QUOTE (Montec+Dec 17 2006, 03:23 AM)
Hello Aerohead
I have been searching for the "hows" and "whys" things work for the last few years. So far I keep running into right angle forces. Thus I've learned to go slow to keep from mashing my nose. I have yet to find a why for these "right angle forces" but I've found plenty of hows.
Never give up the search and you will never grow old just a little wiser.
Montec etc,
Right angled forces? .... electro-magnetism? ..... my current supposition deals with the tachyonic affect of endo event horizon wave propagation, which creates with regards to the photon the magnetic/electric force duality (retrocausality wise) ... thought I'd bung that in for Good Elf
Basically one wave creates the two, via a self generated event horizon arising from dimensional condensation.
I have been searching for the "hows" and "whys" things work for the last few years. So far I keep running into right angle forces. Thus I've learned to go slow to keep from mashing my nose. I have yet to find a why for these "right angle forces" but I've found plenty of hows.
Never give up the search and you will never grow old just a little wiser.
Montec etc,
Right angled forces? .... electro-magnetism? ..... my current supposition deals with the tachyonic affect of endo event horizon wave propagation, which creates with regards to the photon the magnetic/electric force duality (retrocausality wise) ... thought I'd bung that in for Good Elf
Basically one wave creates the two, via a self generated event horizon arising from dimensional condensation.
Hi Fivedoughnut,
Thanks for that
I really do not know if "retrocausality" can actually work... maybe we can prevent the second Gulf War or something. I am not sure about Tachyons though... he he he! Retrocausation needs a particular "perspective" not tied to intrinsic causality inside of our time.
The article is here but you need to log in for the full details...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...tum-world_rss20
It is based on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the possibility to send a signal back in time.... Hmm maybe!
The information on the delayed choice quantum eraser is to be found here...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
Wikipedia has an article here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Look back through my history and I have an interpretation for this experiment that involves the manner in which the Universe counts "events" and paints them on the "resonant landscape" in time.
Thanks for that
I really do not know if "retrocausality" can actually work... maybe we can prevent the second Gulf War or something. I am not sure about Tachyons though... he he he! Retrocausation needs a particular "perspective" not tied to intrinsic causality inside of our time.The article is here but you need to log in for the full details...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...tum-world_rss20
It is based on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the possibility to send a signal back in time.... Hmm maybe!
The information on the delayed choice quantum eraser is to be found here...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
Wikipedia has an article here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Look back through my history and I have an interpretation for this experiment that involves the manner in which the Universe counts "events" and paints them on the "resonant landscape" in time.
QUOTE (Excerpt from the article+)
[...] If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retro-causality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" - one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle
can indeed instantaneously affect the other (New Scientist, 18 June 2005, p 32). Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated. Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it
could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says. While the jury is out awaiting the results of Cramer's experiment, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."
If it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling. From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39
I already have a "foolproof" method of sending a message instantly in time but that is another story. This is a step further. Without additional dimensions this will not be possible. There is an accompanying picture showing how the experiment is to be done. Certainly my optical theory of Quantum Mechanics involves retrocausality on the brane of our Universe.
Cheers
can indeed instantaneously affect the other (New Scientist, 18 June 2005, p 32). Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated. Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it
could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says. While the jury is out awaiting the results of Cramer's experiment, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."
If it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling. From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39
I already have a "foolproof" method of sending a message instantly in time but that is another story. This is a step further. Without additional dimensions this will not be possible. There is an accompanying picture showing how the experiment is to be done. Certainly my optical theory of Quantum Mechanics involves retrocausality on the brane of our Universe.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 17 2006, 12:11 PM)
Hi Fivedoughnut,
Thanks for that I really do not know if "retrocausality" can actually work... maybe we can prevent the second Gulf War or something. I am not sure about Tachyons though... he he he! Retrocausation needs a particular "perspective" not tied to intrinsic causality inside of our time.
The article is here but you need to log in for the full details...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...tum-world_rss20
It is based on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the possibility to send a signal back in time.... Hmm maybe!
The information on the delayed choice quantum eraser is to be found here...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
Wikipedia has an article here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Look back through my history and I have an interpretation for this experiment that involves the manner in which the Universe counts "events" and paints them on the "resonant landscape" in time.
Thanks for that
I really do not know if "retrocausality" can actually work... maybe we can prevent the second Gulf War or something. I am not sure about Tachyons though... he he he! Retrocausation needs a particular "perspective" not tied to intrinsic causality inside of our time.The article is here but you need to log in for the full details...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...tum-world_rss20
It is based on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and the possibility to send a signal back in time.... Hmm maybe!
The information on the delayed choice quantum eraser is to be found here...
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scul...-scully-web.htm
Wikipedia has an article here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Look back through my history and I have an interpretation for this experiment that involves the manner in which the Universe counts "events" and paints them on the "resonant landscape" in time.
QUOTE (Excerpt from the article+)
[...] If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retro-causality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" - one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle
can indeed instantaneously affect the other (New Scientist, 18 June 2005, p 32). Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated. Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it
could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says. While the jury is out awaiting the results of Cramer's experiment, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."
If it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling. From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39
I already have a "foolproof" method of sending a message instantly in time but that is another story. This is a step further. Without additional dimensions this will not be possible. There is an accompanying picture showing how the experiment is to be done. Certainly my optical theory of Quantum Mechanics involves retrocausality on the brane of our Universe.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Not tachyons but 'tachyonic' .... as I too really do not subscribe to their presence.
I'm merely implying that energy condensed in lower dimensionality will produce sufficient concentrations to create an event reversal wave via endo EH propagation.
"I already have a "foolproof" method of sending a message instantly in time but that is another story." ...... fantastic G.E .... simply cannot wait to 'get a load of that un' ...... excellent as per usual!
can indeed instantaneously affect the other (New Scientist, 18 June 2005, p 32). Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated. Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it
could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says. While the jury is out awaiting the results of Cramer's experiment, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."
If it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling. From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39
I already have a "foolproof" method of sending a message instantly in time but that is another story. This is a step further. Without additional dimensions this will not be possible. There is an accompanying picture showing how the experiment is to be done. Certainly my optical theory of Quantum Mechanics involves retrocausality on the brane of our Universe.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Not tachyons but 'tachyonic'
.... as I too really do not subscribe to their presence.I'm merely implying that energy condensed in lower dimensionality will produce sufficient concentrations to create an event reversal wave via endo EH propagation.
"I already have a "foolproof" method of sending a message instantly in time but that is another story." ...... fantastic G.E .... simply cannot wait to 'get a load of that un'
...... excellent as per usual!
Hi Everyone!
Some quotes
"but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."
Some dreaming
OUT with conservation of energy
OUT with Entropy
Out Potential Energy
IN with perpetual motion machines
INTO A UNIVERSE THAT WE DO NOT LIVE.
Observations of the heavens do not even support virtual photons
If this was to happen the skies would be covered with "firework tracks and jet tracks".
If this was to happen then there would be a surplus of photons produced in the stars which could not be accounted for by our present understanding of how the sun works.
I must have woke up into an alternate universe.
This thread has moved into science fiction.
If you believe that kind of science fiction then you'll have no trouble believing what I'm saying in my thread.
Get back to reality and this universe .... go read my thread
jal
C2, et al,
I hope you have these books, if not you need to obtain them when possible if you want some basic understandable laws of physics from one of the best.
If you do have the set, look into the Feynman Lectures on Physics: Commemorative Issue, Vol. III-3-5 ff [also the first pages of the 3rd Vol. will deal with it some.]
I know you all can come to a gentleman's/ladie's agreement. It is just quantum strangeness, at its best.
ciao_
yquantum
Some quotes
QUOTE
Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration. It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration. It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works. |
"but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."
Some dreaming
OUT with conservation of energy
OUT with Entropy
Out Potential Energy
IN with perpetual motion machines
INTO A UNIVERSE THAT WE DO NOT LIVE.
Observations of the heavens do not even support virtual photons
QUOTE
The photon is absorbed transferring its energy into a secondary state and re-emitting a photon while at the same time the particle is "deflected" from its intertial frame of reference.
If this was to happen the skies would be covered with "firework tracks and jet tracks".
If this was to happen then there would be a surplus of photons produced in the stars which could not be accounted for by our present understanding of how the sun works.
I must have woke up into an alternate universe.
This thread has moved into science fiction.
If you believe that kind of science fiction then you'll have no trouble believing what I'm saying in my thread.
Get back to reality and this universe .... go read my thread
jal
Jal, all,
I think when you hit a, 'wave function' wall you become very desperate!
I truly understand this dilemma because I have bumped my head on the same paradox wall many times trying to envision, HOW QM works?
Remember, jal how small the micro QM world really is & with our macro eyes how can you explain even with macro instrument's its behavior?
When physicists perform the double-slit experiment with electrons, the detection pattern matches that produced by the waves, not the marbles. These results show that electrons do have wave properties. However, if scientists run the experiment using a barrier whose slits are much wider than the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons, the pattern resembles the one produced by the marbles. This shows that tiny particles such as electrons behave as waves in some circumstances and as particles in others.
That is all I was trying to get across to everyone. We will not be there for many years to come, I think.
Duality/Lisa
It will put a strain on the brain.
I think when you hit a, 'wave function' wall you become very desperate!
I truly understand this dilemma because I have bumped my head on the same paradox wall many times trying to envision, HOW QM works?
Remember, jal how small the micro QM world really is & with our macro eyes how can you explain even with macro instrument's its behavior?
When physicists perform the double-slit experiment with electrons, the detection pattern matches that produced by the waves, not the marbles. These results show that electrons do have wave properties. However, if scientists run the experiment using a barrier whose slits are much wider than the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons, the pattern resembles the one produced by the marbles. This shows that tiny particles such as electrons behave as waves in some circumstances and as particles in others.
That is all I was trying to get across to everyone. We will not be there for many years to come, I think.
Duality/Lisa
It will put a strain on the brain.
Duality
I feel the exasperations that you are expressing with my “stubborness”.
However, I am exasperated because no one will take the next step and make discreet energy “packets of energy” and put them together to make a uniform spacetime.
You, and others, refuse to look deeper into how those waves are made and put together.
Go ahead …. Quantizes that “expanding sphere” …. Let me see how different it looks than my model. To do it properly, you will need to quantizes time and space then locate the wave quanta in it at its different positions and time.
This means that you will have to consider the wave as being particle-like.
Your “expanding sphere” can only be realized by having zillions of particle-like photons leaving the point of origin/emitter at different times and from different micro positions. (Although, in our macro world they look like they are leaving at the same time and the same position.)
Do your model …. We will then compare .... improve our models.
You have the advantage of using my model as an approach so with your expertise you should be able to come up with a better model.
Now .... that is not science fiction.
jal
I feel the exasperations that you are expressing with my “stubborness”.
However, I am exasperated because no one will take the next step and make discreet energy “packets of energy” and put them together to make a uniform spacetime.
You, and others, refuse to look deeper into how those waves are made and put together.
Go ahead …. Quantizes that “expanding sphere” …. Let me see how different it looks than my model. To do it properly, you will need to quantizes time and space then locate the wave quanta in it at its different positions and time.
This means that you will have to consider the wave as being particle-like.
Your “expanding sphere” can only be realized by having zillions of particle-like photons leaving the point of origin/emitter at different times and from different micro positions. (Although, in our macro world they look like they are leaving at the same time and the same position.)
Do your model …. We will then compare .... improve our models.
You have the advantage of using my model as an approach so with your expertise you should be able to come up with a better model.
Now .... that is not science fiction.
jal
Hi Jal and Duality,
There are some misconceptions about my model based on "optics" and "reciprocal space" with 'frequency". There is no quantization of the manifold... I maintain this just does not happen. The model has nothing directly to do with 'expanding spheres" although this is what classically does occur with light emitted from dipoles. It leads to the inverse square law. what could be wrong with that?
Believe me, I have looked deeply into the problem of how waves are composed and I have offered some solutions. As to quantizing the expanding sphere I do not have to... and I do not need to... the reversing electric fields do that for me separating the fields from their sources launching the photon into "hyperspace" and quanta are produced "spontaneously"... where it remains until a particle interaction. These are the 'spreading" of photon "de Broglie" waves at the speed of light.... one for each photon.... also coherently at times.
E = hf.... this is the size of the quanta.
Also do not confuse the "shadows on the wall"(waves) for the "real McCoy". The waves are simply an expression of the way the quantum interacts from a different spatial state, it is not the quanta themselves which are "untouched" in quantum space. The photons undergo a collapse leading to a very localized 'flash".
