and regroup at a point .. this 'regeneration' takes on properties beyond the 'normal'. |
Intuitively, this seems very incorrect. EM is the basis of a photon. Both must
coexist albeit at a 90% phase plane reference. When photons impart their
energy they do it in a magneic field plane and in an electric field plane. A photon's electric and magnetic fields cannot divide since they require each other
for existence. Field planes can however, interact by virtue of constructive and
destructive interference if the E and H planes are phased properly, which can
generate a standing wave interference pattern, alla the DSE.
5. In the DSE we see more than one interference maximum .. whatever is passing through the slits must be capeable of travelling different distances in the same amount of time. There may be much better demonstrations of interference over paths of (clearly) different lengths.
Hmmm, are the photons really travelling different distances, or is the interference
pattern caused by a timing or amplitude phase shift created by ExH field phase interactions?
QUOTE
6. constant velocity for a single photon is not yet established.
Isn't there a universal constant the proves this? What is c ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 6. constant velocity for a single photon is not yet established. |
Isn't there a universal constant the proves this? What is c ?
8. Given the ability of a photon to pass through two slits and/or take different paths at the same time .. it is difficult to be sure of the structure.
I totally disagree with this statement. A photon cannot be divided but it can
generate harmonic frequencies if properly phased with another influencing
ExH fields/charges. Harmonics also generate standing wave interference patterns.
I propose that what the DSE is showing is harmonic standing wave interference
patters created by co-planer ExH constructive and destructive interference. Just
don't ask me to prove how it is done....I'm still rationalizing that one.
LL
Hi Why Not?, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, RealityCheck, Ron, Areal, TRoc, Zephir et al,
He he he! I hardly know where to start here. I will need to split my replies up and answer each respondent separately...
He he he! I hardly know where to start here. I will need to split my replies up and answer each respondent separately...
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
Are you alluding to gamma gamma --> e- e+ events, as in "Two-photon physics"? Or possible Lorentz symmetry breaking? Or something totally different?
Why Not? rightly has my attention. This shows a great deal of thought, I have approached this problem in part on this forum some time ago. Lorentz Symmetry Breaking?... quite possibly, especially if you broaden the interpretation of just what this means. In a strict way I guess this is just what it doing since relativity does not immediately connect to de Broglie unless elves point this out. As v -> 0 the world-line of all particles spread inverse proportionately to the mass. This is de Broglie's Relationship. If either v or m approaches zero, or together, "particle locality" will begin to vanish. It is my opinion that this behavior is a wrapping on the brane of the Universe. This signals the "infinite electromagnetic wave" traveling at the speed of light through our "spacetime" now being confined to move within a limited dimensional space as a localized particle with mass. The wave now "goes in circles" (about a center) on the one spot and so appears to be at rest relative to other particles (which are also doing the same thing). This is the way de Broglie works.
QUOTE (Why Not?+)
As an aside, I have been reading up on TIQM and had an interesting thought... If the advanced wave can be thought of as moving in the reverse time direction (but still in a light-like manner) some of the neutrino anomalies could be resolved if we consider that they move in the reverse time direction as well - ie., in a space-like manner instead of a time-like manner. (I know this seems off-topic, but if it is not totally hallucinatory, it could pertain to the discussing at hand.)
I have not thought specifically of things that way but I think you have nailed a very good question. The "Neutrinos" are one of the "biggies". With my "rush" to work out a lot of things for myself I have put the "questions" about them into the back cupboard.
Neutrinos travel at so close to the speed of light (either above or below and perhaps moving across that boundary), is it possible they "wrap harmonically" on the brane of our Universe?
That 1/2 twist of the Dirac's Party Trick converting an integer spin boson (traveling at the speed of light) to a double integer spin two particle which in a reciprocal form (one divided by two) is 1/2 integer... a fermion, setting up a harmonic oscillation through the sudden acquisition of mass as a false tachyon (above the speed of light) and slamming on the brakes bringing it back to a light speed boson again, the fermion properties developing out of the initial boson property?... the source of their mass.
For a very long time neutrinos were thought to be massless since they appeared to be "bosons". Maybe they really are bosons... very special bosons.
Balinese candle dancers and Dirac's Party Trick
Cite/Link: http://newton.umsl.edu/~philf/candles.html
The way this has been interpreted in the past was the Neutrino slamming into a "Higgs Boson" and suddenly acquiring mass. Well I think this is just a common property of reciprocal space exhibiting itself with these unusual "light speed particles".
Neutrino Physics: The Standard Model
The proposed mechanism of mass acquisition as illustrated in this page above does appear to me to be "artificial". It is inconceivable to me that Neutrinos could be confined to move like light at "near" light speed and not be a "boson". Why don't neutrinos "pool" as they lose kinetic energy and then punch holes in the Universe since they are very "massive" when considered as "relativistic energy". Can they lose kinetic energy? It would seem not. It Neutrinos travel at the speed of light and pass through matter as if perfectly transparent glass they must be responding to the bulk refractive index of the matter. Even a star is like a pane of glass to a Neutrino. Therefore a Neutrino would diffract like a photon, but unlike a photon are not able to partake in particle interactions like photons being only susceptible to the weak force and to gravity. It seems reasonable to me to consider that neutrinos are all kinetic energy like photons and obey the same rules as neutrinos excepting for one property that of spin. Spin for neutrinos is only 1/2. Therefore neutrinos traveling at the speed of light are "massless" like photons (zero rest mass) but can acquire mass through an oscillation on the brane (standing waves) exceeding the speed of light ever so slightly going "tachyonic". This forces it to acquire mass and thus localizes the particle from "seeking all paths" to being a de Broglie particle, that reduces its speed once again "down" to the speed of light, becomes delocalized again and "seeking all paths" and then exceeding the speed of light and acquiring mass. The "cycle" then repeats since no energy has been lost. An endless oscillatory feedback mechanism. This is too much like a "Higgs Mechanism" and the bumping into a Higgs Boson being the explanation for this process lacks credibility. You are right... this is likely to be Lorentz Symmetry Breaking.
The Neutrino - What is it?
This is an "older" reference but illustrates the point I want to emphasize. It is essential to look at the related links on this page, to get some idea of the problems, and how they may be answered. It asks the right questions... What is the mass of the neutrino? Is it its own anti-particle? and does it have a magnetic spin moment? Can these features explain why there are only one chirality of these particles in the Universe? These are still essential questions. This "special penetrative light" can potentially explain the nature of "gravity" and "mass" since a massless particle is also affected by gravity (take note of photons falling along geodesics too only at the speed of light). The "geodesics" will then be related to refractive index and the gravitational forces will be resolvable in terms of "optics" since only the Neutrino can fully penetrate all the material in the Universe except for Black Holes and respond without loss of that qubit it must carry. The entire universe would appear like a block of glass to it... very clear glass with different refractive indices throughout related to the normal optical properties of materials. Unlike photons though which are stopped by this material being able to enter into particle interactions, neutrinos do not normally do this. The geometry would then define the space they move in. The linking of the charge of the neutrino oscillations to the "massless" bare neutrino is linked with mass in the same way that the charge in an electron is linked with the topology of the internal path of the trapped "photon"... which exhibits mass. The charge of all particles would link to "mass" not as intrinsic properties but as "attributes" of the way photon paths are constrained to move in those higher dimensions as I have previously indicated in Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper on the topological photon, only in higher dimensions.
It has been known for a very long time that a rotation in space of 360 degrees does not restore the properties of fermion particles to the same state before the rotation. This can be illustrated by Dirac's Party trick... If you take a ball and place it in a box and attach a number of strings connecting the ball (loosely) to the walls of the box. If you rotate the ball 360 degrees the strings all become "twisted". This is topologically unable to be removed without rotation. Rotate the ball a second time in the same sense and the "twists" can be passed over the ball completely removing the original twist. Proving that nature follows quantum mechanics. All bosons and fermions are related to the background of the Universe (whatever that means ) by this "twist" and this is what separates the "hard" particles from the "soft" ones. A kind of Mach's Principle. The so called hard particles obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics (one particle in a particular space at a a time - space quantization) and the "soft" particles obey the Bose-Einstein Statistics (any number of these particles can exist in the same place at the same time... like photons). Of course the reciprocal nature of the anti-de Sitter space we live in converts 1/1 into one and 1/2 into a half... thus linking the boson with the fermion through a spacetime wrapping on the brane of our universe. This is the long sought after "Supersymmetry" only we don't know it because we refuse to accept the higher dimensional nature of the universe and we look for every other reason to "explain it away". Every fermion has an associated boson as a wrapping on the brane. The proton for instance (the simplest case) wraps as the bosonic shell of the simple hydrogen atom... the electron shells. These hybridize and sit in the one space as the single proton nucleus occupies, just that it is at a slightly different scale and more "delocalized". This is only a winding property of the original particle and is its dual.
It is such a complex problem that even elves are having problems with it but I am convinced the real secrets are buried here with your question. The old KISS principle is telling me that Neutrinos are the source of mass and not necessarily extra particles and gravity is a pseudo-force. As the "theory" goes... the Neutrino is a special Photon with additional properties "added on" causing it to oscillate spatially through the acquisition of mass changing between the different "charged" flavors while passing through a light speed "massless photon" a bare Neutrino state. So far all quantum properties have been found to be simple attributes and not intrinsic to quanta. For instance two micro-machines have been entangle with the spooky force. This indicates very strongly to me that there is nothing very special about particles that can't be transferred to collections of particles... In the same way that two fermions in the one state "become" a boson. The limits are only velocity and mass as seen by the equation...
Cheers
Neutrinos travel at so close to the speed of light (either above or below and perhaps moving across that boundary), is it possible they "wrap harmonically" on the brane of our Universe?
That 1/2 twist of the Dirac's Party Trick converting an integer spin boson (traveling at the speed of light) to a double integer spin two particle which in a reciprocal form (one divided by two) is 1/2 integer... a fermion, setting up a harmonic oscillation through the sudden acquisition of mass as a false tachyon (above the speed of light) and slamming on the brakes bringing it back to a light speed boson again, the fermion properties developing out of the initial boson property?... the source of their mass.
For a very long time neutrinos were thought to be massless since they appeared to be "bosons". Maybe they really are bosons... very special bosons.
Balinese candle dancers and Dirac's Party Trick
Cite/Link: http://newton.umsl.edu/~philf/candles.html
The way this has been interpreted in the past was the Neutrino slamming into a "Higgs Boson" and suddenly acquiring mass. Well I think this is just a common property of reciprocal space exhibiting itself with these unusual "light speed particles".