Cheers
There are some misconceptions about my model based on "optics" and "reciprocal space" with 'frequency". There is no quantization of the manifold... I maintain this just does not happen. The model has nothing directly to do with 'expanding spheres" although this is what classically does occur with light emitted from dipoles. It leads to the inverse square law. what could be wrong with that?
Believe me, I have looked deeply into the problem of how waves are composed and I have offered some solutions. As to quantizing the expanding sphere I do not have to... and I do not need to... the reversing electric fields do that for me separating the fields from their sources launching the photon into "hyperspace" and quanta are produced "spontaneously"... where it remains until a particle interaction. These are the 'spreading" of photon "de Broglie" waves at the speed of light.... one for each photon.... also coherently at times.
E = hf.... this is the size of the quanta.
Also do not confuse the "shadows on the wall"(waves) for the "real McCoy". The waves are simply an expression of the way the quantum interacts from a different spatial state, it is not the quanta themselves which are "untouched" in quantum space. The photons undergo a collapse leading to a very localized 'flash".
Cheers
QUOTE (Duality+Dec 18 2006, 01:51 AM)
When physicists perform the double-slit experiment with electrons, the detection pattern matches that produced by the waves, not the marbles. These results show that electrons do have wave properties. However, if scientists run the experiment using a barrier whose slits are much wider than the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons, the pattern resembles the one produced by the marbles. This shows that tiny particles such as electrons behave as waves in some circumstances and as particles in others. I truly understand this dilemma because I have bumped my head on the same paradox wall many times trying to envision, HOW QM works?
By AWT the QM is working on incredibly trivial mechanism. The AWT assumes, the vacuum is not homogeneous, but it has character of dense foamy fluctuations. Such character is typical for most of dense systems under high pressure, like the supercritical vapor, where the density fluctuations are heavily pronounced.
The characteristic behavior of foam is, it increases its density by introducing of energy. The soap foam shaken in evacuated vessel is the most trivial example of such behavior. With respect of its energy density content, its density can be varied from very sparse bubbles to the very dense foam, comparable with the density of fluid, which is formed from.
The dependency of quantum foam to the energy density gives a typical character/behavior to each energy wave. The wave creates a temporary dense blob of foam, in which is moving slower. Such blob auto focuses the wave like glass lens. If the energy density of wave exceeds a certain limit, the wave changes into wave packet, which undulates inside the dense spatial area of foam at the place, i.e. without apparent external motion at all. As we can see, the wave (boson) has changed into particle (fermion), nevertheless the nature of fermion formation retains the wave properties. Such process occurs spontaneously at high energy density like so called materialization of gamma radiation. Albeit it has a many other consequences.
For example, when the particle moves through vacuum foam, it creates a typical standing wave, which is perpendicular to particle motion. The same wave can be observed, whenever some massive object (like fish) is moving beneath the water surface, or like the undulating ribbon bar, flapping in the wind. These undulations are called the deBroglie wave, they're making the vacuum more dense at the place, where the particle is moving and they're the source of so called relativistic contraction of objects. The important thing is, they're much larger, then the particle itself, so they can interfere with both the slits at the same time into well known flabelliform patterns. At the places, where constructive interference occurs, the vacuum becomes more dense. Because the particle is formed by standing wave, its motion prefers the more dense places, because the wave spreading is always focused by the dense spatial areas of vacuum. We can say, the deBroglie wave affect the probability of the particle appearance.
As the result, in consecutive experiments the particle density will follow theses interference patterns, which is the reason of typical result of so called double slit experiment. As you can see, no abstract concept are require for explanation of quantum wave behavior, just the classical wave mechanic of energy wave, which is spreading in the foam. Just the foamy character of environment gives the wave the non-linear, "non-Newtonian" behavior, which was the subject of less or more fantastic scientific speculations for nearly one hundred years.
Why such trivial insight was not introduced into science before many years? Well, this is just a psychological effect of the widely spreaded belief, the energy wave doesn't requires the inertial environment for its spreading. The foamy character of vacuum has fooled many scientists, because it doesn't exhibit the absolute motion by the same way, like the underwater motion is not detectable by tiny surface waves (so called capillary waves). The scientists simply have ignored the trivial wave mechanic of phase interface, which is well known from Victorian era.
By AWT the QM is working on incredibly trivial mechanism. The AWT assumes, the vacuum is not homogeneous, but it has character of dense foamy fluctuations. Such character is typical for most of dense systems under high pressure, like the supercritical vapor, where the density fluctuations are heavily pronounced.
The characteristic behavior of foam is, it increases its density by introducing of energy. The soap foam shaken in evacuated vessel is the most trivial example of such behavior. With respect of its energy density content, its density can be varied from very sparse bubbles to the very dense foam, comparable with the density of fluid, which is formed from.
The dependency of quantum foam to the energy density gives a typical character/behavior to each energy wave. The wave creates a temporary dense blob of foam, in which is moving slower. Such blob auto focuses the wave like glass lens. If the energy density of wave exceeds a certain limit, the wave changes into wave packet, which undulates inside the dense spatial area of foam at the place, i.e. without apparent external motion at all. As we can see, the wave (boson) has changed into particle (fermion), nevertheless the nature of fermion formation retains the wave properties. Such process occurs spontaneously at high energy density like so called materialization of gamma radiation. Albeit it has a many other consequences.
For example, when the particle moves through vacuum foam, it creates a typical standing wave, which is perpendicular to particle motion. The same wave can be observed, whenever some massive object (like fish) is moving beneath the water surface, or like the undulating ribbon bar, flapping in the wind. These undulations are called the deBroglie wave, they're making the vacuum more dense at the place, where the particle is moving and they're the source of so called relativistic contraction of objects. The important thing is, they're much larger, then the particle itself, so they can interfere with both the slits at the same time into well known flabelliform patterns. At the places, where constructive interference occurs, the vacuum becomes more dense. Because the particle is formed by standing wave, its motion prefers the more dense places, because the wave spreading is always focused by the dense spatial areas of vacuum. We can say, the deBroglie wave affect the probability of the particle appearance.
As the result, in consecutive experiments the particle density will follow theses interference patterns, which is the reason of typical result of so called double slit experiment. As you can see, no abstract concept are require for explanation of quantum wave behavior, just the classical wave mechanic of energy wave, which is spreading in the foam. Just the foamy character of environment gives the wave the non-linear, "non-Newtonian" behavior, which was the subject of less or more fantastic scientific speculations for nearly one hundred years.
Why such trivial insight was not introduced into science before many years? Well, this is just a psychological effect of the widely spreaded belief, the energy wave doesn't requires the inertial environment for its spreading. The foamy character of vacuum has fooled many scientists, because it doesn't exhibit the absolute motion by the same way, like the underwater motion is not detectable by tiny surface waves (so called capillary waves). The scientists simply have ignored the trivial wave mechanic of phase interface, which is well known from Victorian era.
Prompted by jal and 'how to fill sphere'..
A while back we had a thought experiment where we had a sphere of radius (say) 2 metre and inside it we put a half sphere of radius 1 metre. At the centre of the sphere we fire off a single photon. Since half the larger sphere is shadowed by the smaller (half) sphere we'd hopefully agree that there would be a 50/50 probability of the detecting the photon on the surface of either sphere. The writer went on to claim that a certain amount of time after the photon was emitted .. if the photon hadn't been detected on the small sphere then it MUST be on it's way to the larger sphere and we would KNOW this for a fact. A similar sort of thing to determining the 'which way' information for the single slit experiment.
I am going to suggest for discussion that the writer reached an intuitive but WRONG conclusion.. in reality the chances of detecting a photon on either of the two spheres remains the same right up to the point when the photon is actually detected. (Was it ever 50/50?)
Comments welcome.
-C2.
Anybody not happy with my conclusion is invited to look at the DSE .. the probability of detection is not 1 where the first 'wavefronts' from the two slits meet and zero elsewhere .. after allowing for the geometry of the slits it is the same where any two 'wavefronts' coincide. Conclusion .. the photon is NOT localized on any particular 'wavefront' .. we need to change what we mean by 'wavefront' .. time to look at wavefunction-psi ???
A while back we had a thought experiment where we had a sphere of radius (say) 2 metre and inside it we put a half sphere of radius 1 metre. At the centre of the sphere we fire off a single photon. Since half the larger sphere is shadowed by the smaller (half) sphere we'd hopefully agree that there would be a 50/50 probability of the detecting the photon on the surface of either sphere. The writer went on to claim that a certain amount of time after the photon was emitted .. if the photon hadn't been detected on the small sphere then it MUST be on it's way to the larger sphere and we would KNOW this for a fact. A similar sort of thing to determining the 'which way' information for the single slit experiment.
I am going to suggest for discussion that the writer reached an intuitive but WRONG conclusion.. in reality the chances of detecting a photon on either of the two spheres remains the same right up to the point when the photon is actually detected. (Was it ever 50/50?)
Comments welcome.
-C2.
Anybody not happy with my conclusion is invited to look at the DSE .. the probability of detection is not 1 where the first 'wavefronts' from the two slits meet and zero elsewhere .. after allowing for the geometry of the slits it is the same where any two 'wavefronts' coincide. Conclusion .. the photon is NOT localized on any particular 'wavefront' .. we need to change what we mean by 'wavefront' .. time to look at wavefunction-psi ???
Hi Confused2,
Why is it we need to revisit this issue so many times without you coming up with a different story. It is not possible to time when a photon is emitted from a lone atom or system. While an atom is in an excited state it may stay there until a week from next Tuesday before the state collapses. Mostly it happens rapidly but not always. In some atomic systems it has been shown that an individual photon can remain trapped in a system for as much as a 1/2 billion years without loss or attenuation. It is the basis of some dating techniques in Geophysics.
The story about the DSE is not about individual photons it is about correlated photons. One photon at a time is not correlated unless they come from an attenuated coherent source. A large number of photons from a single incoherent but monochromatic source will become partially coherent due to the evanescent field. Two photons being emitted in close proximity to each other can influence the timing of the other in what is called "stimulated emission".... as in lasers. Alternatively CW emission is always coherent though it may be divergent. Any concentrated monochromatic source will be partially correlated. This is the single fact that helped people like T. Young do his experiments with the double slit. Coherence and correlation is a strong ordering principle which is absolutely essential for interference.
The interference pattern from just one photon is "global" but it will cause a flash at only one point in the screen. A second photon with different "source phase" will not necessarily be correlated. With a different source phase they will produce a different pattern on the screen. Recall the wavelength is the distance between successive wavefronts perpendicular to the direction of propagation and the spatial frequencies are related to the wavenumber and may be many times this dimension and thus we can see interference. A second photon needs only be off by around 1/2 a wavelength to be on a completely different conjugate interference pattern (pi radians out of phase). As intensities they will now scalar add (inner product) and reduce everything to a soft blur and not crisp lines. Remember each photon forms an interference pattern all by itself but will only flash at one spot at a standing wave maxima. Two uncorrelated photons do not form the same pattern unless they have the same origin and source phase. Even if they originally had the same qubit of information, if you "read" this information from the photon it becomes uncorrelated and the phase and this information no longer relate to the original source. What they do form is separate Airy disks for each slit and they will be uncorrelated. Then they are subjected to the Rayleigh Criterion where the first minimum falls on the central maximum of the other "uncorrelated" pattern. When these are that close the sources cannot be spatially distinguished. If they are correlated they will form interference fringes and these may cover the field of view. This is also related to the construction of holograms as well... correlated sources... coincidence eh? Not likely!
Check out these references...
Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment
Blind signal separation
Rayleigh fading
The Rayleigh Criterion of uncorrelated sources
Three Experiments in One: Single Slit Diffraction in the Fraunhofer Plane
I am beginning to think you are not reading this stuff since you are not getting it at all. Lets not have to do this all over again please...
Entanglement is not simple correlation either... entanglement is something "extra". I would also remind that these interference patterns are standing wave patterns and are fixed when you fix the source position and the source phase.
Cheers
Why is it we need to revisit this issue so many times without you coming up with a different story. It is not possible to time when a photon is emitted from a lone atom or system. While an atom is in an excited state it may stay there until a week from next Tuesday before the state collapses. Mostly it happens rapidly but not always. In some atomic systems it has been shown that an individual photon can remain trapped in a system for as much as a 1/2 billion years without loss or attenuation. It is the basis of some dating techniques in Geophysics.
The story about the DSE is not about individual photons it is about correlated photons. One photon at a time is not correlated unless they come from an attenuated coherent source. A large number of photons from a single incoherent but monochromatic source will become partially coherent due to the evanescent field. Two photons being emitted in close proximity to each other can influence the timing of the other in what is called "stimulated emission".... as in lasers. Alternatively CW emission is always coherent though it may be divergent. Any concentrated monochromatic source will be partially correlated. This is the single fact that helped people like T. Young do his experiments with the double slit. Coherence and correlation is a strong ordering principle which is absolutely essential for interference.