Neutrino Physics: The Standard Model
The proposed mechanism of mass acquisition as illustrated in this page above does appear to me to be "artificial". It is inconceivable to me that Neutrinos could be confined to move like light at "near" light speed and not be a "boson". Why don't neutrinos "pool" as they lose kinetic energy and then punch holes in the Universe since they are very "massive" when considered as "relativistic energy". Can they lose kinetic energy? It would seem not. It Neutrinos travel at the speed of light and pass through matter as if perfectly transparent glass they must be responding to the bulk refractive index of the matter. Even a star is like a pane of glass to a Neutrino. Therefore a Neutrino would diffract like a photon, but unlike a photon are not able to partake in particle interactions like photons being only susceptible to the weak force and to gravity. It seems reasonable to me to consider that neutrinos are all kinetic energy like photons and obey the same rules as neutrinos excepting for one property that of spin. Spin for neutrinos is only 1/2. Therefore neutrinos traveling at the speed of light are "massless" like photons (zero rest mass) but can acquire mass through an oscillation on the brane (standing waves) exceeding the speed of light ever so slightly going "tachyonic". This forces it to acquire mass and thus localizes the particle from "seeking all paths" to being a de Broglie particle, that reduces its speed once again "down" to the speed of light, becomes delocalized again and "seeking all paths" and then exceeding the speed of light and acquiring mass. The "cycle" then repeats since no energy has been lost. An endless oscillatory feedback mechanism. This is too much like a "Higgs Mechanism" and the bumping into a Higgs Boson being the explanation for this process lacks credibility. You are right... this is likely to be Lorentz Symmetry Breaking.
The Neutrino - What is it?
This is an "older" reference but illustrates the point I want to emphasize. It is essential to look at the related links on this page, to get some idea of the problems, and how they may be answered. It asks the right questions... What is the mass of the neutrino? Is it its own anti-particle? and does it have a magnetic spin moment? Can these features explain why there are only one chirality of these particles in the Universe? These are still essential questions. This "special penetrative light" can potentially explain the nature of "gravity" and "mass" since a massless particle is also affected by gravity (take note of photons falling along geodesics too only at the speed of light). The "geodesics" will then be related to refractive index and the gravitational forces will be resolvable in terms of "optics" since only the Neutrino can fully penetrate all the material in the Universe except for Black Holes and respond without loss of that qubit it must carry. The entire universe would appear like a block of glass to it... very clear glass with different refractive indices throughout related to the normal optical properties of materials. Unlike photons though which are stopped by this material being able to enter into particle interactions, neutrinos do not normally do this. The geometry would then define the space they move in. The linking of the charge of the neutrino oscillations to the "massless" bare neutrino is linked with mass in the same way that the charge in an electron is linked with the topology of the internal path of the trapped "photon"... which exhibits mass. The charge of all particles would link to "mass" not as intrinsic properties but as "attributes" of the way photon paths are constrained to move in those higher dimensions as I have previously indicated in Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper on the topological photon, only in higher dimensions.
It has been known for a very long time that a rotation in space of 360 degrees does not restore the properties of fermion particles to the same state before the rotation. This can be illustrated by Dirac's Party trick... If you take a ball and place it in a box and attach a number of strings connecting the ball (loosely) to the walls of the box. If you rotate the ball 360 degrees the strings all become "twisted". This is topologically unable to be removed without rotation. Rotate the ball a second time in the same sense and the "twists" can be passed over the ball completely removing the original twist. Proving that nature follows quantum mechanics. All bosons and fermions are related to the background of the Universe (whatever that means
) by this "twist" and this is what separates the "hard" particles from the "soft" ones. A kind of Mach's Principle. The so called hard particles obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics (one particle in a particular space at a a time - space quantization) and the "soft" particles obey the Bose-Einstein Statistics (any number of these particles can exist in the same place at the same time... like photons). Of course the reciprocal nature of the anti-de Sitter space we live in converts 1/1 into one and 1/2 into a half... thus linking the boson with the fermion through a spacetime wrapping on the brane of our universe. This is the long sought after "Supersymmetry" only we don't know it because we refuse to accept the higher dimensional nature of the universe and we look for every other reason to "explain it away". Every fermion has an associated boson as a wrapping on the brane. The proton for instance (the simplest case) wraps as the bosonic shell of the simple hydrogen atom... the electron shells. These hybridize and sit in the one space as the single proton nucleus occupies, just that it is at a slightly different scale and more "delocalized". This is only a winding property of the original particle and is its dual.It is such a complex problem that even elves are having problems with it but I am convinced the real secrets are buried here with your question. The old KISS principle is telling me that Neutrinos are the source of mass and not necessarily extra particles and gravity is a pseudo-force. As the "theory" goes... the Neutrino is a special Photon with additional properties "added on" causing it to oscillate spatially through the acquisition of mass changing between the different "charged" flavors while passing through a light speed "massless photon" a bare Neutrino state. So far all quantum properties have been found to be simple attributes and not intrinsic to quanta. For instance two micro-machines have been entangle with the spooky force. This indicates very strongly to me that there is nothing very special about particles that can't be transferred to collections of particles... In the same way that two fermions in the one state "become" a boson. The limits are only velocity and mass as seen by the equation...
Cheers
TRoc, wow, a very long post. Thanks for putting so much time into it.
[QUOTE]Light equals photons, but..
Photons do not equal light" (in the "visible" sense)[/QUOTE]
Agreed, depending upon the spectrum... consider infrared and x rays...both
can provide detectable images using the right sensing medium.
[QUOTE]"Without (at least) 2 electrons, the "photon" has no meaning; a "photon" has never been directly observed. [/QUOTE]
I was going to use Hydrogen as an example but since it is diatomic (H2) I
concede the point... I have observed hydrogen plasmas many times.
We observe photons every day, just not individually.
[QUOTE]
Photons have no mass, so any "answer" (theory) that wishes to make the photon-electron relationship "binding" MUST include an answer to HOW mass becomes an attribute of the electron, and not the "photon".[/QUOTE]
An electron has only 1 unbalanced negatively polarized field charge, and is a
physical object. electrons have 1/2 spin. Photons are pure energy with a cyclically balanced interactive periodic electrical and magnetic alternating charge. Photons
apparently have either a 1 or 3/2 spin. -I admit I could be very wrong on this.
[/QUOTE]Re: E=mc^2. However, trying to multiply c^2 by zero doesn't give us the energy that we can measure.[QUOTE] We must use relativistic mass, as
described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
LL
[QUOTE]Light equals photons, but..
Photons do not equal light" (in the "visible" sense)[/QUOTE]
Agreed, depending upon the spectrum... consider infrared and x rays...both
can provide detectable images using the right sensing medium.
[QUOTE]"Without (at least) 2 electrons, the "photon" has no meaning; a "photon" has never been directly observed. [/QUOTE]
I was going to use Hydrogen as an example but since it is diatomic (H2) I
concede the point... I have observed hydrogen plasmas many times.
We observe photons every day, just not individually.
[QUOTE]
Photons have no mass, so any "answer" (theory) that wishes to make the photon-electron relationship "binding" MUST include an answer to HOW mass becomes an attribute of the electron, and not the "photon".[/QUOTE]
An electron has only 1 unbalanced negatively polarized field charge, and is a
physical object. electrons have 1/2 spin. Photons are pure energy with a cyclically balanced interactive periodic electrical and magnetic alternating charge. Photons
apparently have either a 1 or 3/2 spin. -I admit I could be very wrong on this.
[/QUOTE]Re: E=mc^2. However, trying to multiply c^2 by zero doesn't give us the energy that we can measure.[QUOTE] We must use relativistic mass, as
described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
LL
Hey TRoc, LL, C2, GE and StevenA,
TRoc, the point you brought up regarding your link to "An Intrinsic Limit to Quantum Coherence due to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking" goes right to the heart of a question I had regarding C2's link to "Making discrete photon effects visible in an optical interference experiment."
TRoc, the point you brought up regarding your link to "An Intrinsic Limit to Quantum Coherence due to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking" goes right to the heart of a question I had regarding C2's link to "Making discrete photon effects visible in an optical interference experiment."
QUOTE (From C2's link+)
The image intensifier is an essential part of this experiment. With the intensifier, every single photon are amplified by a factor of up to one million, so that the signal generated by each photon at the output of the intensifier (a phosphor screen) can be detected with a sensitive film or a CCD camera.
How is the image intensifier able to effectively preserve the interference pattern in the process of amplification?
With regard to
With regard to
QUOTE (TRoc+)
If a "photon" is a bit of energy that transfers, across some distance, from one electron to another, then the "perfect" experiment would have just 2 electrons. I don't think that this has ever been (or can be?) done.
Understanding that we cannot "see" an individual electron, there is oodles of experimental data that confirm their existence. I believe that the same can be said of an electromagnetic particle called a photon. Take the Compton Effect for example...
http://35.9.69.219/home/modules/pdf_modules/m219.pdf
You may also be interested in current QCD research:
Photon Structure
Understanding that we cannot "see" an individual electron, there is oodles of experimental data that confirm their existence. I believe that the same can be said of an electromagnetic particle called a photon. Take the Compton Effect for example...
http://35.9.69.219/home/modules/pdf_modules/m219.pdf
You may also be interested in current QCD research:
Photon Structure
QUOTE (From the link+)
The quick answer to the question “How do you measure the structure of the photon?” is unfortunately, “With great difficulty”. Experiments measuring the photon structure, in general, use the almost on-shell photons accompanying e+ or e− beams. These photons are typically probed by some short distance process. This may be deep inelastic scattering [1], high transverse energy (Et) jets [2, 3, 4,
5, 6] or particles, or heavy quark production [7, 8]. These are, in general, rather challenging measurements. One key problem is the fact that the target photons have a spectrum of energies. If this is integrated over, sensitivity to the photon structure is lost. Thus, some way must be found to measure the photon energy on an event-by-event basis.
It is not that I am blatantly disagreeing with you, I just see the "necessity" of the particle nature of light and I have a suggestion that may (or may not) help clarify your assertion. If I understand the point you are trying to make, it can be re-phrased as: "a photon is identifiable only at the point of interaction and never 'in between' interactions." From the photon's frame of reference, there is zero movement through the time dimension. No time "passes" between emission and absorption. So what happens when we consider the photon as a dimensional collapse of the EM wave? That is, maybe the EM wave exists (can only be measured) in 4D and the photon exists (can only be measured) on as the collapse of the 4D wave into/onto a 3D surface? Just a thought...
Good Elf - Thanks for the reply. I have a response but need to re-read, re-read agin and then take some time to digest.
5, 6] or particles, or heavy quark production [7, 8]. These are, in general, rather challenging measurements. One key problem is the fact that the target photons have a spectrum of energies. If this is integrated over, sensitivity to the photon structure is lost. Thus, some way must be found to measure the photon energy on an event-by-event basis.
It is not that I am blatantly disagreeing with you, I just see the "necessity" of the particle nature of light and I have a suggestion that may (or may not) help clarify your assertion. If I understand the point you are trying to make, it can be re-phrased as: "a photon is identifiable only at the point of interaction and never 'in between' interactions." From the photon's frame of reference, there is zero movement through the time dimension. No time "passes" between emission and absorption. So what happens when we consider the photon as a dimensional collapse of the EM wave? That is, maybe the EM wave exists (can only be measured) in 4D and the photon exists (can only be measured) on as the collapse of the 4D wave into/onto a 3D surface? Just a thought...
Good Elf - Thanks for the reply. I have a response but need to re-read, re-read agin and then take some time to digest.
Hi TRoc, Why Not?, Confused2, yquantum, Laserlight, RealityCheck, Ron, Areal, Zephir et al,
Now for TRoc. He has posed this question a couple of times in the past but there can be no simple answer to this.
Now for TRoc. He has posed this question a couple of times in the past but there can be no simple answer to this.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
From my point of view, which is why I always put the word "photon" in quotation marks, there is no THING that can be called a "photon".
A "photon" is a process, not an entity. It is a form of resonance between electrons. It is definitely not a particle.
A wave is also "a process" : it is not "localized". One wave will always have 2 parts, which can always be further changed by multiplying or dividing by 2. The dualistic interaction is what drives resonance. This sets the size of "the octave", and the "full" resonant process of transferring a bit of energy from 1 electron to another.
... and again...
A "photon" is a process, not an entity. It is a form of resonance between electrons. It is definitely not a particle.
A wave is also "a process" : it is not "localized". One wave will always have 2 parts, which can always be further changed by multiplying or dividing by 2. The dualistic interaction is what drives resonance. This sets the size of "the octave", and the "full" resonant process of transferring a bit of energy from 1 electron to another.
... and again...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I'm sure you know this, but let's keep in mind:
"Light equals photons, but..
Photons do not equal light" (in the "visible" sense)
"Without (at least) 2 electrons, the "photon" has no meaning; a "photon" has never been directly observed.
"Photons have no mass, so any "answer" (theory) that wishes to make the photon-electron relationship "binding" MUST include an answer to HOW mass becomes an attribute of the electron, and not the "photon".
"Light equals photons, but..
Photons do not equal light" (in the "visible" sense)
"Without (at least) 2 electrons, the "photon" has no meaning; a "photon" has never been directly observed.
"Photons have no mass, so any "answer" (theory) that wishes to make the photon-electron relationship "binding" MUST include an answer to HOW mass becomes an attribute of the electron, and not the "photon".
I suppose this is where I get a little "esoteric" and say with "things" our sensory experience of the Universe is not a perfect way to evaluate what is or is not "real". Photons have properties similar to other particles. The properties can be measured and therefore represent something "real". The "attribute" of mass should not be thought of as being the only feature that distinguishes what is real from what is not. A photon does form a resonance between particles ... not just electrons but other particles as well, it really depends on the systems it is required to interact with (we have seen photons and the way they interact being quite "malleable" when you consider "big photons" interacting with radio masts in both directions... these are not single electrons and the photons can be several hundreds of meters in size, incapable of being absorbed by normal sub-atomic particles. What we experience of the Universe is predominantly the interaction of photons and this is a powerful "illusion" I will grant you that, because this is what people call real. Actually it is a phenomenon we experience within the retina of our eyes. The external Universe is just that.
We are incapable of directly observing anything in our Universe without that so called "light"... almost everything is an electromagnetic interaction. If you touch something this "force" is electromagnetic in origin and cannot occur without "photons" of some kind. You are right to say that to make all this work you need a theory of how mass occurs. I have done this a couple of times... obviously without the maths. I have even provided a simple equation that relates the mass to common constants.
This makes a lot of sense if the Universe is the way I have referred to is centered on de Broglie's relationship. Here you can see that the reduced Planck's Constant (Dirac's Constant) combines with the speed of light to form the "primary" quantum postulate ... the circumference of a "particle" is related to the speed of light through the mass.
de Broglie Relationships ... including mass
Why this relationship is as stated was briefly discussed in my previous post above with "Why Not?". You will need to have a look at that to get the general idea but all the relationships are available without too much trouble ... available from the highest and most reputable sources. The only difficult point is "higher dimensions" and an exact determination of the radius to use in this evaluation since it involves those higher dimensions. For instance as indicated in the Williamson and Van der Mark paper the radius of an electron is "hidden" from standard measuring rods and temporal accounting. See this GR explanation of the sort of problem...
General Theory of Relativity: Embedding
Single photons can and do exist. They are packets of energy. These have a beginning and an ending in time and in space. This causes the packet to have more frequencies than just the "fundamental" frequency. Light is definitely composed of many photons of almost all frequencies. Some sources are coherent or partially coherent due to their common source of emission. They do not need to be lasers and indeed the first crude holograms were made using metal halide vapor lamps from apparently non-coherent sources. The double slit experiment is not an experiment for a single wavelength of photon and our world will admit as many photons through that pair of slits as the slits dimensions will allow, according to well known principles. Each photon interferes separately with the slits at its own wavelength and overlap with all other photons giving that soft blur on a screen. Experiments show this is indeed the case. Many scientific instruments depend on these sound principles. Your proposals need to account for the experiments and this is where you are not able to explain. Photons do take up bosonic states where all photons (or many) "swarm" as if they were just one photon. The photons then "stitch up" the side bands in the spatial and temporal frequencies into continuous waves (CW "sheets") through overlapping of successive photons on successive wavefronts where they have opposite complex phase. The emission process and the absorption process of large numbers of photons are both aided and impeded by this "boson wave" and stimulated emission of CW is a phenomenon almost separate from that of individual photon emission.
The light from our sun has so many frequencies it appears at times to be "continuous" but we know this is not so. It is composed of individual frequencies and by the time they get to Earth some of them are coherent with photons of the same frequency. What you should have said is that energy does not automatically lead to mass and this is what Einstein said since relativistic mass is an illusion and should not be used instead of intrinsic mass as is very prevalent in some physics interpretations. The problem with energy is there is no absolute "level" of energy so energy "level" is relative to some rest state.
The Other Meaning of Special Relativity: Robert A. Close
As to the real nature of mass take heed of these quotes from two exceedingly astute and knowing individuals regarding Relativistic Mass and how this relates to "real" mass...
We are incapable of directly observing anything in our Universe without that so called "light"... almost everything is an electromagnetic interaction. If you touch something this "force" is electromagnetic in origin and cannot occur without "photons" of some kind. You are right to say that to make all this work you need a theory of how mass occurs. I have done this a couple of times... obviously without the maths. I have even provided a simple equation that relates the mass to common constants.
This makes a lot of sense if the Universe is the way I have referred to is centered on de Broglie's relationship. Here you can see that the reduced Planck's Constant (Dirac's Constant) combines with the speed of light to form the "primary" quantum postulate ... the circumference of a "particle" is related to the speed of light through the mass.
de Broglie Relationships ... including mass
Why this relationship is as stated was briefly discussed in my previous post above with "Why Not?". You will need to have a look at that to get the general idea but all the relationships are available without too much trouble ... available from the highest and most reputable sources. The only difficult point is "higher dimensions" and an exact determination of the radius to use in this evaluation since it involves those higher dimensions. For instance as indicated in the Williamson and Van der Mark paper the radius of an electron is "hidden" from standard measuring rods and temporal accounting. See this GR explanation of the sort of problem...
General Theory of Relativity: Embedding
Single photons can and do exist. They are packets of energy. These have a beginning and an ending in time and in space. This causes the packet to have more frequencies than just the "fundamental" frequency. Light is definitely composed of many photons of almost all frequencies. Some sources are coherent or partially coherent due to their common source of emission. They do not need to be lasers and indeed the first crude holograms were made using metal halide vapor lamps from apparently non-coherent sources. The double slit experiment is not an experiment for a single wavelength of photon and our world will admit as many photons through that pair of slits as the slits dimensions will allow, according to well known principles. Each photon interferes separately with the slits at its own wavelength and overlap with all other photons giving that soft blur on a screen. Experiments show this is indeed the case. Many scientific instruments depend on these sound principles. Your proposals need to account for the experiments and this is where you are not able to explain. Photons do take up bosonic states where all photons (or many) "swarm" as if they were just one photon. The photons then "stitch up" the side bands in the spatial and temporal frequencies into continuous waves (CW "sheets") through overlapping of successive photons on successive wavefronts where they have opposite complex phase. The emission process and the absorption process of large numbers of photons are both aided and impeded by this "boson wave" and stimulated emission of CW is a phenomenon almost separate from that of individual photon emission.
The light from our sun has so many frequencies it appears at times to be "continuous" but we know this is not so. It is composed of individual frequencies and by the time they get to Earth some of them are coherent with photons of the same frequency. What you should have said is that energy does not automatically lead to mass and this is what Einstein said since relativistic mass is an illusion and should not be used instead of intrinsic mass as is very prevalent in some physics interpretations. The problem with energy is there is no absolute "level" of energy so energy "level" is relative to some rest state.
The Other Meaning of Special Relativity: Robert A. Close
As to the real nature of mass take heed of these quotes from two exceedingly astute and knowing individuals regarding Relativistic Mass and how this relates to "real" mass...
QUOTE ("Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler+)
The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler who write,
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
... and even more venerable quote that most will try and ignore is...
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
... and even more venerable quote that most will try and ignore is...
QUOTE (Albert Einstein+)
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
The viewpoint above, emphasizing the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is certainly the "modern" view. Fifty years later, can relativistic mass be laid to rest?
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
The viewpoint above, emphasizing the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is certainly the "modern" view. Fifty years later, can relativistic mass be laid to rest?
These arise from the "problem" of reference and the non-absolute nature of energy.
Reference:Does mass change with velocity?
Many misconceptions here and I have discussed these at length in previous threads over and over, unfortunately not everyone can read them of course. I hope this clears up some of the issues but we are wandering off the topic now into "mass and gravitation" rather than "optics"... but you can see there is not a great deal of difference in the final summary.
Cheers
Reference:Does mass change with velocity?
Many misconceptions here and I have discussed these at length in previous threads over and over, unfortunately not everyone can read them of course. I hope this clears up some of the issues but we are wandering off the topic now into "mass and gravitation" rather than "optics"... but you can see there is not a great deal of difference in the final summary.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf, TRoc, Why Not?, yquantum, Laserlight, RealityCheck, Ron, Areal, Zephir et al,
I'm afraid I had to play away from home for this..
( http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?...820&postcount=9 )
Of the double slit experiment ..
Solve, for example, the wavefunction for free particle with some energy. Now look at the wavefunction (you should be getting some plane waves solution). If you look, for example, in Marcella's full QM treatment of interference, you'll notice that such wavefunction (i.e. the one that you solved from the Schrodinger equation) is the one involved in the interference/diffraction/etc.
Now, is THAT the same thing as the "de Broglie wavefunction"? Remember that the de Broglie wavefunction is simply a function of the particle's momentum. It didn't care about the geometry of potential function that the particle is in. So when we shoot electrons at slits, or when we use them for experiments such as LEED, or when we have them as a supercurrent in a SQUID, did we use the de Broglie wavefunction for the calculations in obtaining all the interference/diffraction effects? Or did we actually use the wavefunction obtained from the Hamiltonian?
Do we actually use the wavefunction obtained from the Hamiltonian? Or something else?
-C2.
I'm afraid I had to play away from home for this..
( http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?...820&postcount=9 )
Of the double slit experiment ..
QUOTE (ZapperZ+)
Solve, for example, the wavefunction for free particle with some energy. Now look at the wavefunction (you should be getting some plane waves solution). If you look, for example, in Marcella's full QM treatment of interference, you'll notice that such wavefunction (i.e. the one that you solved from the Schrodinger equation) is the one involved in the interference/diffraction/etc.
Now, is THAT the same thing as the "de Broglie wavefunction"? Remember that the de Broglie wavefunction is simply a function of the particle's momentum. It didn't care about the geometry of potential function that the particle is in. So when we shoot electrons at slits, or when we use them for experiments such as LEED, or when we have them as a supercurrent in a SQUID, did we use the de Broglie wavefunction for the calculations in obtaining all the interference/diffraction effects? Or did we actually use the wavefunction obtained from the Hamiltonian?