The interference pattern from just one photon is "global" but it will cause a flash at only one point in the screen. A second photon with different "source phase" will not necessarily be correlated. With a different source phase they will produce a different pattern on the screen. Recall the wavelength is the distance between successive wavefronts perpendicular to the direction of propagation and the spatial frequencies are related to the wavenumber and may be many times this dimension and thus we can see interference. A second photon needs only be off by around 1/2 a wavelength to be on a completely different conjugate interference pattern (pi radians out of phase). As intensities they will now scalar add (inner product) and reduce everything to a soft blur and not crisp lines. Remember each photon forms an interference pattern all by itself but will only flash at one spot at a standing wave maxima. Two uncorrelated photons do not form the same pattern unless they have the same origin and source phase. Even if they originally had the same qubit of information, if you "read" this information from the photon it becomes uncorrelated and the phase and this information no longer relate to the original source. What they do form is separate Airy disks for each slit and they will be uncorrelated. Then they are subjected to the Rayleigh Criterion where the first minimum falls on the central maximum of the other "uncorrelated" pattern. When these are that close the sources cannot be spatially distinguished. If they are correlated they will form interference fringes and these may cover the field of view. This is also related to the construction of holograms as well... correlated sources... coincidence eh? Not likely!
Check out these references...
Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment
Blind signal separation
Rayleigh fading
The Rayleigh Criterion of uncorrelated sources
Three Experiments in One: Single Slit Diffraction in the Fraunhofer Plane
I am beginning to think you are not reading this stuff since you are not getting it at all. Lets not have to do this all over again please...
Entanglement is not simple correlation either... entanglement is something "extra". I would also remind that these interference patterns are standing wave patterns and are fixed when you fix the source position and the source phase.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
The reason we coming back to this point is that you prevent any further progress being made.
Two slits and one equation
1/I suggest that the most important point in the analysis of the DSE is the DSE equation .
2/Without the need for handwaving the DSE equation tells us that the outputs from the two slits on the detector side must be mathematically in phase (though there may be 360 degree phase shifts between the output of each slit.. of this more later). There is no output from either slit without a matching output from the other.
3/Any phase shift between the source and the slits seems to have been cancelled out by the slits. Either separate slits always have this phase matching quality (unlikely?) or the phase matching exists because the same thing is passing through both slits (more likely?) .
4/Without further handwaving we see that the bright bits happen where the path length difference at the screen/detector is a whole number of wavelengths and the dark bits are where the path length difference is half a wavelength.
Please note I haven't attempted to say why .. PLEASE can we just stick to the observed results.. no Scottish electrons or Black Holes. Any disagreement so far?
-C2.
The reason we coming back to this point is that you prevent any further progress being made.
Two slits and one equation
1/I suggest that the most important point in the analysis of the DSE is the DSE equation .
2/Without the need for handwaving the DSE equation tells us that the outputs from the two slits on the detector side must be mathematically in phase (though there may be 360 degree phase shifts between the output of each slit.. of this more later). There is no output from either slit without a matching output from the other.
3/Any phase shift between the source and the slits seems to have been cancelled out by the slits. Either separate slits always have this phase matching quality (unlikely?) or the phase matching exists because the same thing is passing through both slits (more likely?) .
4/Without further handwaving we see that the bright bits happen where the path length difference at the screen/detector is a whole number of wavelengths and the dark bits are where the path length difference is half a wavelength.
Please note I haven't attempted to say why .. PLEASE can we just stick to the observed results.. no Scottish electrons or Black Holes. Any disagreement so far?
-C2.
Hi Confused2!
As you and others have repeatedly linked, we can find where the light fringes are by geometry and trigonometry.
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
and the last link by Good Elf
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell...experiments.htm
So.... why is everyone not yelling BINGO.
JAL
As you and others have repeatedly linked, we can find where the light fringes are by geometry and trigonometry.
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
and the last link by Good Elf
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell...experiments.htm
So.... why is everyone not yelling BINGO.
JAL
C2, et al,I hope you have these books, if not you need to obtain them when possible if you want some basic understandable laws of physics from one of the best.
If you do have the set, look into the Feynman Lectures on Physics: Commemorative Issue, Vol. III-3-5 ff [also the first pages of the 3rd Vol. will deal with it some.]
I know you all can come to a gentleman's/ladie's agreement. It is just quantum strangeness, at its best.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi All,
Perhaps these links will help clarify our previous disagreement about the shape
of wavefronts and how they apply to the DSE.
huygens
Wavefront
Far Field/Near field
Plane Wave
Transverse Wave
Discussion, opinions welcome.
LL
Perhaps these links will help clarify our previous disagreement about the shape
of wavefronts and how they apply to the DSE.
huygens
Wavefront
Far Field/Near field
Plane Wave
Transverse Wave
Discussion, opinions welcome.
LL
Good day!
Feynman Lectures on Physics will give you a poor picture. It's quantum strangeness, at its best.
However, there are lots of people trying to get away from that. They want an insight into actual spacetime geometry!
See the following .... It might help you to make a better model than mine.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611154.pdf
MacDowell–Mansouri Gravity and Cartan Geometry
Derek K. Wise
Department of Mathematics
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521, US
jal
Feynman Lectures on Physics will give you a poor picture. It's quantum strangeness, at its best.
However, there are lots of people trying to get away from that. They want an insight into actual spacetime geometry!
See the following .... It might help you to make a better model than mine.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611154.pdf
MacDowell–Mansouri Gravity and Cartan Geometry
Derek K. Wise
Department of Mathematics
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521, US
jal
jal, et al,
I would humbly suggest if you want to build a better model then you need to know the fundamentals and Feynman will give you this. Then you can correct the problems we all know exist which has been mentioned in the other post.
I would like for you to check into two gentleman that I think will serve you better in your quest, I have deep respect for both but I will warn you not all feel the same.
Gerard 't Hooft's & Roger Penrose. The first has walk down the path you mentioned as a lone crusader, when he could have been the leader in another field. Do a little research and you will find not only his expertise but his desire for a BETTER THEORY.
ciao_
yquantum
I would humbly suggest if you want to build a better model then you need to know the fundamentals and Feynman will give you this. Then you can correct the problems we all know exist which has been mentioned in the other post.
I would like for you to check into two gentleman that I think will serve you better in your quest, I have deep respect for both but I will warn you not all feel the same.
Gerard 't Hooft's & Roger Penrose. The first has walk down the path you mentioned as a lone crusader, when he could have been the leader in another field. Do a little research and you will find not only his expertise but his desire for a BETTER THEORY.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi all,
After so many pages of information that this thread contains, it's good to see some progress, measured by the ability for us to talk about the same thing, while using so many different terms.
GE's last post shows that he is seeing past some of the seemingly SEPARATE methods that have been used over the last 150 years, and there are enough similarities to merit making adjustments. If only the "institution" were as readily able to change and grow. Even the "institution" itself, meaning "Science" as a whole, is very loosely defined. Who's in charge? How do changes get made? The answer is close to "us", and "very slowly, by consensus".
Something, whether it's called resonance, interference, interaction, etc., is happening, and is best understood as a process that happens from the combination of states of the sender, the receiver, and the medium.
C2, your last post seemed very "plain" to you, I'm sure. However, you are still using terms that force definitions, or presuming a "why". (phase shifts, 360 degrees, etc.)
If you, and anyone else, want to just "describe", then JUST DESCRIBE what you see. Use the most plain, and simple language possible.
What is happening, in the SSE, AND the DSE, is this:
LIGHT and DARK bands. White and Black would also suffice, but introduces the nothing of "color" into the picture.
So the question is, "Does Science have ANY existing theory to describe this?"
The answer is NO.
The closest "stab" at it is : constructive and destructive interference
This was first suggested by Newton, I believe.
IT IS WRONG.
That idea was BEFORE the Laws of Thermodynamics were established. The notion that there are NO "photons" (energy) in the dark bands is FALSE. It is not possible for the energy that "falls" in the area of the dark bands to "evaporate". Energy CAN NOT be DESTROYED (destructed). It can be "altered" up or down, BUT NEVER less than the original (total) energy. It is never ZERO, which is what complete destructive interference says. It also has a constructive limit: double. When the energy is twice the original, you just get MORE of the same (intensity). This allows for the CONTINUATION of the original energy level (frequency); now there are "2 photons".
It's a shame that the "Institution" decided to kick Music out of the curriculum; this is a KEY component of the system. This would not have been so hard, historically.
Three frequencies superimposed to one frequency, with an increased attenuation. A "C" root note has the same frequency as the "C chord", though the C chord is louder. "Red" light added to red light equals BRIGHTER red light. Same frequency from start to finish, even though you ADDED another "red photon" to the mix.
You can have a room full of "C chords", and the frequency will not change; you can have a "room" (area, cavity) full of red photons, and the frequency will not change. This goes in reverse as well. You can NEVER get less than the frequency of red light by subtracting red light out. Modulating a "phase" of "1Hz = 1 photon" onto the laser frequency (red for this argument) DOES NOT "destroy" the energy of the red light, or REALLY lower its' frequency to "1Hz".
The wave of energy is Dualistic: it has TWO components that are each CAUSED by the others' existence. Electric and magnetic are the best examples we have, "in the lab". Outside of the lab, we have MANY dualities, that have been adequately described throughout history. Light/Dark is one of them; here it is again, in our experiment.
A regular prism is all that you need to see the Fundamental nature of the Light and Dark bands that appear. It is a fact (little known) that green is not a primary color, it only exists where cyan (turquoise) and yellow superimpose. You can easily "remove" green from the spectrum, while two other pairs remain: red/yellow and cyan/violet. When you remove green, LIGHT (clear, white) takes its' place.
You can also re-order the "rainbow" with the prism, and a new experimental set up. Rather than red on one side, and violet on the opposite side, you can place these 2 colors in the center, with yellow now on the outside edge of one side, and cyan on the other. Magenta (greens' opposite) is now CAUSED by red and violet superimposing. When you separate them, DARK (black) takes its' place.
The "problem", that has led to all this trouble in Science is this:
1. We can not "see" the color of "darkness". This is EITHER above violet, or below red, OR the superposition of both.
2. Science can not "measure" magenta. They have NO frequency for this color; it is NOT in our "frame of reference". Light can ONLY be seen upon ARRIVAL, and the "source" can be easily inferred by geometry. We DO NOT ever "see" light" leave, or in flight. Stating this in terms of energy, since it can only be measured at the destination, when "we" are not the destination, we see "nothing" when looking directly at it. Green is ALWAYS present in a "collapsed" measurement, because cyan and yellow are ALWAYS oriented towards the "light energy". Magenta exists where the "dark energy" is, because red and violet are ALWAYS oriented towards the darkness.
3. Science has not recognized the "ordering" of energy in terms of its' measurements (frequency & wavelength), and Resonance. (multiples of 2) These different frequencies, 1f, 2f, 4f, etc, are the SAME "color", or "sound". The SAME pattern goes throughout the ENTIRE Vibrational Spectrum (Resonance Matrix). From Consciousness to Sound to Light to Matter.
The slit experiments all follow this Fundamental pattern; when multiple images (of the slit) are lined up on a screen, you get an alternating of cyan and yellow, separated by LIGHT. On the "other side" of these dualities, are their other halves. So, on the "left" side of one image, you can have yellow/red meeting the "right" side of the next image, and get cyan/violet. Where violet and red meet, we see DARK bands, where yellow and cyan meet, we see LIGHT bands.
Now, REMOVE ALL THE "COLOR" LABELS THAT I HAVE USED, BECAUSE THE PATTERN EXISTS FOR ALL FREQUENCIES. No matter what frequency you send through the slit, the WAVE will be divided into the next set of dualistic pairs.
THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FREQUENCIES IN A WAVE OF ENERGY ("photon") IS THREE SEPARATE VALUES
TRUE, "MONOCHROMATIC" LIGHT, WOULD HAVE AN INFINITE WAVELENGTH (NO BEGINNING OR END), WOULD CARRY NO INFORMATION, AND WOULD EXIST ENTIRELY IN A PARALLEL FRAME OF REFERENCE (90 degrees), WHERE NO "CONNECTION" COULD EVER BE MADE.
Regards,
T.Roc
After so many pages of information that this thread contains, it's good to see some progress, measured by the ability for us to talk about the same thing, while using so many different terms.
GE's last post shows that he is seeing past some of the seemingly SEPARATE methods that have been used over the last 150 years, and there are enough similarities to merit making adjustments. If only the "institution" were as readily able to change and grow. Even the "institution" itself, meaning "Science" as a whole, is very loosely defined. Who's in charge? How do changes get made? The answer is close to "us", and "very slowly, by consensus".