Do we actually use the wavefunction obtained from the Hamiltonian? Or something else?
-C2.
Hey Good Elf, et al.
I have found (to my surprise) quite a bit of information on the theoretical considerations and physical consequences of tachyonic neutrinos, specifically in regard to CPT and Lorentz symmetry breaking, all from apparently reputable sources. I also stumbled onto SME, which seems to show promise. Anyway, I still have more to read and learn. In the mean time, I have a potentially "arm waving" (on my part) speculation for your consideration.
From a pseudo-SUSY perspective, where the time axis is defined as the null geodesic of the light cone (from the frame where t=0) there seems no reason why 1/2-spin fermions cannot exits in both the time-like region and the space-like region. Causality is preserved within the time-like regions as well as within the space-like regions as long as massive particles cannot (in general) interact between the two regions. If we define the dimensions of the space-like region as (i)x, (i)y, (i)z, (i)t, where t=-(i)t and (i)t=-t, the retarded EM wave can be considered as traveling in the t direction and the advanced wave can be considered as traveling in the (i)t direction. Massive particles in the time-like region gain relativistic mass when there v -> c (as observed from a frame where v’<<c). The inverse should hold true to the extent that within the space-like region, a (i)massive particle gain relativistic (i)mass when v -> c (as observed from a frame where v’>>c). As a result, in the space-like region, energy is required to slow (i)massive particles down. Neutrinos, as you mentioned, could be seen as massive, zero mass, and (i)massive particles as they oscillate across the t/(i)t boundary. A zero mass bosonic neutrino (when traveling at c) coverts to a massive and a (i)massive1/2-spin fermions, one in x,y,z,t and one in (i)x,(i)y,(i)z,(i)t (when traveling at +/- c). CP violation would then indicate that the neutrino is not its own anti-particle. Rather, the neutrino’s anti-particle is the (i)neutrino. Energy in the space-like region would be considered negative (from the frame of the time-like region). As such E+(i)E = 0. My arms a flailing! Is there something that can be called “time charge”, preserving CPT and Lorentz symmetries by invoking a (i)3-brane interacting with our 3-brane across the t/(i)t boundary of the light cone where the neutrino conserves the “time charge”?
C2, TRoc, LL, StevenA, and everyone else, sorry for the diversion into gross speculation… With regard to “optics”, the above came from my considerations of advanced and retarded photonic waves.
I have found (to my surprise) quite a bit of information on the theoretical considerations and physical consequences of tachyonic neutrinos, specifically in regard to CPT and Lorentz symmetry breaking, all from apparently reputable sources. I also stumbled onto SME, which seems to show promise. Anyway, I still have more to read and learn. In the mean time, I have a potentially "arm waving" (on my part) speculation for your consideration.
From a pseudo-SUSY perspective, where the time axis is defined as the null geodesic of the light cone (from the frame where t=0) there seems no reason why 1/2-spin fermions cannot exits in both the time-like region and the space-like region. Causality is preserved within the time-like regions as well as within the space-like regions as long as massive particles cannot (in general) interact between the two regions. If we define the dimensions of the space-like region as (i)x, (i)y, (i)z, (i)t, where t=-(i)t and (i)t=-t, the retarded EM wave can be considered as traveling in the t direction and the advanced wave can be considered as traveling in the (i)t direction. Massive particles in the time-like region gain relativistic mass when there v -> c (as observed from a frame where v’<<c). The inverse should hold true to the extent that within the space-like region, a (i)massive particle gain relativistic (i)mass when v -> c (as observed from a frame where v’>>c). As a result, in the space-like region, energy is required to slow (i)massive particles down. Neutrinos, as you mentioned, could be seen as massive, zero mass, and (i)massive particles as they oscillate across the t/(i)t boundary. A zero mass bosonic neutrino (when traveling at c) coverts to a massive and a (i)massive1/2-spin fermions, one in x,y,z,t and one in (i)x,(i)y,(i)z,(i)t (when traveling at +/- c). CP violation would then indicate that the neutrino is not its own anti-particle. Rather, the neutrino’s anti-particle is the (i)neutrino. Energy in the space-like region would be considered negative (from the frame of the time-like region). As such E+(i)E = 0. My arms a flailing! Is there something that can be called “time charge”, preserving CPT and Lorentz symmetries by invoking a (i)3-brane interacting with our 3-brane across the t/(i)t boundary of the light cone where the neutrino conserves the “time charge”?
C2, TRoc, LL, StevenA, and everyone else, sorry for the diversion into gross speculation… With regard to “optics”, the above came from my considerations of advanced and retarded photonic waves.
HI All,
Just a vague attempt to attempt to stay with the original topic.
Some testable assumptions and some just assumptions.
1/ Is it generally agreed that a pure electromagnetic analysis of the DSE will give a perfect prediction if the intensity of the source is high enough?
2/ Assuming we have an intense source giving a frequency 'f' to any desired accuracy (eg phase locked to an atomic time clock) then at every point in the intereference pattern a frequency counter would count 'f' and no other frequency?
3/ Can we agree that a frequency counter counts (say) positive peaks of 'something' as yet undefined?
4/ Can anyone suggest any meaning for what it is that makes the positive peaks that we counted in 3/ ?
For the sake of illustration I will give my answers..
1/ EM analysis gives a perfect prediction when the intensity is high.
2/ There are no new frequencies involved in the DSE .. analysed as EM waves there are ONLY static changes of phase and amplitide.
3/ A frequency counter averages out the photon count with an integration time substantially greater than that which woud be required to distinguish individual photons, despite this it remains essentially a photon counter.
4/ The peaks encountered by the frequency counter are time varying photon counts .. the photon count varies in time with the frequency of the light .. the time varying count IS the frequency of the light .. 'frequency' for an individual photon has no meaning .. a photon cannot be detected twice so 'frequency' as such can have no meaning for a single photon. The frequency counter works by measuring the time between 'maximum photon counts' ..
Rambling on..
We are restricted to giving a 'model' for a photon .. if we agree that many photons will give a perfect reproduction of the known properties of what we call 'an electromagnetic wave' then an individual photon can neither add nor subtract from the properties of EM that we observe and agree on. Photons normally obey the principle of superposition .. that is to say that the result does not (in general) depend on how many there are. While there are interesting materials that can manipulate photons I consider it would be helpful to a basic analysis of the DSE if we assumed such materials are not involved at this stage.
For what it is worth I come back to the Schrodinger equation or Feynman's 'sum over paths' method, either of which will give a perfect prediction of the probability of detection of a photon at any point. The results (Schrodinger and Feynman) do (of course) bear a striking similarity to to the EM equations because they do (of course) predict the same outcome as EM equations when the the number of photons is great and the assumptions I have given in my answers to the questions 1 to 4 are reasonable representations of reality.
There are 'one trick' explanations for the DSE .. for this reason I would suggest the trick be tested (at least) against the interference generated by Michelson Morley type interference experiments before announcing success.
-C2.
Just a vague attempt to attempt to stay with the original topic.
Some testable assumptions and some just assumptions.
1/ Is it generally agreed that a pure electromagnetic analysis of the DSE will give a perfect prediction if the intensity of the source is high enough?
2/ Assuming we have an intense source giving a frequency 'f' to any desired accuracy (eg phase locked to an atomic time clock) then at every point in the intereference pattern a frequency counter would count 'f' and no other frequency?
3/ Can we agree that a frequency counter counts (say) positive peaks of 'something' as yet undefined?
4/ Can anyone suggest any meaning for what it is that makes the positive peaks that we counted in 3/ ?
For the sake of illustration I will give my answers..
1/ EM analysis gives a perfect prediction when the intensity is high.
2/ There are no new frequencies involved in the DSE .. analysed as EM waves there are ONLY static changes of phase and amplitide.
3/ A frequency counter averages out the photon count with an integration time substantially greater than that which woud be required to distinguish individual photons, despite this it remains essentially a photon counter.
4/ The peaks encountered by the frequency counter are time varying photon counts .. the photon count varies in time with the frequency of the light .. the time varying count IS the frequency of the light .. 'frequency' for an individual photon has no meaning .. a photon cannot be detected twice so 'frequency' as such can have no meaning for a single photon. The frequency counter works by measuring the time between 'maximum photon counts' ..
Rambling on..
We are restricted to giving a 'model' for a photon .. if we agree that many photons will give a perfect reproduction of the known properties of what we call 'an electromagnetic wave' then an individual photon can neither add nor subtract from the properties of EM that we observe and agree on. Photons normally obey the principle of superposition .. that is to say that the result does not (in general) depend on how many there are. While there are interesting materials that can manipulate photons I consider it would be helpful to a basic analysis of the DSE if we assumed such materials are not involved at this stage.
For what it is worth I come back to the Schrodinger equation or Feynman's 'sum over paths' method, either of which will give a perfect prediction of the probability of detection of a photon at any point. The results (Schrodinger and Feynman) do (of course) bear a striking similarity to to the EM equations because they do (of course) predict the same outcome as EM equations when the the number of photons is great and the assumptions I have given in my answers to the questions 1 to 4 are reasonable representations of reality.
There are 'one trick' explanations for the DSE .. for this reason I would suggest the trick be tested (at least) against the interference generated by Michelson Morley type interference experiments before announcing success.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 6 2006, 02:02 PM)
HI All,
Just a vague attempt to attempt to stay with the original topic.
Some testable assumptions and some just assumptions.
1/ Is it generally agreed that a pure electromagnetic analysis of the DSE will give a perfect prediction if the intensity of the source is high enough?
2/ Assuming we have an intense source giving a frequency 'f' to any desired accuracy (eg phase locked to an atomic time clock) then at every point in the intereference pattern a frequency counter would count 'f' and no other frequency?
3/ Can we agree that a frequency counter counts (say) positive peaks of 'something' as yet undefined?
4/ Can anyone suggest any meaning for what it is that makes the positive peaks that we counted in 3/ ?
For the sake of illustration I will give my answers..
1/ EM analysis gives a perfect prediction when the intensity is high.
2/ There are no new frequencies involved in the DSE .. analysed as EM waves there are ONLY static changes of phase and amplitide.
3/ A frequency counter averages out the photon count with an integration time substantially greater than that which woud be required to distinguish individual photons, despite this it remains essentially a photon counter.
4/ The peaks encountered by the frequency counter are time varying photon counts .. the photon count varies in time with the frequency of the light .. the time varying count IS the frequency of the light .. 'frequency' for an individual photon has no meaning .. a photon cannot be detected twice so 'frequency' as such can have no meaning for a single photon. The frequency counter works by measuring the time between 'maximum photon counts' ..
Rambling on..
We are restricted to giving a 'model' for a photon .. if we agree that many photons will give a perfect reproduction of the known properties of what we call 'an electromagnetic wave' then an individual photon can neither add nor subtract from the properties of EM that we observe and agree on. Photons normally obey the principle of superposition .. that is to say that the result does not (in general) depend on how many there are. While there are interesting materials that can manipulate photons I consider it would be helpful to a basic analysis of the DSE if we assumed such materials are not involved at this stage.
For what it is worth I come back to the Schrodinger equation or Feynman's 'sum over paths' method, either of which will give a perfect prediction of the probability of detection of a photon at any point. The results (Schrodinger and Feynman) do (of course) bear a striking similarity to to the EM equations because they do (of course) predict the same outcome as EM equations when the the number of photons is great and the assumptions I have given in my answers to the questions 1 to 4 are reasonable representations of reality.
There are 'one trick' explanations for the DSE .. for this reason I would suggest the trick be tested (at least) against the interference generated by Michelson Morley type interference experiments before announcing success.
-C2.
C2-
Maybe a bit off topic, but related, IMO.
Not sure that I agree totally with this, in radar waveguide systems where microwaves are being detected, a parametric diode arrangement is used to detect
the electrical component ot the wave's frequency maxima and minima effectively. If we assume a photon has a wave-like propagation configuration over time and distance then we must assume that mutually interactive alternating voltage,
current, and magnetic flux must necessarily be components of a single photon. I agree that a single photon can be detected only 1 time. During the act of
"detection" its alternating electrical energy component is converted from free form
wave energy into electrical current and voltage change.
A question for you. When a photon interacts with the electron of an atom during
the act of detection, causing it to change from its normal steady state and oscillate between orbital levels, what is the component of the impinging photon that causes the electron to change orbitals? Is it the electrical or magnetic field of the
impinging photon that displaces the "detecting" electron from its steady state orbital position?
From a deductive point of view, a negatively charged electron also has a
magnetic moment to balance its charge and inertial orbital relationship to the positively charged proton. I propose that the electrical and magnetic fields
between the photon and electron are mutually phase additive which creates
the electrons harmonic "mobility" from its normal orbital position.
The electron becomes interactively phased with the photon's energy fields depending upon the frequency relationship between the two. Consider the photo electric effect where photons generate free flowing electrons
in a closed system. Photons are "detected" and converted back into electron
current flow.
Any comments, opinions, disagreements are welcomed.
Laserlight
Just a vague attempt to attempt to stay with the original topic.
Some testable assumptions and some just assumptions.
1/ Is it generally agreed that a pure electromagnetic analysis of the DSE will give a perfect prediction if the intensity of the source is high enough?
2/ Assuming we have an intense source giving a frequency 'f' to any desired accuracy (eg phase locked to an atomic time clock) then at every point in the intereference pattern a frequency counter would count 'f' and no other frequency?
3/ Can we agree that a frequency counter counts (say) positive peaks of 'something' as yet undefined?
4/ Can anyone suggest any meaning for what it is that makes the positive peaks that we counted in 3/ ?
For the sake of illustration I will give my answers..
1/ EM analysis gives a perfect prediction when the intensity is high.
2/ There are no new frequencies involved in the DSE .. analysed as EM waves there are ONLY static changes of phase and amplitide.
3/ A frequency counter averages out the photon count with an integration time substantially greater than that which woud be required to distinguish individual photons, despite this it remains essentially a photon counter.
4/ The peaks encountered by the frequency counter are time varying photon counts .. the photon count varies in time with the frequency of the light .. the time varying count IS the frequency of the light .. 'frequency' for an individual photon has no meaning .. a photon cannot be detected twice so 'frequency' as such can have no meaning for a single photon. The frequency counter works by measuring the time between 'maximum photon counts' ..
Rambling on..
We are restricted to giving a 'model' for a photon .. if we agree that many photons will give a perfect reproduction of the known properties of what we call 'an electromagnetic wave' then an individual photon can neither add nor subtract from the properties of EM that we observe and agree on. Photons normally obey the principle of superposition .. that is to say that the result does not (in general) depend on how many there are. While there are interesting materials that can manipulate photons I consider it would be helpful to a basic analysis of the DSE if we assumed such materials are not involved at this stage.
For what it is worth I come back to the Schrodinger equation or Feynman's 'sum over paths' method, either of which will give a perfect prediction of the probability of detection of a photon at any point. The results (Schrodinger and Feynman) do (of course) bear a striking similarity to to the EM equations because they do (of course) predict the same outcome as EM equations when the the number of photons is great and the assumptions I have given in my answers to the questions 1 to 4 are reasonable representations of reality.
There are 'one trick' explanations for the DSE .. for this reason I would suggest the trick be tested (at least) against the interference generated by Michelson Morley type interference experiments before announcing success.
-C2.
C2-
QUOTE
4/ The peaks encountered by the frequency counter are time varying photon counts .. the photon count varies in time with the frequency of the light .. the time varying count IS the frequency of the light .. 'frequency' for an individual photon has no meaning .. a photon cannot be detected twice so 'frequency' as such can have no meaning for a single photon. The frequency counter works by measuring the time between 'maximum photon counts' ..
Maybe a bit off topic, but related, IMO.
Not sure that I agree totally with this, in radar waveguide systems where microwaves are being detected, a parametric diode arrangement is used to detect
the electrical component ot the wave's frequency maxima and minima effectively. If we assume a photon has a wave-like propagation configuration over time and distance then we must assume that mutually interactive alternating voltage,
current, and magnetic flux must necessarily be components of a single photon. I agree that a single photon can be detected only 1 time. During the act of
"detection" its alternating electrical energy component is converted from free form
wave energy into electrical current and voltage change.
A question for you. When a photon interacts with the electron of an atom during
the act of detection, causing it to change from its normal steady state and oscillate between orbital levels, what is the component of the impinging photon that causes the electron to change orbitals? Is it the electrical or magnetic field of the
impinging photon that displaces the "detecting" electron from its steady state orbital position?
From a deductive point of view, a negatively charged electron also has a
magnetic moment to balance its charge and inertial orbital relationship to the positively charged proton. I propose that the electrical and magnetic fields
between the photon and electron are mutually phase additive which creates
the electrons harmonic "mobility" from its normal orbital position.
The electron becomes interactively phased with the photon's energy fields depending upon the frequency relationship between the two. Consider the photo electric effect where photons generate free flowing electrons
in a closed system. Photons are "detected" and converted back into electron
current flow.
Any comments, opinions, disagreements are welcomed.
Laserlight
C2,
Well put summary.
Some testable assumptions and some just assumptions.
1/ Is it generally agreed that a pure electromagnetic analysis of the DSE will give a perfect prediction if the intensity of the source is high enough?
2/ Assuming we have an intense source giving a frequency 'f' to any desired accuracy (eg phase locked to an atomic time clock) then at every point in the interference pattern a frequency counter would count 'f' and no other frequency?
3/ Can we agree that a frequency counter counts (say) positive peaks of 'something' as yet undefined?
4/ Can anyone suggest any meaning for what it is that makes the positive peaks that we counted in 3/ ?
I agree with #1, and will add that there are several different ways to analyze the DSE. I am from a mindset, that if "phenomenon" are occurring, then the theory used to explain the process is inadequate. Maxwell's equations do not predict the interactions that are discreet resonances.
I also agree with #2, but have to say that the assumption (mainstream) creates a victim of FAG: False Assumption Gedanken. This is where, your mind imagines something is possible, and then you perform an experiment based on it. Unfortunately, you have to leave these experiments at the door. In the real world of Science (which I hope someday will be restored), nothing assumed that can be verified, can be left "unverified". Imagining "monochromatic light", and producing it are 2 different things. If we are not using monochromatic light, then we MUST use mathematics that model our system. (not the math of the "single photon")
Here, I will respond to GE (and the remaining 2 questions). I have no idea why you are now bringing up "packets" again?? We ALL seem to know the definitions of the details of these types of experiments. The Book says " the "photon" is a discreet packet of energy. It is REPRESENTED by a single frequency. The Fourier Transform (FT) is of, and for this fact. Science is representing several frequencies with one frequency. Is there any reason to expect "less than accurate" counts of anything with this type of "math"?
Fact: More than one frequency is present at a time in the device, even when we "assume" ONE photon.
Fact: Two frequencies in a (even quasi) non-linear medium will create a third, and so on, ... when they "cross paths" .
I think we all agree that the "side-bands" cause the interference pattern.
The way that this happens must be where the confusion starts. The water wave analogy breaks down here. The "photon"-packet does not enter the slits at the same time, so there is no debate AT ALL on the "all path" model, it doesn't work.
We must take a minimum of 3 frequencies: the "peak", and the upper harmonic "pre-wave", and the lower harmonic "trailer-wave", and ask this question:
If these (3) frequencies (a "photon"-packet) leave a source AT THE SAME TIME, traveling AT THE SAME RATE of distance per time, WHICH ONE arrives first?
(here, "arriving" means being MEASURED)
If you say they all arrive "together" you are wrong. Even when the "counter" says that they did. The "counter" only MEASURES the "peak" signal. Its' going to give you a "single arrival time", just like a plane load of passengers. If you asked the airlines to give you independent arrival times, they'd say "what do you think this is, sub-atomic particle physics?" (the smart answer is, of course, to just show the seating arrangement, .. the "pilot" arrives first! ) DeBroglie would love that analogy!
This is hard to "wrap your head around", but the fact remains: these (3) waves can NOT leave at the same time/event, and arrive at the same time/event, and STILL measure different frequencies/wavelengths. Distance over time is distance over time. Same distance over same time = same measurement. If this weren't true, we wouldn't need the FT in the first place.
"Photons" from the same source/pulse travel in an ORDERED fashion. You can not change the order by changing the "intensity".
The interference is caused by the removal of the "pilot" by the "tooth" between the 2 slits. Radar is exactly the same, folks: the "furthest forward" part of the wave is reflected back, creating interference that we can interpret as an object. Now, rather than the "mode locked" superposition of (3) frequencies (AKA by musicians as a "chord") traveling in pure-resonant form (no beats), you have 2 frequencies that are interacting with each other. The math is simple: the only beats produced are higher frequency than either of the 2 other frequencies. This is where we "catch the interaction in-the-act": the harmonic beats on the screen. If we increase the distance (and time), this "phenomenon" disappears. The "passengers" nominate a new "pilot". (wouldn't you?) The "worm" grows a new head.
If we remove the "tooth", (one slit) the "phenomenon" disappears.
If we "suck the pilot out through the window", after the slit, we are actually removing the nominated, second pilot. Remember, the first pilot reflected of the tooth between the slits. This "second pilot" is the harmonic beat-frequency created after the slit. There is not enough time/distance to create a third order sum and difference solution.
F3 = F1-(F2-F1) ,
F4 = F2+(F2-F1)
So, you see, that the second "replacement pilot" (F4) is NOT contingent on F3.
When F2 is 2F1, F3 is resonant (no beat) , and F4 will be 1/2 way between F1 and F2 (beat interference).
F3 is created by broken symmetry; removing the "pilot" from the original "chord".
F3 is removed by "observing" after the slit.
F4 is observed as the interference pattern.
(out of time)
T.Roc
Well put summary.
QUOTE
Some testable assumptions and some just assumptions.
1/ Is it generally agreed that a pure electromagnetic analysis of the DSE will give a perfect prediction if the intensity of the source is high enough?
2/ Assuming we have an intense source giving a frequency 'f' to any desired accuracy (eg phase locked to an atomic time clock) then at every point in the interference pattern a frequency counter would count 'f' and no other frequency?
3/ Can we agree that a frequency counter counts (say) positive peaks of 'something' as yet undefined?