Something, whether it's called resonance, interference, interaction, etc., is happening, and is best understood as a process that happens from the combination of states of the sender, the receiver, and the medium.
C2, your last post seemed very "plain" to you, I'm sure. However, you are still using terms that force definitions, or presuming a "why". (phase shifts, 360 degrees, etc.)
If you, and anyone else, want to just "describe", then JUST DESCRIBE what you see. Use the most plain, and simple language possible.
What is happening, in the SSE, AND the DSE, is this:
LIGHT and DARK bands. White and Black would also suffice, but introduces the nothing of "color" into the picture.
So the question is, "Does Science have ANY existing theory to describe this?"
The answer is NO.
The closest "stab" at it is : constructive and destructive interference
This was first suggested by Newton, I believe.
IT IS WRONG.
That idea was BEFORE the Laws of Thermodynamics were established. The notion that there are NO "photons" (energy) in the dark bands is FALSE. It is not possible for the energy that "falls" in the area of the dark bands to "evaporate". Energy CAN NOT be DESTROYED (destructed). It can be "altered" up or down, BUT NEVER less than the original (total) energy. It is never ZERO, which is what complete destructive interference says. It also has a constructive limit: double. When the energy is twice the original, you just get MORE of the same (intensity). This allows for the CONTINUATION of the original energy level (frequency); now there are "2 photons".
It's a shame that the "Institution" decided to kick Music out of the curriculum; this is a KEY component of the system. This would not have been so hard, historically.
Three frequencies superimposed to one frequency, with an increased attenuation. A "C" root note has the same frequency as the "C chord", though the C chord is louder. "Red" light added to red light equals BRIGHTER red light. Same frequency from start to finish, even though you ADDED another "red photon" to the mix.
You can have a room full of "C chords", and the frequency will not change; you can have a "room" (area, cavity) full of red photons, and the frequency will not change. This goes in reverse as well. You can NEVER get less than the frequency of red light by subtracting red light out. Modulating a "phase" of "1Hz = 1 photon" onto the laser frequency (red for this argument) DOES NOT "destroy" the energy of the red light, or REALLY lower its' frequency to "1Hz".
The wave of energy is Dualistic: it has TWO components that are each CAUSED by the others' existence. Electric and magnetic are the best examples we have, "in the lab". Outside of the lab, we have MANY dualities, that have been adequately described throughout history. Light/Dark is one of them; here it is again, in our experiment.
A regular prism is all that you need to see the Fundamental nature of the Light and Dark bands that appear. It is a fact (little known) that green is not a primary color, it only exists where cyan (turquoise) and yellow superimpose. You can easily "remove" green from the spectrum, while two other pairs remain: red/yellow and cyan/violet. When you remove green, LIGHT (clear, white) takes its' place.
You can also re-order the "rainbow" with the prism, and a new experimental set up. Rather than red on one side, and violet on the opposite side, you can place these 2 colors in the center, with yellow now on the outside edge of one side, and cyan on the other. Magenta (greens' opposite) is now CAUSED by red and violet superimposing. When you separate them, DARK (black) takes its' place.
The "problem", that has led to all this trouble in Science is this:
1. We can not "see" the color of "darkness". This is EITHER above violet, or below red, OR the superposition of both.
2. Science can not "measure" magenta. They have NO frequency for this color; it is NOT in our "frame of reference". Light can ONLY be seen upon ARRIVAL, and the "source" can be easily inferred by geometry. We DO NOT ever "see" light" leave, or in flight. Stating this in terms of energy, since it can only be measured at the destination, when "we" are not the destination, we see "nothing" when looking directly at it. Green is ALWAYS present in a "collapsed" measurement, because cyan and yellow are ALWAYS oriented towards the "light energy". Magenta exists where the "dark energy" is, because red and violet are ALWAYS oriented towards the darkness.
3. Science has not recognized the "ordering" of energy in terms of its' measurements (frequency & wavelength), and Resonance. (multiples of 2) These different frequencies, 1f, 2f, 4f, etc, are the SAME "color", or "sound". The SAME pattern goes throughout the ENTIRE Vibrational Spectrum (Resonance Matrix). From Consciousness to Sound to Light to Matter.
The slit experiments all follow this Fundamental pattern; when multiple images (of the slit) are lined up on a screen, you get an alternating of cyan and yellow, separated by LIGHT. On the "other side" of these dualities, are their other halves. So, on the "left" side of one image, you can have yellow/red meeting the "right" side of the next image, and get cyan/violet. Where violet and red meet, we see DARK bands, where yellow and cyan meet, we see LIGHT bands.
Now, REMOVE ALL THE "COLOR" LABELS THAT I HAVE USED, BECAUSE THE PATTERN EXISTS FOR ALL FREQUENCIES. No matter what frequency you send through the slit, the WAVE will be divided into the next set of dualistic pairs.
THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FREQUENCIES IN A WAVE OF ENERGY ("photon") IS THREE SEPARATE VALUES
TRUE, "MONOCHROMATIC" LIGHT, WOULD HAVE AN INFINITE WAVELENGTH (NO BEGINNING OR END), WOULD CARRY NO INFORMATION, AND WOULD EXIST ENTIRELY IN A PARALLEL FRAME OF REFERENCE (90 degrees), WHERE NO "CONNECTION" COULD EVER BE MADE.
Regards,
T.Roc
T.Roc
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/y...ap08/0208.1.pdf
The light from a distant, monochromatic point source is effectively a plane wave; we call it "perfectly coherent" radiation.
Duality/Lisa
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/y...ap08/0208.1.pdf
The light from a distant, monochromatic point source is effectively a plane wave; we call it "perfectly coherent" radiation.
Duality/Lisa
Hi TRoc and ALL,
TR- I'm having a difficult time conceptualizing what you are proposing when it
pertains to red laser light at a fixed frequency and wavelength. In order for
your scenario to work, the slits would have to be harmonically generating
secondary frequencies or colors, perhaps as a phase shift, but that should
take it into the non-visible infra-red spectrum.
In any case, as you have stated, the energy in, should equal the energy out.
If what you suggest is correct, there are hand held photo detector "scopes" that
allow an observer to see infrared wavelengths. I have never heard of anyone
observing any other energy wavelengths in the dark bands.
I would also think that an IR PMT camera would detect energy in the dark areas
if it existed. The experiments that have been posted with a PMT pattern
did not detect any energy in the dark areas.
If there is a doubling of the initial frequency (let's say 702nm) then the doubled
frequency should be 1404nm in the infrared region and the PMT camera or
IR film should have detected it, IMO.
Is there some definitive scientific verification of your proposal?
How light works
LL
TR- I'm having a difficult time conceptualizing what you are proposing when it
pertains to red laser light at a fixed frequency and wavelength. In order for
your scenario to work, the slits would have to be harmonically generating
secondary frequencies or colors, perhaps as a phase shift, but that should
take it into the non-visible infra-red spectrum.
In any case, as you have stated, the energy in, should equal the energy out.
If what you suggest is correct, there are hand held photo detector "scopes" that
allow an observer to see infrared wavelengths. I have never heard of anyone
observing any other energy wavelengths in the dark bands.
I would also think that an IR PMT camera would detect energy in the dark areas
if it existed. The experiments that have been posted with a PMT pattern
did not detect any energy in the dark areas.
If there is a doubling of the initial frequency (let's say 702nm) then the doubled
frequency should be 1404nm in the infrared region and the PMT camera or
IR film should have detected it, IMO.
Is there some definitive scientific verification of your proposal?
How light works
LL
LL,
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~ph76a/satabs.pdf
These same atoms see the pump beam red-shifted further from resonance (since the pump beam is in the opposite direction) so they are unaffected by the pump beam.
page #2
Duality/Lisa
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~ph76a/satabs.pdf
These same atoms see the pump beam red-shifted further from resonance (since the pump beam is in the opposite direction) so they are unaffected by the pump beam.
page #2
Duality/Lisa
Hi Lisa,
I'm not getting your point. The beams are interacting with a vapor and the
energy of the harmonics of the electrons in the vapor are what are being detected.
What are you attempting to point out? How does this pertain to the DSE or
TRoc's proposal?
Please elaborate.
TIA,
LL
I'm not getting your point. The beams are interacting with a vapor and the
energy of the harmonics of the electrons in the vapor are what are being detected.
What are you attempting to point out? How does this pertain to the DSE or
TRoc's proposal?
Please elaborate.
TIA,
LL
Duality,
I'm not sure if you are referring to C2 & Jal's dislike of the plane-wave, but yes, your point is correct. I'm also NOT sure if everyone is ready to ACCEPT
"interference" on broad terms, but your source is good.
It is also true (as also per Fresnel/Huygens) that less than monochromatic light will effectively be a plane wave as well. All the wavelets will combine at some distant radius.
From your source (thanks for the link!):
(emphasis added)
And,
(emphasis added)
And,
The alternating regions of dark and bright illumination in this flux distribution are known as interference fringes.
THIS is what we are talking about now.
Another new definition of energy:
and what happens to it?
and what happens to it?
Notice that the flux falls to zero between the bright fringes.
So, this "new energy" term, flux, falls to zero in the dark bands. But not the REAL energy, I say. The real energy term is conserved.
I would love to hear the story of how "1-at-a-time photons" were produced in 1909. It is much safer, and correct, to say, that our DEFINITION of "1-at-a-time" was established, and not changed, since 1909. The same for the definition of "monochromatic" light source. Am I splitting hairs? DAMN RIGHT! This is Sub-Atomic Physics, there is NO room for "generalizations" in the study of Fundamentals.
The overview says it best:
I would love to hear the story of how "1-at-a-time photons" were produced in 1909. It is much safer, and correct, to say, that our DEFINITION of "1-at-a-time" was established, and not changed, since 1909. The same for the definition of "monochromatic" light source. Am I splitting hairs? DAMN RIGHT! This is Sub-Atomic Physics, there is NO room for "generalizations" in the study of Fundamentals.
The overview says it best:
Attempting to understand it forces us to devise ways of describing the radiation field that are independent of the field's origin and independent of the means by which it is probed; and such descriptions lead us naturally to the concept of coherence (Sec. 8.2).
ciao,
T.Roc
I'm not sure if you are referring to C2 & Jal's dislike of the plane-wave, but yes, your point is correct. I'm also NOT sure if everyone is ready to ACCEPT
"interference" on broad terms, but your source is good.
It is also true (as also per Fresnel/Huygens) that less than monochromatic light will effectively be a plane wave as well. All the wavelets will combine at some distant radius.
From your source (thanks for the link!):
QUOTE
This will be so even if (as is always the case in practice) the field is very slightly non-monochromatic,..
(emphasis added)
And,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This will be so even if (as is always the case in practice) the field is very slightly non-monochromatic,.. |
(emphasis added)
And,
The alternating regions of dark and bright illumination in this flux distribution are known as interference fringes.
THIS is what we are talking about now.
Another new definition of energy:
QUOTE
The energy flux (energy per unit time crossing a unit area)
and what happens to it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The energy flux (energy per unit time crossing a unit area) |
and what happens to it?
Notice that the flux falls to zero between the bright fringes.
So, this "new energy" term, flux, falls to zero in the dark bands. But not the REAL energy, I say. The real energy term is conserved.
QUOTE
..it is possible to produce interference fringes even if only one photon is in the apparatus at any time, as was demonstrated in a famous experiment performed by G. I. Taylor in 1909.
I would love to hear the story of how "1-at-a-time photons" were produced in 1909. It is much safer, and correct, to say, that our DEFINITION of "1-at-a-time" was established, and not changed, since 1909. The same for the definition of "monochromatic" light source. Am I splitting hairs? DAMN RIGHT! This is Sub-Atomic Physics, there is NO room for "generalizations" in the study of Fundamentals.
The overview says it best:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..it is possible to produce interference fringes even if only one photon is in the apparatus at any time, as was demonstrated in a famous experiment performed by G. I. Taylor in 1909. |
I would love to hear the story of how "1-at-a-time photons" were produced in 1909. It is much safer, and correct, to say, that our DEFINITION of "1-at-a-time" was established, and not changed, since 1909. The same for the definition of "monochromatic" light source. Am I splitting hairs? DAMN RIGHT! This is Sub-Atomic Physics, there is NO room for "generalizations" in the study of Fundamentals.
The overview says it best:
Attempting to understand it forces us to devise ways of describing the radiation field that are independent of the field's origin and independent of the means by which it is probed; and such descriptions lead us naturally to the concept of coherence (Sec. 8.2).
ciao,
T.Roc
Love this Good Reading!