4/ Can anyone suggest any meaning for what it is that makes the positive peaks that we counted in 3/ ?
I agree with #1, and will add that there are several different ways to analyze the DSE. I am from a mindset, that if "phenomenon" are occurring, then the theory used to explain the process is inadequate. Maxwell's equations do not predict the interactions that are discreet resonances.
I also agree with #2, but have to say that the assumption (mainstream) creates a victim of FAG: False Assumption Gedanken. This is where, your mind imagines something is possible, and then you perform an experiment based on it. Unfortunately, you have to leave these experiments at the door. In the real world of Science (which I hope someday will be restored), nothing assumed that can be verified, can be left "unverified". Imagining "monochromatic light", and producing it are 2 different things. If we are not using monochromatic light, then we MUST use mathematics that model our system. (not the math of the "single photon")
Here, I will respond to GE (and the remaining 2 questions). I have no idea why you are now bringing up "packets" again?? We ALL seem to know the definitions of the details of these types of experiments. The Book says " the "photon" is a discreet packet of energy. It is REPRESENTED by a single frequency. The Fourier Transform (FT) is of, and for this fact. Science is representing several frequencies with one frequency. Is there any reason to expect "less than accurate" counts of anything with this type of "math"?
Fact: More than one frequency is present at a time in the device, even when we "assume" ONE photon.
Fact: Two frequencies in a (even quasi) non-linear medium will create a third, and so on, ... when they "cross paths" .
I think we all agree that the "side-bands" cause the interference pattern.
The way that this happens must be where the confusion starts. The water wave analogy breaks down here. The "photon"-packet does not enter the slits at the same time, so there is no debate AT ALL on the "all path" model, it doesn't work.
We must take a minimum of 3 frequencies: the "peak", and the upper harmonic "pre-wave", and the lower harmonic "trailer-wave", and ask this question:
If these (3) frequencies (a "photon"-packet) leave a source AT THE SAME TIME, traveling AT THE SAME RATE of distance per time, WHICH ONE arrives first?
(here, "arriving" means being MEASURED)
If you say they all arrive "together" you are wrong. Even when the "counter" says that they did. The "counter" only MEASURES the "peak" signal. Its' going to give you a "single arrival time", just like a plane load of passengers. If you asked the airlines to give you independent arrival times, they'd say "what do you think this is, sub-atomic particle physics?" (the smart answer is, of course, to just show the seating arrangement, .. the "pilot" arrives first!
) DeBroglie would love that analogy!This is hard to "wrap your head around", but the fact remains: these (3) waves can NOT leave at the same time/event, and arrive at the same time/event, and STILL measure different frequencies/wavelengths. Distance over time is distance over time. Same distance over same time = same measurement. If this weren't true, we wouldn't need the FT in the first place.
"Photons" from the same source/pulse travel in an ORDERED fashion. You can not change the order by changing the "intensity".
The interference is caused by the removal of the "pilot" by the "tooth" between the 2 slits. Radar is exactly the same, folks: the "furthest forward" part of the wave is reflected back, creating interference that we can interpret as an object. Now, rather than the "mode locked" superposition of (3) frequencies (AKA by musicians as a "chord") traveling in pure-resonant form (no beats), you have 2 frequencies that are interacting with each other. The math is simple: the only beats produced are higher frequency than either of the 2 other frequencies. This is where we "catch the interaction in-the-act": the harmonic beats on the screen. If we increase the distance (and time), this "phenomenon" disappears. The "passengers" nominate a new "pilot". (wouldn't you?) The "worm" grows a new head.
If we remove the "tooth", (one slit) the "phenomenon" disappears.
If we "suck the pilot out through the window", after the slit, we are actually removing the nominated, second pilot. Remember, the first pilot reflected of the tooth between the slits. This "second pilot" is the harmonic beat-frequency created after the slit. There is not enough time/distance to create a third order sum and difference solution.
F3 = F1-(F2-F1) ,
F4 = F2+(F2-F1)
So, you see, that the second "replacement pilot" (F4) is NOT contingent on F3.
When F2 is 2F1, F3 is resonant (no beat) , and F4 will be 1/2 way between F1 and F2 (beat interference).
F3 is created by broken symmetry; removing the "pilot" from the original "chord".
F3 is removed by "observing" after the slit.
F4 is observed as the interference pattern.
(out of time)
T.Roc
TRoc, that was an excellent explanation. I can find no fault or inconsistency in
your logic. Well done! Standing waves are created by the interaction of
harmonics of wave timing. This can be demonstrated by how an oscilloscope
uses a reference frequency to generate a standing wave with the interaction
of the frequency being sampled.
LL
your logic. Well done! Standing waves are created by the interaction of
harmonics of wave timing. This can be demonstrated by how an oscilloscope
uses a reference frequency to generate a standing wave with the interaction
of the frequency being sampled.
LL
Hi Troc, LL et al,
Science is representing several frequencies with one frequency. Is there any reason to expect "less than accurate" counts of anything with this type of "math"?
Fact: More than one frequency is present at a time in the device, even when we "assume" ONE photon.
Fact: Two frequencies in a (even quasi) non-linear medium will create a third, and so on, ... when they "cross paths" .
I was suggesting that frequency counters rather than 'science' were the ultimate arbiters of how many frequencies are present.
Analysis by path length gives a good prediction of the effect for either an intense source or a single photon. Where are you getting your extra frequencies from and what part do they play in an analysis that seems to be both the same but different from a single frequency analysis?
-C2.
QUOTE (Troc+)
Science is representing several frequencies with one frequency. Is there any reason to expect "less than accurate" counts of anything with this type of "math"?
Fact: More than one frequency is present at a time in the device, even when we "assume" ONE photon.
Fact: Two frequencies in a (even quasi) non-linear medium will create a third, and so on, ... when they "cross paths" .
I was suggesting that frequency counters rather than 'science' were the ultimate arbiters of how many frequencies are present.
Analysis by path length gives a good prediction of the effect for either an intense source or a single photon. Where are you getting your extra frequencies from and what part do they play in an analysis that seems to be both the same but different from a single frequency analysis?
-C2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Results observed
The bright bands observed on the screen happen when the light has interfered constructively -- where a crest of a wave meets a crest. The dark regions show destructive interference -- a crest meets a trough. Constructive interference occurs when..
and following analysis.. which I won't attempt to copy here.
This has been good for the last hundred years or more .. single frequency .. (again) where do your extra frequencies come in?
-C2.
QUOTE
Results observed
The bright bands observed on the screen happen when the light has interfered constructively -- where a crest of a wave meets a crest. The dark regions show destructive interference -- a crest meets a trough. Constructive interference occurs when..
and following analysis.. which I won't attempt to copy here.
This has been good for the last hundred years or more .. single frequency .. (again) where do your extra frequencies come in?
-C2.
Hi C2-
Have you ever looked at a spectrum analyzer that is detecting a specific main
lobe primary frequency. There is a main lobe that represents the primary harmonic waveform along witth sidelobes that are secondary harmonics of the prime. Inside a waveguide there are other waveforms, mainly in the infrared spectrum generated by heat, and slight mismatches in phasing between primary frequency waves.
(infrared is from the electro mechanical interaction of atoms in the presence of energy and from normal molecular binding interactions.)
My frame of reference may be a bit dated but still applies to all frequencies on
the EM spectrum.
(Many years ago I worked on radar equipment where we used spectrum analyzers
and frequency counters, but by todays standards these were primitive (analog)
in their capabilities but they fairly well represented the analog waveforms they
were measuring).
LL
QUOTE
Where are you getting your extra frequencies from and what part do they play in an analysis that seems to be both the same but different from a single frequency analysis?
Have you ever looked at a spectrum analyzer that is detecting a specific main
lobe primary frequency. There is a main lobe that represents the primary harmonic waveform along witth sidelobes that are secondary harmonics of the prime. Inside a waveguide there are other waveforms, mainly in the infrared spectrum generated by heat, and slight mismatches in phasing between primary frequency waves.
(infrared is from the electro mechanical interaction of atoms in the presence of energy and from normal molecular binding interactions.)
My frame of reference may be a bit dated but still applies to all frequencies on
the EM spectrum.
(Many years ago I worked on radar equipment where we used spectrum analyzers
and frequency counters, but by todays standards these were primitive (analog)
in their capabilities but they fairly well represented the analog waveforms they
were measuring).
LL
Hi Laserlight,
My experience over the last 30 years seldom strays above 500Mhz .. the principle of the DSE remains the same for all frequencies.
In this case I don't think anything has dated over the last hundred years. Extra frequencies are not required for an accurate prediction of the result. If your/Troc's analysis requires more than one frequency to predict the result then this is a new analysis .. can you show it?
-C2.
My experience over the last 30 years seldom strays above 500Mhz .. the principle of the DSE remains the same for all frequencies.
In this case I don't think anything has dated over the last hundred years. Extra frequencies are not required for an accurate prediction of the result. If your/Troc's analysis requires more than one frequency to predict the result then this is a new analysis .. can you show it?
-C2.
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, TRoc et al,
No time just now to comment in full but what the standard classical theory does not predict is when you place a small mirror in a dark band of the dual slit interference experiment, what the result will be? Classical theory suggests ... nothing... experiment shows it affects "all paths". Feynman Electrodynamics differs strongly from the dumbed down "classical" view. That is because EM waves are truly Complex quantities not "simple waves". It is Feynman's constructions that ultimately "work" not Huygens. Alternatively while you are thinking about your electric fields "oscillating" where is the essential information on the magnetic fields at the same place and time. The theory is "under described" if taken to its classically absurd limits.
Not only is this very highly experimentally supported but at the same time the Wheeler Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory is also operating "truncating" what you are measuring in time. I am not going to try and explain that again.
Another quick point is you are all forgetting the spatial nature of "single frequency emitter sources", they just do not exist. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that "modern theory" does not treat sources in classes. With advances in computer technology there are no longer excuses for not providing the broader understanding but I suspect that many have never learned the nature of sources or of EM propagation. I suggest you drop a stone in a pond and note that you really do not get "perfectly symmetrical" spreading in ever increasing "circles" but you get zonal spatial interference patterns in the cylindrical direction depending on the nature of the initial "impulse". These are sidebands and you will not be able to avoid them. These represent additional frequencies "in space" and their decay also represents their persistence in time. The problem will show itself in the simple act of trying to comb the hair on a tennis ball (without those neat seams) or even trying to comb the hair on your head. Suggested reading should include "Berry Phase".
Of course it is easier to simplify the process as a single wave but in truth the "devil is in the detail" and also "the angels". It is good to simplify but knowing when to simplify is the secret. Most people think that simple answers are best but that is only true if you already understand what the underlying "true process" is about. The true wave process must include both temporal and spatial delays in path and the temporal and spatial "advances" from the waves coming from the future. And all this is just in our "Spacetime" Flatspace.
Cheers
No time just now to comment in full but what the standard classical theory does not predict is when you place a small mirror in a dark band of the dual slit interference experiment, what the result will be? Classical theory suggests ... nothing... experiment shows it affects "all paths". Feynman Electrodynamics differs strongly from the dumbed down "classical" view. That is because EM waves are truly Complex quantities not "simple waves". It is Feynman's constructions that ultimately "work" not Huygens. Alternatively while you are thinking about your electric fields "oscillating" where is the essential information on the magnetic fields at the same place and time. The theory is "under described" if taken to its classically absurd limits.
Not only is this very highly experimentally supported but at the same time the Wheeler Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory is also operating "truncating" what you are measuring in time. I am not going to try and explain that again.
Another quick point is you are all forgetting the spatial nature of "single frequency emitter sources", they just do not exist. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that "modern theory" does not treat sources in classes. With advances in computer technology there are no longer excuses for not providing the broader understanding but I suspect that many have never learned the nature of sources or of EM propagation. I suggest you drop a stone in a pond and note that you really do not get "perfectly symmetrical" spreading in ever increasing "circles" but you get zonal spatial interference patterns in the cylindrical direction depending on the nature of the initial "impulse". These are sidebands and you will not be able to avoid them. These represent additional frequencies "in space" and their decay also represents their persistence in time. The problem will show itself in the simple act of trying to comb the hair on a tennis ball (without those neat seams) or even trying to comb the hair on your head. Suggested reading should include "Berry Phase".
Of course it is easier to simplify the process as a single wave but in truth the "devil is in the detail" and also "the angels". It is good to simplify but knowing when to simplify is the secret.
Most people think that simple answers are best but that is only true if you already understand what the underlying "true process" is about. The true wave process must include both temporal and spatial delays in path and the temporal and spatial "advances" from the waves coming from the future. And all this is just in our "Spacetime" Flatspace.Cheers
We are all in agreement that nothing in this world is perfect.
What I am interested is to see how extra frequencies can be used to improve an anlysis that has 'held' for the last hundred years or more. EM will accurately predict the result if a mirror is placed in a 'dark band'.
-C2.
What I am interested is to see how extra frequencies can be used to improve an anlysis that has 'held' for the last hundred years or more. EM will accurately predict the result if a mirror is placed in a 'dark band'.
-C2.
How a magnetron works is a good example of an EM source and helps
demonstrate the slight misphasing of EM fields even though they are all
generated at the same primary frequency.
A magnetrons construction is basically an electron emitter filament surrounded
by field opposing strong annular magnets that generate opposite polarity magnetic fields.
Between the pole pieces of the opposing magnets there are tuned
cavities that are frequency specific in their design geometry.
As electrons are emitted from the filament, they travel linearly until they cross a
magnetic field from one of the opposing magnetic fields of the magnets.
This causes them to spin in a helical fashion and they generate strong EM fields
that are amplified by the resonance of the cavities that they cross during their helical spin.
There is a pickup antenna inside the magentron cavity that picks up the EM
fields induced upon it by the amplified resonant EM waves. The antenna transmits
the EM fields to the tuned frequency waveguide.
Here is the main point that I was trying to get to. Due to the physical
configuration of the amplifying magnetron cavities there is an inherent slight timing
difference between the EM waves being generated. These timing differences
are oh so slight, but do have an influence upon the primary waveform since
they generate subtle harmonics of the primary frequency as they interact together.
If you consider that there is also a distance between EM emitting electrons in
matter due to their physical separation from each other across some
physical "matrix", then there is also a slight timing difference during
the propagation of the photons from different emitting electrons.
This would explain the leading and trailing subharmonics observed on a primary
frequency energy pulse as observed on an oscilloscope.
It makes sense that all EM emissions across the spectrum band should behave
similarly.
Comments, disagreements, clarifications welcome.
LL
demonstrate the slight misphasing of EM fields even though they are all
generated at the same primary frequency.
A magnetrons construction is basically an electron emitter filament surrounded
by field opposing strong annular magnets that generate opposite polarity magnetic fields.
Between the pole pieces of the opposing magnets there are tuned
cavities that are frequency specific in their design geometry.
As electrons are emitted from the filament, they travel linearly until they cross a
magnetic field from one of the opposing magnetic fields of the magnets.
This causes them to spin in a helical fashion and they generate strong EM fields
that are amplified by the resonance of the cavities that they cross during their helical spin.
There is a pickup antenna inside the magentron cavity that picks up the EM
fields induced upon it by the amplified resonant EM waves. The antenna transmits
the EM fields to the tuned frequency waveguide.
Here is the main point that I was trying to get to. Due to the physical
configuration of the amplifying magnetron cavities there is an inherent slight timing
difference between the EM waves being generated. These timing differences
are oh so slight, but do have an influence upon the primary waveform since
they generate subtle harmonics of the primary frequency as they interact together.
If you consider that there is also a distance between EM emitting electrons in
matter due to their physical separation from each other across some
physical "matrix", then there is also a slight timing difference during
the propagation of the photons from different emitting electrons.
This would explain the leading and trailing subharmonics observed on a primary
frequency energy pulse as observed on an oscilloscope.
It makes sense that all EM emissions across the spectrum band should behave
similarly.
Comments, disagreements, clarifications welcome.
LL
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (C2+)
We are all in agreement that nothing in this world is perfect.
With all due respect... Wrong... we are the imperfect ones the world is the perfect situation, we just do not choose to understand it because it is complex.
EM predicts a lot of things but it will not predict Quantum Electrodynamics without the "all paths" paradigm. Maxwell vs Feynman... Feynman rules OK!
Cheers
EM predicts a lot of things but it will not predict Quantum Electrodynamics without the "all paths" paradigm. Maxwell vs Feynman... Feynman rules OK!
Cheers
Hi LL,
No disagreement about the mechanics of a magnetron .. in context I still don't see how this affects or helps to predict the observed result of the DSE.
-C2.
No disagreement about the mechanics of a magnetron .. in context I still don't see how this affects or helps to predict the observed result of the DSE.
-C2.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 6 2006, 10:31 PM)
understand what the underlying "true process" is about. The true wave process must include both temporal and spatial delays in path and the temporal and spatial "advances" from the waves coming from the future. And all this is just in our "Spacetime" Flatspace.
GE-
Sometimes humans take something simple and make it more complex than it
needs to be. Isn't it true that in mathematics that the final answer is the
is defined as the simplification of complexities to the lowest order?
You were posting simultaneously with my original response concerning magnetron
EM generation. We both gave similar comparisons regarding the timing
and spacial mismatches of EM sources. Mine was more example oriented vs yours
which was more philosophically/thoretically oriented, but they basically stated the
same spacial/timing effect of EM generation.
In any case, it is the interaction of energy with matter across a spacial/time
dislocation that generates discrete EM photonic fields. It is the interaction of
the individual EM fields that generates a composite output frequency wavelength.
TRoc is absolutely correct about the harmonic interactions of EM fields, that is
why every frequency pulse has amplitude and time duration, IMO.
LL
GE-
Sometimes humans take something simple and make it more complex than it
needs to be. Isn't it true that in mathematics that the final answer is the
is defined as the simplification of complexities to the lowest order?
You were posting simultaneously with my original response concerning magnetron
EM generation. We both gave similar comparisons regarding the timing
and spacial mismatches of EM sources. Mine was more example oriented vs yours
which was more philosophically/thoretically oriented, but they basically stated the
same spacial/timing effect of EM generation.
In any case, it is the interaction of energy with matter across a spacial/time
dislocation that generates discrete EM photonic fields. It is the interaction of
the individual EM fields that generates a composite output frequency wavelength.
TRoc is absolutely correct about the harmonic interactions of EM fields, that is
why every frequency pulse has amplitude and time duration, IMO.
LL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
As a point of interest the frequency of a hydrogen hyperfine maser is given to be 1.420405751 GHz.
IMHO there is no doubt but that such a source would 'work' in the DSE and could be analysed without the need for compensation for the purity of the frequency .. in general the reverse would apply. It has yet to be shown except by claim that more than one frequency is involved in the mechanism of the DSE.
-C2.
As a point of interest the frequency of a hydrogen hyperfine maser is given to be 1.420405751 GHz.
IMHO there is no doubt but that such a source would 'work' in the DSE and could be analysed without the need for compensation for the purity of the frequency .. in general the reverse would apply. It has yet to be shown except by claim that more than one frequency is involved in the mechanism of the DSE.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 6 2006, 11:09 PM)
Hi LL,
No disagreement about the mechanics of a magnetron .. in context I still don't see how this affects or helps to predict the observed result of the DSE.
-C2.
C2- I was merely trying to illustrate by example at an exponentially lower
frequency (using TRoc's explanation of wave harmonics) how you get
different composite harmonic beat frequencies even though the primary frequency
is the same.
Perhaps I wasn't clear about what my primary point was that I was commuincating.
Good Elf and I crossed the same time/spacial dislocation issue of generated EM
fields nearly simultaneously but using different methods.
LL
No disagreement about the mechanics of a magnetron .. in context I still don't see how this affects or helps to predict the observed result of the DSE.
-C2.
C2- I was merely trying to illustrate by example at an exponentially lower
frequency (using TRoc's explanation of wave harmonics) how you get
different composite harmonic beat frequencies even though the primary frequency
is the same.
Perhaps I wasn't clear about what my primary point was that I was commuincating.
Good Elf and I crossed the same time/spacial dislocation issue of generated EM
fields nearly simultaneously but using different methods.
LL
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 6 2006, 11:32 PM)
IMHO there is no doubt but that such a source would 'work' in the DSE and could be analysed without the need for compensation for the purity of the frequency .. in general the reverse would apply. It has yet to be shown except by claim that more than one frequency is involved in the mechanism of the DSE.
-C2.
C2- IMO, there will still be interactive harmonics in the primary frequency due to
subtle spacial/timing variations of the source EM fields. I would propose that
if you did the DSE scaled up to size and used waves of water as your medium,
that you would get the same or similar standing wave interference patterns past
the slits.
LL
-C2.
C2- IMO, there will still be interactive harmonics in the primary frequency due to
subtle spacial/timing variations of the source EM fields. I would propose that
if you did the DSE scaled up to size and used waves of water as your medium,
that you would get the same or similar standing wave interference patterns past
the slits.
LL
Hi LL,
Yes it would work very nicely in a ripple tank. Experience suggests that reflection does not introduce new frequencies. Diffraction can be used to separate frequencies .. but they have to be there to be separated .. as far as I know I don't think a diffraction grating (or a DSE) can actually make new frequencies.
-C2.
Yes it would work very nicely in a ripple tank. Experience suggests that reflection does not introduce new frequencies. Diffraction can be used to separate frequencies .. but they have to be there to be separated .. as far as I know I don't think a diffraction grating (or a DSE) can actually make new frequencies.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 7 2006, 12:17 AM)
Yes it would work very nicely in a ripple tank. Experience suggests that reflection does not introduce new frequencies. Diffraction can be used to separate frequencies .. but they have to be there to be separated .. as far as I know I don't think a diffraction grating (or a DSE) can actually make new frequencies.
So are you interpreting the resultant waveform from a ripple tank DSE setup
to be anything more than sub harmonics of the prime frequency?
As an example:
I'm a little fuzzy on the exact mechanism concerning Single Sideband radio
transmission, but isn't it just using the harmonics of the primary frequency and
merely electronically filtering out the EM fields of the primary frequency. Same
primary main frequency, but a different harmonic sideband frequency which is
a subharmonic component/part of the primary frequency.