As an aside yquantum
Gerard 't Hooft is my favourite communicator. I've reccomended his page to the "math kids".
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST
by Gerard 't Hooft
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/basisqft.pdf
THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF QUANTUM FIELD THEORY
Gerard ’t Hooft
jal
As an aside yquantum
Gerard 't Hooft is my favourite communicator. I've reccomended his page to the "math kids".
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST
by Gerard 't Hooft
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/basisqft.pdf
THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF QUANTUM FIELD THEORY
Gerard ’t Hooft
jal
TRoc, Lisa, and All,
HHHHhhmmmm.....IMO, all of the signal mixing, phase timing, recombination,
harmonics, constructive and destructive interference all happens in the vicinity of the slit cavities.
Do you agree/disagree?
The pdf that Lisa referenced stated that the interference occurred
at the screen. I totally disagree. The interaction of light with the cavities of the
slits is the reaction zone where EM energy fields "react". There is a phase delay caused by
the slit cavities, and upon mixing/recombining, the momentum of the mixed
"signal" changes the exiting photon trajectories.
The resultant mixing interference at the slit cavities generates a light pattern that is
projected onto the screen. This can be verified by just moving the screen
forward and backwards from the slits. The resultant mixed signal, emanating
from the slits, acts exactly like a movie projected on a screen moving back and
forth. The image expands and contracts with distance....by virtue of the ISL.
All harmonic or phase recombination occurs where the geometry of the slit cavities
changes the phase timing relationships of the incident photon waveforms. The
instantaneous phase angle of the photons determines how they react in the
cavities. There is no further mixing or wave interference past the mixing area of the slits. The
waves just spread out and overlap from the mixing point and get projected onto
the screen. How far the projection "spreads" is a function of distance from the
slits.
Comments, discussion, disagreements welcome.
LL
HHHHhhmmmm.....IMO, all of the signal mixing, phase timing, recombination,
harmonics, constructive and destructive interference all happens in the vicinity of the slit cavities.
Do you agree/disagree?
The pdf that Lisa referenced stated that the interference occurred
at the screen. I totally disagree. The interaction of light with the cavities of the
slits is the reaction zone where EM energy fields "react". There is a phase delay caused by
the slit cavities, and upon mixing/recombining, the momentum of the mixed
"signal" changes the exiting photon trajectories.
The resultant mixing interference at the slit cavities generates a light pattern that is
projected onto the screen. This can be verified by just moving the screen
forward and backwards from the slits. The resultant mixed signal, emanating
from the slits, acts exactly like a movie projected on a screen moving back and
forth. The image expands and contracts with distance....by virtue of the ISL.
All harmonic or phase recombination occurs where the geometry of the slit cavities
changes the phase timing relationships of the incident photon waveforms. The
instantaneous phase angle of the photons determines how they react in the
cavities. There is no further mixing or wave interference past the mixing area of the slits. The
waves just spread out and overlap from the mixing point and get projected onto
the screen. How far the projection "spreads" is a function of distance from the
slits.
Comments, discussion, disagreements welcome.
LL
Hi all,
LL,
I have probably not given the perfect explanation. The very important part, at the end in bold:
For the time being, I've dropped even the simple harmonic ratio description, in order to just try to describe and explain the Light & Dark bands with the "color polarity" of the octave of visible light. The same pattern, that I can explain with Resonance, exists for EVERY octave of "oscillations".
The picture of the prism that you linked is DOCTORED, as so many things in modern Science are. The "rainbow", as defined by Newton, DOES NOT exist "from some center point" inside the prism, and extend cleanly (together) to the wall.
Here is a REAL picture of a prism bending light. Look at the outside edges of the prism, where the colors start from (not the center). Then look at the pairs (red/yellow, cyan/violet) first exist independently (no green, no continuous spectrum), and THEN come together.
Now, for the standard, "R-B-G" color theory, as shown in the color wheels that you linked.
Problem #1. RBG can NOT produce Violet. (period) This would require FREE energy, as violet frequencies have MORE energy than any of RBG.
Problem #2. "Magenta" (violet+red) DOES NOT exist in the electro-magnetic, visible light spectrum. The model (used by Physics) doesn't allow it. There is NO KNOWN frequency for this color. DO NOT let them tell you that this is because magenta is secondary (or even tertiary), because a frequency for EVERY OTHER COLOR can be derived. (including the closely related brown and pink)
Problem #3. White and Black are not so easily produced as this model suggests.
Notice that I am NOT saying this is all wrong, just incomplete, or misleading.
Jal's link to G.'t Hooft's "HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST" is great. He talks about the need for TESTING of one's ideas, by allowing your peers to check it over. GE, C2, and a few others helped me do just that last year here, and sent me back to make some improvements.
There are 2 ways to forward your theory: experiment yourself, or research experiments that others have already done, that prove your idea. I have taken the latter approach, and found great success in the past year of research.
I found that I was (not surprisingly) not the first person to "check" Newtons' conclusions by buying a few prisms, as well as his book, "Optics". I immediately found several phenomenon that he did not include. I made full reports of as many different ways to produce color as possible.
Digging all this back out, I have found some documentation on the internet, that supports these experiments. The "big" name that comes out is Goethe, who criticized Newton's limited approach from early on. This is a great example of the "bureaucracy/political" nature of Science. Most historians (and color experts) say that CLEARLY, Goethe's model for color is better than Newtons'. However, Newton was SO popular at the time, for his calculus, theory of gravity, laws of motion, etc., that his "color theory" was accepted anyway.
The truth has been undermined ever since.
More references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
I was going to try to take digital photos, and link them here, but I found some great photos, fully describing what I am saying here:
http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/ea/v7n19/encarte19.pdf
Please note, Goethe's' theory is incomplete, and does not have much more to do with my theory than this. There is some truth to the "polarity" however. When splitting up a photon, you can look at it as the same as cutting a magnet in half. You DO NOT find a "monopole"; you get TWO new magnets.
So, what I am saying here, LL, is NOT mixing at all (as far as what I have been saying). Just the fact that if you look at the pattern on the screen (in the DSE) through a prism, you will see a familiar pattern. That is, IF you have done some further experiments than Newton did, and the MEDIA recorded in "History". You need to understand what ALWAYS happens to these "pairs" of colors (r/y, c/v), in regards to LIGHT and DARK. It is elementary, and Fundamental.
It can also be stated as a recursive set of frequency ratios. Red = 1, Yellow = 1.25 ; Cyan = 1.5, Violet = 1.75 (approximate integer ratios), but I'd like to leave that aside, for now.
The light through a LARGE slit, cast onto a screen, or wall, makes the general pattern of "a DARK background, with a LIGHT "oval" spot. Decreasing the slit size brings the DARK edges CLOSER together, which CAUSES green to appear. You can "watch this happen" before your eyes.
Doing the INVERSE, you get "a LIGHT background, with a DARK oval spot. Decreasing the size of the slit brings the LIGHT edges closer together, which CAUSES magenta to appear. You can watch this happen, as you decrease the slit size. No hocus-pocus here, no doctored photos, no "theories". Plain old Scientific observation of a phenomenon.
These simple observations, written in the form of "rules", explains EVERY outcome of the SSE, DSE, and QM-spooky-interpretations-SE. No tricks necessary.
regards,
T.Roc
LL,
I have probably not given the perfect explanation. The very important part, at the end in bold:
QUOTE
Now, REMOVE ALL THE "COLOR" LABELS THAT I HAVE USED, BECAUSE THE PATTERN EXISTS FOR ALL FREQUENCIES. No matter what frequency you send through the slit, the WAVE will be divided into the next set of dualistic pairs.
For the time being, I've dropped even the simple harmonic ratio description, in order to just try to describe and explain the Light & Dark bands with the "color polarity" of the octave of visible light. The same pattern, that I can explain with Resonance, exists for EVERY octave of "oscillations".
The picture of the prism that you linked is DOCTORED, as so many things in modern Science are. The "rainbow", as defined by Newton, DOES NOT exist "from some center point" inside the prism, and extend cleanly (together) to the wall.
Here is a REAL picture of a prism bending light. Look at the outside edges of the prism, where the colors start from (not the center). Then look at the pairs (red/yellow, cyan/violet) first exist independently (no green, no continuous spectrum), and THEN come together.
Now, for the standard, "R-B-G" color theory, as shown in the color wheels that you linked.
Problem #1. RBG can NOT produce Violet. (period) This would require FREE energy, as violet frequencies have MORE energy than any of RBG.
Problem #2. "Magenta" (violet+red) DOES NOT exist in the electro-magnetic, visible light spectrum. The model (used by Physics) doesn't allow it. There is NO KNOWN frequency for this color. DO NOT let them tell you that this is because magenta is secondary (or even tertiary), because a frequency for EVERY OTHER COLOR can be derived. (including the closely related brown and pink)
Problem #3. White and Black are not so easily produced as this model suggests.
Notice that I am NOT saying this is all wrong, just incomplete, or misleading.
Jal's link to G.'t Hooft's "HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST" is great. He talks about the need for TESTING of one's ideas, by allowing your peers to check it over. GE, C2, and a few others helped me do just that last year here, and sent me back to make some improvements.
There are 2 ways to forward your theory: experiment yourself, or research experiments that others have already done, that prove your idea. I have taken the latter approach, and found great success in the past year of research.
I found that I was (not surprisingly) not the first person to "check" Newtons' conclusions by buying a few prisms, as well as his book, "Optics". I immediately found several phenomenon that he did not include. I made full reports of as many different ways to produce color as possible.
Digging all this back out, I have found some documentation on the internet, that supports these experiments. The "big" name that comes out is Goethe, who criticized Newton's limited approach from early on. This is a great example of the "bureaucracy/political" nature of Science. Most historians (and color experts) say that CLEARLY, Goethe's model for color is better than Newtons'. However, Newton was SO popular at the time, for his calculus, theory of gravity, laws of motion, etc., that his "color theory" was accepted anyway.
The truth has been undermined ever since.
More references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
I was going to try to take digital photos, and link them here, but I found some great photos, fully describing what I am saying here:
http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/ea/v7n19/encarte19.pdf
Please note, Goethe's' theory is incomplete, and does not have much more to do with my theory than this. There is some truth to the "polarity" however. When splitting up a photon, you can look at it as the same as cutting a magnet in half. You DO NOT find a "monopole"; you get TWO new magnets.
So, what I am saying here, LL, is NOT mixing at all (as far as what I have been saying). Just the fact that if you look at the pattern on the screen (in the DSE) through a prism, you will see a familiar pattern. That is, IF you have done some further experiments than Newton did, and the MEDIA recorded in "History". You need to understand what ALWAYS happens to these "pairs" of colors (r/y, c/v), in regards to LIGHT and DARK. It is elementary, and Fundamental.
It can also be stated as a recursive set of frequency ratios. Red = 1, Yellow = 1.25 ; Cyan = 1.5, Violet = 1.75 (approximate integer ratios), but I'd like to leave that aside, for now.
The light through a LARGE slit, cast onto a screen, or wall, makes the general pattern of "a DARK background, with a LIGHT "oval" spot. Decreasing the slit size brings the DARK edges CLOSER together, which CAUSES green to appear. You can "watch this happen" before your eyes.
Doing the INVERSE, you get "a LIGHT background, with a DARK oval spot. Decreasing the size of the slit brings the LIGHT edges closer together, which CAUSES magenta to appear. You can watch this happen, as you decrease the slit size. No hocus-pocus here, no doctored photos, no "theories". Plain old Scientific observation of a phenomenon.
These simple observations, written in the form of "rules", explains EVERY outcome of the SSE, DSE, and QM-spooky-interpretations-SE. No tricks necessary.
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
Something isn't right about your color analysis of prisms....
Java Prism
Refractive prism tutorial
Prisms
The DSE is not that simple. A single photon DSE experiment can only be
affected by a phase interaction with the cavities of the slits. A laser beam is monochromatic, multi-color
interactions cannot be a factor. Again, phasing relationships makes the
most sense per my prior "models".
Comments, discussion welcome.
LL
Something isn't right about your color analysis of prisms....
Java Prism
Refractive prism tutorial
Prisms
The DSE is not that simple. A single photon DSE experiment can only be
affected by a phase interaction with the cavities of the slits. A laser beam is monochromatic, multi-color
interactions cannot be a factor. Again, phasing relationships makes the
most sense per my prior "models".
Comments, discussion welcome.
LL
Hi all,
I wanted to include a quote from Jal's last link (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/basisqft.pdf)
I talked a little while ago about the "double quantization" that QM takes, and that it leads to infinite degrees of freedom, and infinite modes. The above quote gives another reason for the "octave" approach of single quantization, relevant to LL's last question about IR and UV.
You can see that QM "tunes the bare parameters carefully, to match observations", and that the space-time lattice "mesh size" is critical to the "tuning" process.
You may recall that I "tuned" my Resonance Matrix just one time (to adjust for the constant velocity of c), and then the "mesh size", which is quasi-exponential, creates an expanding space-time lattice. From this "tuning", all SM particles, Isotopes, and the visible spectrum are "accurately approximated", without any "adjustments".
Someone can help me remember, was it Paschen who "discovered" infra-red (in the H spectrum) by holding a thermometer to the "outside" of red light? I don't have it in front of me right now.
If IR and UV are separated by exactly an octave (f x 2), we would "see" the superposition of them as dark, yet have ~same amount of energy as the middle of the two, without the generation of heat. This mid-point is at the frequency of green light, yet it is NOT green light. The difference, I am suggesting, is in "counter-propagation". Green light is incoming, in terms of energy, and magenta is outgoing energy. This would allow the conservation, or balance of energy in the screen itself to occur.
This energy balance has not been missed by the plant world. Hold a clear container of chlorophyll up to (looking at) the light, and it is green. Turn around, so that the light is behind you, and (you guessed it) it appears "magenta-ish" .
Some of you may recall my link to the NASA video, where they did color experimenting, in the thin-film realm that gravity does not allow. The result of a mix of "several" primary colors, ended up green! This made the astronaut nervously (jokingly?) proclaim the discovery of "the color of the Universe". HO-HOLD on there Buck Rogers, did you get a camera angle from the "other frame of reference"? (they didn't) Too bad, because I still think it would have appeared magenta.
Anyone with the "standard" green glass shaded desk lamp can see magenta shadows cast by this light. These "colored shadows" are also NOT covered by Newton, yet seen and written about by others since then.
This is just a "sidetrack" for anyone interested. I'd like to hear comments on the Light/Dark bands, and how they follow the same pattern as "colors" from different perspectives through a prism.
This is very "chicken/egg" like. Does "darkness" and "lightness" come from specific superpositions of frequencies (colors), or does color come from the "infinite" gradation's of light and dark? (and translated by our eyes & brain)
Has anyone seen where two black and white photographs of the same scene, one with "far field" filters, and the other with "near field" filters, can be combined (overhead projector?) and a get FULL spectrum color picture? No tricks.
ciao,
T.Roc
I wanted to include a quote from Jal's last link (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/basisqft.pdf)
QUOTE
In Fourier space, the space-time lattice leads to finite domains for the values of energies and momenta (the Brillouin zones), so that all ultra-violet
divergences disappear. If we also wish to ensure the absence of infra-red divergences, we must replace the infinite volume of space and time by a finite box. This is often required if complications arise due to divergent contributions of soft virtual particles, typically photons. Nasty infra-red divergences occur in theories with confinement, to be discussed in section 11.
The instruments that we shall use for the ultra-violet divergences of a theory are as
follows. We assume that all freely adjustable physical constants of the theory, referred to as the ‘bare’ parameters, such as the ’bare’ mass and charge of a particle, should be carefully tuned to agree with observation, but the tuning process may depend critically on the mesh size a of the space-time lattice. Thus, while we vary a, we allow all bare parameters, ¸ say, in the theories to depend on a, often tending either to infinity or to zero as a >> 0.
divergences disappear. If we also wish to ensure the absence of infra-red divergences, we must replace the infinite volume of space and time by a finite box. This is often required if complications arise due to divergent contributions of soft virtual particles, typically photons. Nasty infra-red divergences occur in theories with confinement, to be discussed in section 11.
The instruments that we shall use for the ultra-violet divergences of a theory are as
follows. We assume that all freely adjustable physical constants of the theory, referred to as the ‘bare’ parameters, such as the ’bare’ mass and charge of a particle, should be carefully tuned to agree with observation, but the tuning process may depend critically on the mesh size a of the space-time lattice. Thus, while we vary a, we allow all bare parameters, ¸ say, in the theories to depend on a, often tending either to infinity or to zero as a >> 0.
I talked a little while ago about the "double quantization" that QM takes, and that it leads to infinite degrees of freedom, and infinite modes. The above quote gives another reason for the "octave" approach of single quantization, relevant to LL's last question about IR and UV.
You can see that QM "tunes the bare parameters carefully, to match observations", and that the space-time lattice "mesh size" is critical to the "tuning" process.
You may recall that I "tuned" my Resonance Matrix just one time (to adjust for the constant velocity of c), and then the "mesh size", which is quasi-exponential, creates an expanding space-time lattice. From this "tuning", all SM particles, Isotopes, and the visible spectrum are "accurately approximated", without any "adjustments".
Someone can help me remember, was it Paschen who "discovered" infra-red (in the H spectrum) by holding a thermometer to the "outside" of red light? I don't have it in front of me right now.
If IR and UV are separated by exactly an octave (f x 2), we would "see" the superposition of them as dark, yet have ~same amount of energy as the middle of the two, without the generation of heat. This mid-point is at the frequency of green light, yet it is NOT green light. The difference, I am suggesting, is in "counter-propagation". Green light is incoming, in terms of energy, and magenta is outgoing energy. This would allow the conservation, or balance of energy in the screen itself to occur.
This energy balance has not been missed by the plant world. Hold a clear container of chlorophyll up to (looking at) the light, and it is green. Turn around, so that the light is behind you, and (you guessed it) it appears "magenta-ish"
. Some of you may recall my link to the NASA video, where they did color experimenting, in the thin-film realm that gravity does not allow. The result of a mix of "several" primary colors, ended up green! This made the astronaut nervously (jokingly?) proclaim the discovery of "the color of the Universe". HO-HOLD on there Buck Rogers, did you get a camera angle from the "other frame of reference"? (they didn't) Too bad, because I still think it would have appeared magenta.
Anyone with the "standard" green glass shaded desk lamp can see magenta shadows cast by this light. These "colored shadows" are also NOT covered by Newton, yet seen and written about by others since then.
This is just a "sidetrack" for anyone interested. I'd like to hear comments on the Light/Dark bands, and how they follow the same pattern as "colors" from different perspectives through a prism.
This is very "chicken/egg" like. Does "darkness" and "lightness" come from specific superpositions of frequencies (colors), or does color come from the "infinite" gradation's of light and dark? (and translated by our eyes & brain)
Has anyone seen where two black and white photographs of the same scene, one with "far field" filters, and the other with "near field" filters, can be combined (overhead projector?) and a get FULL spectrum color picture? No tricks.
ciao,
T.Roc
LL,
I feel your pain, LL.
The problem is, all those links you gave are RENDITIONS of the phenomenon.
The links that I gave are PHOTOS of the real McCoy.
The prism IN MY HAND says something different than "someone's" theory, and neat animation. Which would you believe?
I think that EVERY student of Physics should own a prism, and a stringed instrument. 1 basic prism, cost: $4 ; 1 (used) guitar, cost: $60 ; First hand understanding of directly perceived phenomena : PRICELESS
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. For the SSE/DSE (again) FORGET the colors. Replace them with harmonic ratios of the Fundamental frequency, and THINK about "mirror symmetry" and "duality". What gets "clipped" by 1 side of the slit is the OPPOSITE of the other side. The "middle third" goes right through, the "side lobes" are "mixed" as you said. This is JUST the inverse of "division of the wave front" method. (w/ frequencies) Go back to Jal's link, where we discussed the "3 shades of red" (that were "painted" so nicely), and the exit angles this SLIGHTLY non-monochromatic wave exhibits.
QUOTE
Something isn't right about your color analysis of prisms....
I feel your pain, LL.
The problem is, all those links you gave are RENDITIONS of the phenomenon.
The links that I gave are PHOTOS of the real McCoy.
The prism IN MY HAND says something different than "someone's" theory, and neat animation. Which would you believe?
I think that EVERY student of Physics should own a prism, and a stringed instrument. 1 basic prism, cost: $4 ; 1 (used) guitar, cost: $60 ; First hand understanding of directly perceived phenomena : PRICELESS
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. For the SSE/DSE (again) FORGET the colors. Replace them with harmonic ratios of the Fundamental frequency, and THINK about "mirror symmetry" and "duality". What gets "clipped" by 1 side of the slit is the OPPOSITE of the other side. The "middle third" goes right through, the "side lobes" are "mixed" as you said. This is JUST the inverse of "division of the wave front" method. (w/ frequencies) Go back to Jal's link, where we discussed the "3 shades of red" (that were "painted" so nicely), and the exit angles this SLIGHTLY non-monochromatic wave exhibits.
Hi TRoc,
Are you saying there is no color "green"? What about green lasers?
Are you saying there is no color "green"? What about green lasers?
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Has anyone seen where two black and white photographs of the same scene, one with "far field" filters, and the other with "near field" filters, can be combined (overhead projector?) and a get FULL spectrum color picture? No tricks.
http://www.greatreality.com/PrimaryFrame.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-7/p43.html
Could you elaborate a little on this this is not just the stuff in the links above is it?
Cheers
http://www.greatreality.com/PrimaryFrame.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-7/p43.html
Could you elaborate a little on this this is not just the stuff in the links above is it?
Cheers
Hi All,
LL,
LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
There is no further mixing or wave interference past the mixing area of the slits. The
waves just spread out and overlap from the mixing point and get projected onto
the screen. How far the projection "spreads" is a function of distance from the
slits.
Looking at ..
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
the assumption about small angles ceased to be valid as the detector/screen gets closer to the slits .. this suggests the result is more than just a simple projection of something that has already happened.
--------------------
waves just spread out and overlap from the mixing point and get projected onto
the screen. How far the projection "spreads" is a function of distance from the
slits.
Looking at ..
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html
the assumption about small angles ceased to be valid as the detector/screen gets closer to the slits .. this suggests the result is more than just a simple projection of something that has already happened.
--------------------
QUOTE (TRoc+)
So, this "new energy" term, flux, falls to zero in the dark bands. But not the REAL energy, I say. The real energy term is conserved.
Looking at ..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
it looks like photons aren't counted in the dark bits .. it seems the little swines that should have been there have hopped over into the bright bits... probably not a popular move, but there it is.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Looking at ..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
it looks like photons aren't counted in the dark bits .. it seems the little swines that should have been there have hopped over into the bright bits... probably not a popular move, but there it is.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Day EVERYONE!
TRoc
We are going to have to follow you with the use of some common references and background information.
Here is some.... but pick the ones that you want.
http://acept.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/color.shtml
http://acept.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/composition.shtml
spectrum
The result of breaking up light into its various wavelengths. In the visual regime, we see this as a display of the 'rainbow' of colors. A prism is a good tool to use to see the spectrum of colors
spectrometer
An instrument which disperses white light and allows the user to distinguish and measure the wavelength or energy of the resulting colored light.
interference
The result of waves impinging on one another. Constructive interference occurs when the waves are nearly in phase, or when their 'peaks' combine; destructive interference occurs when the waves are nearly 90° out of phase, or when the 'peaks' cancel out the 'troughs' of the waves.
• Calibrate your spectrometer.
a) Use a ruler to draw a wavelength scale along the bottom right-hand side of the back of your spectrometer box (see diagram above). Make sure the spacings are equal.
Look at a fluorescent bulb (in the ceilings of most office/academic buildings) with your spectrometer. A line spectrum should appear on the right-hand side as you look through the grating: a bright green line superimposed on a fainter continuous spectrum. This bright green line is a mercury line at 546 nm. Mark this point on your wavelength scale, and label the rest of your scale, with the longer wavelengths (lower energy -- red) on the right side and shorter wavelengths (higher energy -- blue) on the left side. The bluest line you will see (indigo) is at a wavelength of about 400 nm, and the reddest line you will see (red) is at a wavelength of about 700 nm.
With your approach.... I assume that we will be putting another scale beside the ones in the picture.
Will we need the following picture to be able to follow your approach?
Jal
TRoc
We are going to have to follow you with the use of some common references and background information.
Here is some.... but pick the ones that you want.
http://acept.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/color.shtml
http://acept.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/composition.shtml
spectrum
The result of breaking up light into its various wavelengths. In the visual regime, we see this as a display of the 'rainbow' of colors. A prism is a good tool to use to see the spectrum of colors
spectrometer
An instrument which disperses white light and allows the user to distinguish and measure the wavelength or energy of the resulting colored light.
interference
The result of waves impinging on one another. Constructive interference occurs when the waves are nearly in phase, or when their 'peaks' combine; destructive interference occurs when the waves are nearly 90° out of phase, or when the 'peaks' cancel out the 'troughs' of the waves.
• Calibrate your spectrometer.
a) Use a ruler to draw a wavelength scale along the bottom right-hand side of the back of your spectrometer box (see diagram above). Make sure the spacings are equal.