LL
So are you interpreting the resultant waveform from a ripple tank DSE setup
to be anything more than sub harmonics of the prime frequency?
As an example:
I'm a little fuzzy on the exact mechanism concerning Single Sideband radio
transmission, but isn't it just using the harmonics of the primary frequency and
merely electronically filtering out the EM fields of the primary frequency. Same
primary main frequency, but a different harmonic sideband frequency which is
a subharmonic component/part of the primary frequency.
LL
Hi LL,
As luck would have it I am reasonably familiar with single sideband suppressed carrier modulation .. the carrier and desired modulating signal are multiplied together (by a non-linear element) .. then, as you say .. the carrier and one sideband are removed by filters. The critical elements here would appear to be the absence of any non-linear element to perform the multiplication and the absence of any signal other than the carrier for it to multiply, without these things perhaps we may agree that the absence of a filter is of no relevence.
Please, I am only trying to establish that the analysis proceeds perfectly well with only one frequency present.
-C2.
As luck would have it I am reasonably familiar with single sideband suppressed carrier modulation .. the carrier and desired modulating signal are multiplied together (by a non-linear element) .. then, as you say .. the carrier and one sideband are removed by filters. The critical elements here would appear to be the absence of any non-linear element to perform the multiplication and the absence of any signal other than the carrier for it to multiply, without these things perhaps we may agree that the absence of a filter is of no relevence.
Please, I am only trying to establish that the analysis proceeds perfectly well with only one frequency present.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 7 2006, 12:48 AM)
Hi LL,
As luck would have it I am reasonably familiar with single sideband suppressed carrier modulation .. the carrier and desired modulating signal are multiplied together (by a non-linear element) .. then, as you say .. the carrier and one sideband are removed by filters. The critical elements here would appear to be the absence of any non-linear element to perform the multiplication and the absence of any signal other than the carrier for it to multiply, without these things perhaps we may agree that the absence of a filter is of no relevence.
Please, I am only trying to establish that the analysis proceeds perfectly well with only one frequency present.
-C2.
C2- thanks for improving my limited understanding of how SS transmission
operates. I understand your desire to rationalize how a single frequency
can generate interference patterns by virtue of some phasing interaction,
and I think TRoc's EM harmonic explanation made perfect sense.
IMHO, harmonics of the primary frequency and standing waves make
logical sense. I still firmly believe that the photons of the DSE can only travel
down one channel of the dual slits at a time, not both, and any EM interaction
creating a standing wave interference pattern is caused by field generated
subharmonics caused by deformation of the photon EM field by interaction with the center post.
I look at the slits as separate waveguides and cannot rationalize that the electric
field follows one and the magnetic field follows the other, but I am
open to being proved wrong.
LL
As luck would have it I am reasonably familiar with single sideband suppressed carrier modulation .. the carrier and desired modulating signal are multiplied together (by a non-linear element) .. then, as you say .. the carrier and one sideband are removed by filters. The critical elements here would appear to be the absence of any non-linear element to perform the multiplication and the absence of any signal other than the carrier for it to multiply, without these things perhaps we may agree that the absence of a filter is of no relevence.
Please, I am only trying to establish that the analysis proceeds perfectly well with only one frequency present.
-C2.
C2- thanks for improving my limited understanding of how SS transmission
operates. I understand your desire to rationalize how a single frequency
can generate interference patterns by virtue of some phasing interaction,
and I think TRoc's EM harmonic explanation made perfect sense.
IMHO, harmonics of the primary frequency and standing waves make
logical sense. I still firmly believe that the photons of the DSE can only travel
down one channel of the dual slits at a time, not both, and any EM interaction
creating a standing wave interference pattern is caused by field generated
subharmonics caused by deformation of the photon EM field by interaction with the center post.
I look at the slits as separate waveguides and cannot rationalize that the electric
field follows one and the magnetic field follows the other, but I am
open to being proved wrong.
LL
I accept that my credibility factor is low. Perhaps someone else can provide a good reference to the DSE.
Best wishes, C2.
Best wishes, C2.
I have requested a photolithography optics expert from the semiconductor
industry to join the discussion. His alias is guiding_light, from the semiconductor
forum. Hopefully he can "enlighten" us since he routinely deals with optical
phenomena at exceptionally small scales on a daily basis.
LL
industry to join the discussion. His alias is guiding_light, from the semiconductor
forum. Hopefully he can "enlighten" us since he routinely deals with optical
phenomena at exceptionally small scales on a daily basis.
LL
Hey C2, LL, TRoc, GE, et al.
Troc, I think you airplane analogy was one of the best that I've heard (it also can be "morphed" to describe group and phase velocities). But I think it justifies (and does a great job of explaining) the necessity of the "all paths" model in single photon DSE. When traveling "one passenger at a time", there is no way to know who is sitting where, including the pilot's seat; so all the passengers sit in all of the seats during the flight.
C2 - maybe this link will help. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/fourier/fourier.html Particularly the "spatial frequency" and higher harmonics. Defraction, defraction, defraction........
Troc, I think you airplane analogy was one of the best that I've heard (it also can be "morphed" to describe group and phase velocities). But I think it justifies (and does a great job of explaining) the necessity of the "all paths" model in single photon DSE. When traveling "one passenger at a time", there is no way to know who is sitting where, including the pilot's seat; so all the passengers sit in all of the seats during the flight.
C2 - maybe this link will help. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/fourier/fourier.html Particularly the "spatial frequency" and higher harmonics. Defraction, defraction, defraction........
Hi Laserlight,
Remember what is true about "optics" is also true about Radio Frequency Engineering. It really only differs in the scale. Now in the DSE the electric fields do not go down one path and magnetic fields go down another... Electromagnetic Fields are "Complex" in nature... that is not in the Real but mathematically Complex (involving the square root of minus 1)... It is not necessary to argue about the nature of the photon... it is known and experimentally demonstrable that photons can only self interfere because they are bosons. How and why they can pass through two slits at the same time is not in dispute, this is experimentally verifiable, if you do not believe me cover one slit. This is a difficult philosophical concept for those tied exclusively to quantum particle theories.
C2, diffraction is not used to "separate frequencies" that is "dispersion". Diffraction is a single slit, one frequency at a time phenomenon similar to interference where you have two slits. In fact interference is the superposition of two diffraction patterns.
Cheers
Remember what is true about "optics" is also true about Radio Frequency Engineering. It really only differs in the scale. Now in the DSE the electric fields do not go down one path and magnetic fields go down another... Electromagnetic Fields are "Complex" in nature... that is not in the Real but mathematically Complex (involving the square root of minus 1)... It is not necessary to argue about the nature of the photon... it is known and experimentally demonstrable that photons can only self interfere because they are bosons. How and why they can pass through two slits at the same time is not in dispute, this is experimentally verifiable, if you do not believe me cover one slit. This is a difficult philosophical concept for those tied exclusively to quantum particle theories.
C2, diffraction is not used to "separate frequencies" that is "dispersion". Diffraction is a single slit, one frequency at a time phenomenon similar to interference where you have two slits. In fact interference is the superposition of two diffraction patterns.
Cheers
Basic Double Slit
Description
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html
Calculation of result
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
-C2.
Edit .. LL, this is where we should have started .. sorry.
Description
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html
Calculation of result
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
-C2.
Edit .. LL, this is where we should have started .. sorry.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Basic Double Slit
Description
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html
Calculation of result
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
-C2.
Edit .. LL, this is where we should have started .. sorry.
I suppose you realize the formula is wrong since they do not account for the variation in slit width. The "simplified" calculation shows no variation for slit width and neglects the Fraunhofer Theory. I have even seen this formula being substituted for a "Gaussian Function" (I think misleadingly) usually used in Quantum Mechanics, yet simple experiment will show this function below is indeed more correct. If you make the individual slits broad enough you get a soft blur for each slit, that is what your illustration shows. Narrow the slit width further and there is a much finer single slit (Fraunhofer) pattern there. This pattern is the same as if you use small slit width and large separation between the slits in Young's double slit "interference" experiment... You would obtain two separate patterns... allow the slit distances to reduce till the patterns overlap and "bingo"!
This is the "true" more complicated formula for one slit or more than one...
Three Experiments in One
Here is the "envelope" for a single slit...
And this is the pattern for a "pinhole".
You get the "slit" from a continuous series of pinholes. Notice the much smaller but still existent secondary peaks. Two of these patterns separated by the appropriate interslit distance you have in your formula will reproduce a double slit pattern if added phase for phase the desired result. Notice this is a Fourier result as shown in the reference.
Half way down the reference you can see that the sum of n slits of width b and separation h is more of less given by that formula...
Description
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html
Calculation of result
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
-C2.
Edit .. LL, this is where we should have started .. sorry.
I suppose you realize the formula is wrong since they do not account for the variation in slit width. The "simplified" calculation shows no variation for slit width and neglects the Fraunhofer Theory. I have even seen this formula being substituted for a "Gaussian Function" (I think misleadingly) usually used in Quantum Mechanics, yet simple experiment will show this function below is indeed more correct. If you make the individual slits broad enough you get a soft blur for each slit, that is what your illustration shows. Narrow the slit width further and there is a much finer single slit (Fraunhofer) pattern there. This pattern is the same as if you use small slit width and large separation between the slits in Young's double slit "interference" experiment... You would obtain two separate patterns... allow the slit distances to reduce till the patterns overlap and "bingo"!
This is the "true" more complicated formula for one slit or more than one...
Three Experiments in One
Here is the "envelope" for a single slit...
And this is the pattern for a "pinhole".
You get the "slit" from a continuous series of pinholes. Notice the much smaller but still existent secondary peaks. Two of these patterns separated by the appropriate interslit distance you have in your formula will reproduce a double slit pattern if added phase for phase the desired result. Notice this is a Fourier result as shown in the reference.
Half way down the reference you can see that the sum of n slits of width b and separation h is more of less given by that formula...
QUOTE (Three Experiments in One+)
In the picture of multiple slits above, b represents the slit width and h their separation. It also consists of N identical parallel slits, of course that may be an impossible situation to produce on the production line of the chicken wire, but we theorize for the fun of it! Using the base equation for the single slit and modifying to fit our situation, we are blessed with the following integral:
So, to solve this problem, we integrate over each slit individually and add them together which makes sense intuitively as well. The solution to this integral, with N number of slits of width b and separation h, is also similar to the solution of the single slit problem, with a few extra terms of course, and looks like this:
Above,
and 
while N normalizes the expression. The observed intensity is again the square of this expression times the incident intensity at the slits.
So, to solve this problem, we integrate over each slit individually and add them together which makes sense intuitively as well. The solution to this integral, with N number of slits of width b and separation h, is also similar to the solution of the single slit problem, with a few extra terms of course, and looks like this:
Above,
and while N normalizes the expression. The observed intensity is again the square of this expression times the incident intensity at the slits. For some unknown reason the Web has a true paucity of information on this basic physics and considering just how important this is to the double slit experiment I think it could only be due to "ethnic" differences The double slit interference experiment cannot be understood without an understanding of single slit diffraction... it involves those Bessel Functions again... see below in the reference above.
Cheers
The double slit interference experiment cannot be understood without an understanding of single slit diffraction... it involves those Bessel Functions again... see below in the reference above.Cheers
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.