Look at a fluorescent bulb (in the ceilings of most office/academic buildings) with your spectrometer. A line spectrum should appear on the right-hand side as you look through the grating: a bright green line superimposed on a fainter continuous spectrum. This bright green line is a mercury line at 546 nm. Mark this point on your wavelength scale, and label the rest of your scale, with the longer wavelengths (lower energy -- red) on the right side and shorter wavelengths (higher energy -- blue) on the left side. The bluest line you will see (indigo) is at a wavelength of about 400 nm, and the reddest line you will see (red) is at a wavelength of about 700 nm. With your approach.... I assume that we will be putting another scale beside the ones in the picture.
Will we need the following picture to be able to follow your approach?
Jal
TRoc and Jal,
ALL of the scientific reference literature shows green as a fundamental
color from prisms.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../specol.html#c1
Diffraction grating
Ever see a rainbow? I guarantee that there is green in it.
Rainbow Hyperpysics
Rainbow Wikipedia
Atomic Spectral Analysis
Spectral Analysis
LL
ALL of the scientific reference literature shows green as a fundamental
color from prisms.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../specol.html#c1
Diffraction grating
QUOTE
When light of a single wavelength , like the 632.8nm red light from a helium-neon laser at left, strikes a diffraction grating it is diffracted to each side in multiple orders. Orders 1 and 2 are shown to each side of the direct beam. Different wavelengths are diffracted at different angles, according to the grating relationship.
Ever see a rainbow? I guarantee that there is green in it.
Rainbow Hyperpysics
Rainbow Wikipedia
Atomic Spectral Analysis
Spectral Analysis
LL
Hi!
From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...meascon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../colspa.html#c1
We have 3 systems …The Munsell, Ostwald and The CIE system.
From my understanding TRoc is proposing a more basic approach. Another scale?
There is also temp involved in the colors (Blackbody Curve).
jal
From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...meascon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../colspa.html#c1
We have 3 systems …The Munsell, Ostwald and The CIE system.
From my understanding TRoc is proposing a more basic approach. Another scale?
There is also temp involved in the colors (Blackbody Curve).
jal
Hi C2-
Not at all. There is a reaction "mixing zone" just at the exit of the slit cavities.
The results of that mixing spreads and overlaps from that location.
Play with the distance cursor.
Interference DSE Applet
What is your analysis after playing with the applet? The math is still valid.
LL
QUOTE
the assumption about small angles ceased to be valid as the detector/screen gets closer to the slits .. this suggests the result is more than just a simple projection of something that has already happened.
Not at all. There is a reaction "mixing zone" just at the exit of the slit cavities.
The results of that mixing spreads and overlaps from that location.
Play with the distance cursor.
Interference DSE Applet
What is your analysis after playing with the applet? The math is still valid.
LL
Jal,
I can assure you that RGB color mixing is used on color CRT TV's to generate
colors. Same with a CRT color monitor. Rear projection TV's use 3 color
tubes R, G, B to project and mix all colors on the screen.
LL
I can assure you that RGB color mixing is used on color CRT TV's to generate
colors. Same with a CRT color monitor. Rear projection TV's use 3 color
tubes R, G, B to project and mix all colors on the screen.
LL
Laserlight!
My understanding is that TRoc's approach won't change that.
My understanding is that TRoc's approach won't change that.
Not at all. There is a reaction "mixing zone" just at the exit of the slit cavities.
The results of that mixing spreads and overlaps from that location.
That's a situation that I hope will be addressed by TRoc's approach.
The math has to stay valid.
Axiously waiting for TRoc
jal
QUOTE
I can assure you that RGB color mixing is used on color CRT TV's to generate
colors. Same with a CRT color monitor. Rear projection TV's use 3 color
tubes R, G, B to project and mix all colors on the screen.
colors. Same with a CRT color monitor. Rear projection TV's use 3 color
tubes R, G, B to project and mix all colors on the screen.
My understanding is that TRoc's approach won't change that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can assure you that RGB color mixing is used on color CRT TV's to generate colors. Same with a CRT color monitor. Rear projection TV's use 3 color tubes R, G, B to project and mix all colors on the screen. |
My understanding is that TRoc's approach won't change that.
Not at all. There is a reaction "mixing zone" just at the exit of the slit cavities.
The results of that mixing spreads and overlaps from that location.
That's a situation that I hope will be addressed by TRoc's approach.
The math has to stay valid.
Axiously waiting for TRoc
jal
Hi all,
WELL NOW! I think everyone needed a little break from the norm.
Let me say just a few things, that have been misinterpreted, before I try to put together another post.
First, green is my FAVORITE color, I am NOT trying to "kill it". I am not saying it doesn't exist, just that it is not primary, from ALL frames of reference. AE warned about going too far in theorizing from a "preferred frame".
Did everyone (who doesn't have their own prism) LOOK at the un-doctored, color photographs in THIS link? http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/ea/v7n19/encarte19.pdf
I have a hard time believing that, after seeing those photos, you would not understand what I'm saying.
The changing of the angle of diffraction REMOVES green from the rainbow (yes, LL, I've seen a few of those ). You are left with 2 pairs of colors, red/yellow, and cyan/violet. With THESE 4 colors, ALL known colors can be produced. This is not true of ANY of the existing schemes that you all now have links to.
LL, I think if you dig DEEP into the engineering literature of color monitors, TV, printers, copiers, etc., you will find that R-B-G is NOT the complete, easiest, and/or cheapest way to get the effect of "real life" images. M-Y-C does it (with a little black) cheaper, and better. I don't have any links for this, and my memory could be wrong.
This goes back to the FACT that it TAKES some "violet" to make "violet". Now, IF you "tweak" the R-G-B spectrum into R-B-V, that would do it. Again, since this is Science, I really DON"T like it when "they" (not you, THEY) say one thing, but mean another.
GE, yes! Thanks for the links. This was just a "side-note", about the superimposed B&W photos making "full color" prints. I did glean a TELLING statement there, that seems to KEEP coming up, when I search for things that are supposed to be FUNDAMENTAL to our TOWER of Science.
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
WOW!
WOW!
They are reminiscent of the written descriptions of J. C. Maxwell's first three-color images in 1861. The Muser's article on Maxwell's experiments explains that Maxwell did not have the materials necessary to accomplish what he thought he was doing in his experiments. Where Land's nineteen-fifties images didn't record any blue light, Maxwell's eighteen-sixties images couldn't have recorded any red or green light. Yet both obtained satisfactory color reproduction. It seems possible that their results will one day have a common explanation.
(emphasis added)
The other thing I need to make clear: the change in frames of reference of the observer.
The "standard" (Newton) prism experiment goes through this sequence:
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
and produces a "sturdy" (unchangeable), or fixed "rainbow".
My "twist" in the storyline goes this way:
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
and this produces a "changeable" rainbow, where you can eliminate green from the center. The PAIRS (dualistic representations of E and M components?) of colors that remain, maintain a "polar" relationship.
What this does is allow us to view the diffraction pattern, normally seen in black & white, in a "new light"; colored that is.
Finally, the diffraction grating. This is a MANY SLIT version of the DSE. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
(emphasis added)
The other thing I need to make clear: the change in frames of reference of the observer.
The "standard" (Newton) prism experiment goes through this sequence:
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
and produces a "sturdy" (unchangeable), or fixed "rainbow".
My "twist" in the storyline goes this way:
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
and this produces a "changeable" rainbow, where you can eliminate green from the center. The PAIRS (dualistic representations of E and M components?) of colors that remain, maintain a "polar" relationship.
What this does is allow us to view the diffraction pattern, normally seen in black & white, in a "new light"; colored that is.
Finally, the diffraction grating. This is a MANY SLIT version of the DSE. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
The condition for maximum intensity is the same as that for a double slit. However, angular separation of the maxima is generally much greater because the slit spacing is so small for a diffraction
yet,
Apparently, the laser had more than one frequency, because it was dispersed into FIVE different places on the screen. You could also say that it went to the CENTER, and 2 PAIRS of symmetric locations, or "side lobes". That way, you only have to account for THREE frequencies: the fundamental, @ 632.8nm , and two others, BOTH having some position symmetry, or steady RATIO of frequencies. The intensity also falls off away from center in this experiment.
Some experimental set ups DO NOT allow for a "changing of frame of reference", and some do. I am suggesting (just as in the photon/electron relationship) that we look at BOTH, and then COMBINE what we learned. What are the SIMILARITIES?
ciao,
T.Roc
WELL NOW! I think everyone needed a little break from the norm.
Let me say just a few things, that have been misinterpreted, before I try to put together another post.
First, green is my FAVORITE color, I am NOT trying to "kill it". I am not saying it doesn't exist, just that it is not primary, from ALL frames of reference. AE warned about going too far in theorizing from a "preferred frame".
Did everyone (who doesn't have their own prism) LOOK at the un-doctored, color photographs in THIS link? http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/ea/v7n19/encarte19.pdf
I have a hard time believing that, after seeing those photos, you would not understand what I'm saying.
The changing of the angle of diffraction REMOVES green from the rainbow (yes, LL, I've seen a few of those
). You are left with 2 pairs of colors, red/yellow, and cyan/violet. With THESE 4 colors, ALL known colors can be produced. This is not true of ANY of the existing schemes that you all now have links to.LL, I think if you dig DEEP into the engineering literature of color monitors, TV, printers, copiers, etc., you will find that R-B-G is NOT the complete, easiest, and/or cheapest way to get the effect of "real life" images. M-Y-C does it (with a little black) cheaper, and better. I don't have any links for this, and my memory could be wrong.
This goes back to the FACT that it TAKES some "violet" to make "violet". Now, IF you "tweak" the R-G-B spectrum into R-B-V, that would do it. Again, since this is Science, I really DON"T like it when "they" (not you, THEY) say one thing, but mean another.
GE, yes! Thanks for the links. This was just a "side-note", about the superimposed B&W photos making "full color" prints. I did glean a TELLING statement there, that seems to KEEP coming up, when I search for things that are supposed to be FUNDAMENTAL to our TOWER of Science.
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
QUOTE
But the interesting accident raised profound questions about the physics and physiology of color vision, and set Land off on extensive investigations of 2-color photography. He continued to record his images using only red and green light, but experimented widely with projection colors.
..
He was ultimately able to create full-color images with only light of 579 nanometers and 599 nanometers wavelength. We normally perceive those two specimens of light as being yellow, and almost identical in color, but two-color images viewed with those colors of light can produce the perception of reds, greens and blues.
..
He was ultimately able to create full-color images with only light of 579 nanometers and 599 nanometers wavelength. We normally perceive those two specimens of light as being yellow, and almost identical in color, but two-color images viewed with those colors of light can produce the perception of reds, greens and blues.
WOW!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the interesting accident raised profound questions about the physics and physiology of color vision, and set Land off on extensive investigations of 2-color photography. He continued to record his images using only red and green light, but experimented widely with projection colors. .. He was ultimately able to create full-color images with only light of 579 nanometers and 599 nanometers wavelength. We normally perceive those two specimens of light as being yellow, and almost identical in color, but two-color images viewed with those colors of light can produce the perception of reds, greens and blues. |
WOW!
They are reminiscent of the written descriptions of J. C. Maxwell's first three-color images in 1861. The Muser's article on Maxwell's experiments explains that Maxwell did not have the materials necessary to accomplish what he thought he was doing in his experiments. Where Land's nineteen-fifties images didn't record any blue light, Maxwell's eighteen-sixties images couldn't have recorded any red or green light. Yet both obtained satisfactory color reproduction. It seems possible that their results will one day have a common explanation.
QUOTE
In The Muser's opinion, the later work lacks the simple elegance of Land's earlier inquiries. It doesn't seem to adequately answer the questions raised in the fifties experiments. And it doesn't tie together the loose ends of the past two centuries of color vision investigations.
We still have more questions than answers.
We still have more questions than answers.
(emphasis added)
The other thing I need to make clear: the change in frames of reference of the observer.
The "standard" (Newton) prism experiment goes through this sequence:
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
and produces a "sturdy" (unchangeable), or fixed "rainbow".
My "twist" in the storyline goes this way:
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
and this produces a "changeable" rainbow, where you can eliminate green from the center. The PAIRS (dualistic representations of E and M components?) of colors that remain, maintain a "polar" relationship.
What this does is allow us to view the diffraction pattern, normally seen in black & white, in a "new light"; colored that is.
Finally, the diffraction grating. This is a MANY SLIT version of the DSE. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In The Muser's opinion, the later work lacks the simple elegance of Land's earlier inquiries. It doesn't seem to adequately answer the questions raised in the fifties experiments. And it doesn't tie together the loose ends of the past two centuries of color vision investigations. We still have more questions than answers. |
(emphasis added)
The other thing I need to make clear: the change in frames of reference of the observer.
The "standard" (Newton) prism experiment goes through this sequence:
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
and produces a "sturdy" (unchangeable), or fixed "rainbow".
My "twist" in the storyline goes this way:
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
and this produces a "changeable" rainbow, where you can eliminate green from the center. The PAIRS (dualistic representations of E and M components?) of colors that remain, maintain a "polar" relationship.
What this does is allow us to view the diffraction pattern, normally seen in black & white, in a "new light"; colored that is.
Finally, the diffraction grating. This is a MANY SLIT version of the DSE. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1
The condition for maximum intensity is the same as that for a double slit. However, angular separation of the maxima is generally much greater because the slit spacing is so small for a diffraction
yet,
QUOTE
When light of a single wavelength , like the 632.8nm red light from a helium-neon laser at left, strikes a diffraction grating it is diffracted to each side in multiple orders. Orders 1 and 2 are shown to each side of the direct beam. Different wavelengths are diffracted at different angles, according to the grating relationship.
Apparently, the laser had more than one frequency, because it was dispersed into FIVE different places on the screen. You could also say that it went to the CENTER, and 2 PAIRS of symmetric locations, or "side lobes". That way, you only have to account for THREE frequencies: the fundamental, @ 632.8nm , and two others, BOTH having some position symmetry, or steady RATIO of frequencies. The intensity also falls off away from center in this experiment.
Some experimental set ups DO NOT allow for a "changing of frame of reference", and some do. I am suggesting (just as in the photon/electron relationship) that we look at BOTH, and then COMBINE what we learned. What are the SIMILARITIES?
ciao,
T.Roc
TRoc,
I've worked on CRT TV's and rear projection TV's and their electronic schematics.
RGB is the standard. If you look closely at the pixels on your monitor (just
put a drop of water on the screen) you will see RGB pixels.
As for color inkjet printers Black, Cyan, magenta,
and yellow are the typical inkjet refills.
LL
I've worked on CRT TV's and rear projection TV's and their electronic schematics.
RGB is the standard. If you look closely at the pixels on your monitor (just
put a drop of water on the screen) you will see RGB pixels.
As for color inkjet printers Black, Cyan, magenta,
and yellow are the typical inkjet refills.
LL
Good Day!
As to where the action happens .... duh.... more than one place
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
In the range that we are now talking about, we mean electrons changing their energy level.
jal
As to where the action happens .... duh.... more than one place
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
In the range that we are now talking about, we mean electrons changing their energy level.
jal
Hi LL et al,
I think you are suggesting the slits are firing blanks in certain directions .. ?? We could be back to definition problems here.
Using the ripple tank appplet
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
Select Double Slit
Mouse=Edit Walls
Close up the slits that the applet gave you and open new ones towards each end of the wall (mousing on a wall makes it go away).
Hopefully you see the slits firing in all directions .. the interference 'appears' afterwards.
You see it?
Thoughts? Comments?
Best wishes,
-C2.
As a point of minor interest .. I think a chap called Ashfar claimed he could put bits of wire in the null zones and it made no difference .. I'm not sure it proved anything other than that he had a very steady hand .. anyway.. one can have fun putting walls down the destructive interference lines and wondering what (if anything) it all proves.
Edit.. if you try putting walls in the interference nulls .. it might be interesting to make some comment about standing waves -
I think you are suggesting the slits are firing blanks in certain directions .. ?? We could be back to definition problems here.
Using the ripple tank appplet
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
Select Double Slit
Mouse=Edit Walls
Close up the slits that the applet gave you and open new ones towards each end of the wall (mousing on a wall makes it go away).
Hopefully you see the slits firing in all directions .. the interference 'appears' afterwards.
You see it?
Thoughts? Comments?
Best wishes,
-C2.
As a point of minor interest .. I think a chap called Ashfar claimed he could put bits of wire in the null zones and it made no difference .. I'm not sure it proved anything other than that he had a very steady hand .. anyway.. one can have fun putting walls down the destructive interference lines and wondering what (if anything) it all proves.
Edit.. if you try putting walls in the interference nulls .. it might be interesting to make some comment about standing waves -
LL,
OK, thanks. I knew my memory was a little "fuzzy". I haven't worked on either TV's or printers, so I'll defer to your expertise.
Can you address HOW violet is produced on a TV?
Or, is there some problem with the real reproduction of that color.
I do have some expertise in WATCHING TV !
From my "full time Scientific mind", I have gathered that the RECEPTION clarity (what I IMAGINE to be "reception" problem) gets kicked in the arse when my TV tries to reproduce colors in the magenta to violet range. So, my "imagination" is probably wrong, and this is not a reception (signal) problem, and the common denominator is the problematic reproduction of higher energy colors than RGB allow for (easily, or within standards).
Is the "power drop" in apparent reception clarity caused by the energy conservation inside the TV, when energy is "borrowed" from the system to reproduce these higher energy colors?
T.Roc
OK, thanks. I knew my memory was a little "fuzzy". I haven't worked on either TV's or printers, so I'll defer to your expertise.
Can you address HOW violet is produced on a TV?
Or, is there some problem with the real reproduction of that color.
I do have some expertise in WATCHING TV !
From my "full time Scientific mind", I have gathered that the RECEPTION clarity (what I IMAGINE to be "reception" problem) gets kicked in the arse when my TV tries to reproduce colors in the magenta to violet range. So, my "imagination" is probably wrong, and this is not a reception (signal) problem, and the common denominator is the problematic reproduction of higher energy colors than RGB allow for (easily, or within standards).
Is the "power drop" in apparent reception clarity caused by the energy conservation inside the TV, when energy is "borrowed" from the system to reproduce these higher energy colors?
T.Roc
Jal,
Talking about the DSE, the mixing takes place at/near the slit cavities. The rest
of the observed result is due to reflection and detection. IMO, there is no
mixing taking place at the screen.
TRoc,
A shadow contains no energy. The dark bands also contain no energy from
the arriving photons, they are "shadows" where no photons are falling.
The lighted bands contain energy from arriving photons. The energy of the
photons as they leave the DSE "mixing zone" determines their trajectory and
where they hit the screen.
The phase angle of the incident photons determines how they are additively
mixed and their resultant flight path toward the screen. Notice that each
lighted band has a "range" (spread) of energy. IMO, this is the phase
angle variability (uncertainty) of exactly where, in the phase angle, the
E and B field amplitude is.
LL
Talking about the DSE, the mixing takes place at/near the slit cavities. The rest
of the observed result is due to reflection and detection. IMO, there is no
mixing taking place at the screen.
TRoc,
A shadow contains no energy. The dark bands also contain no energy from
the arriving photons, they are "shadows" where no photons are falling.
The lighted bands contain energy from arriving photons. The energy of the
photons as they leave the DSE "mixing zone" determines their trajectory and
where they hit the screen.
The phase angle of the incident photons determines how they are additively
mixed and their resultant flight path toward the screen. Notice that each
lighted band has a "range" (spread) of energy. IMO, this is the phase
angle variability (uncertainty) of exactly where, in the phase angle, the
E and B field amplitude is.
LL
Hi TRoc,
If you've got microsoft 'Paint' or any graphics program .. click on custom colour (or something similar and you can find the RGB content for violet. I'm colour blind so I can't help.
Best wishes,
-C2.
If you've got microsoft 'Paint' or any graphics program .. click on custom colour (or something similar and you can find the RGB content for violet. I'm colour blind so I can't help.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi TRoc,
What? See attached! Is your RGB monitor able to show these clearly?
LL
QUOTE
Is the "power drop" in apparent reception clarity caused by the energy conservation inside the TV, when energy is "borrowed" from the system to reproduce these higher energy colors?
What?
See attached! Is your RGB monitor able to show these clearly? LL
Hi all,
OK, perfect timing.
C2's statement:
QUOTE (TRoc)
So, this "new energy" term, flux, falls to zero in the dark bands. But not the REAL energy, I say. The real energy term is conserved.
Looking at ..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
it looks like photons aren't counted in the dark bits .. it seems the little swines that should have been there have hopped over into the bright bits... probably not a popular move, but there it is.
and LL's statement:
and LL's statement: The dark bands also contain no energy from
the arriving photons, they are "shadows" where no photons are falling.
We have found a difference in opinions, very good.
Some info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission
(emphasis added)
That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated.
(emphasis added)
That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated.
Nonradiative relaxations occur when the energy difference between the levels is very small, and these typically occur on a much faster time scale than radiative transitions.
Faster than our RADIATIVE measurements.
However, the EM field IS ALREADY QUANTIZED, in terms of "photons", and energy.
However, the EM field IS ALREADY QUANTIZED, in terms of "photons", and energy.
In quantum electrodynamics (or QED), the electromagnetic field has a ground state, the vacuum state, which can mix with the excited stationary states of the atom. As a result of this interaction, the "stationary state" of the atom is no longer a true eigenstate of the combined system of the atom plus electromagnetic field. In particular, the electron transition from the excited state to the electronic ground state mixes with the transition of the electromagnetic field from the ground state to an excited state, a field state with one photon in it.
This is the problem of "the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space, .. with one photon in it". This leads to the interpretation of "free energy" in the "zero point field". This is not the "whole picture", something is obviously wrong.
Before the FIRST act of quantization, the parameters are LIMITED. AFTER the SECOND quantization, they are INFINITE. I can not agree with this approach.
regards,
T.Roc
OK, perfect timing.
C2's statement:
QUOTE
QUOTE (TRoc)
So, this "new energy" term, flux, falls to zero in the dark bands. But not the REAL energy, I say. The real energy term is conserved.
Looking at ..
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif
it looks like photons aren't counted in the dark bits .. it seems the little swines that should have been there have hopped over into the bright bits... probably not a popular move, but there it is.
and LL's statement:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (TRoc) So, this "new energy" term, flux, falls to zero in the dark bands. But not the REAL energy, I say. The real energy term is conserved. Looking at .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif it looks like photons aren't counted in the dark bits .. it seems the little swines that should have been there have hopped over into the bright bits... probably not a popular move, but there it is. |
and LL's statement: The dark bands also contain no energy from
the arriving photons, they are "shadows" where no photons are falling.
We have found a difference in opinions, very good.
Some info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission
QUOTE
There are two different ways in which decay or relaxation can occur: radiative and nonradiative. In nonradiative relaxation, the energy is absorbed as phonons, more commonly known as heat. Nonradiative relaxation is nearly impossible to measure and cannot be inferred except in very small particles because the difference in the temperature before and after a relaxation is so small that it is in the noise of any measurement for practical systems.
(emphasis added)
That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are two different ways in which decay or relaxation can occur: radiative and nonradiative. In nonradiative relaxation, the energy is absorbed as phonons, more commonly known as heat. Nonradiative relaxation is nearly impossible to measure and cannot be inferred except in very small particles because the difference in the temperature before and after a relaxation is so small that it is in the noise of any measurement for practical systems. |
(emphasis added)
That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated.
Nonradiative relaxations occur when the energy difference between the levels is very small, and these typically occur on a much faster time scale than radiative transitions.
Faster than our RADIATIVE measurements.
QUOTE
Quantum mechanics explicitly prohibits spontaneous transitions. That is, using the machinery of ordinary first-quantized quantum mechanics, if one computes the probability of spontaneous transitions from one stationary state to another, one finds that it is zero. In order to explain spontaneous transitions, quantum mechanics must be extended to a second-quantized theory, wherein the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space. Such a theory is known as a quantum field theory; the quantum field theory of electrons and electromagnetic fields is known as quantum electrodynamics.
However, the EM field IS ALREADY QUANTIZED, in terms of "photons", and energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum mechanics explicitly prohibits spontaneous transitions. That is, using the machinery of ordinary first-quantized quantum mechanics, if one computes the probability of spontaneous transitions from one stationary state to another, one finds that it is zero. In order to explain spontaneous transitions, quantum mechanics must be extended to a second-quantized theory, wherein the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space. Such a theory is known as a quantum field theory; the quantum field theory of electrons and electromagnetic fields is known as quantum electrodynamics. |
However, the EM field IS ALREADY QUANTIZED, in terms of "photons", and energy.
In quantum electrodynamics (or QED), the electromagnetic field has a ground state, the vacuum state, which can mix with the excited stationary states of the atom. As a result of this interaction, the "stationary state" of the atom is no longer a true eigenstate of the combined system of the atom plus electromagnetic field. In particular, the electron transition from the excited state to the electronic ground state mixes with the transition of the electromagnetic field from the ground state to an excited state, a field state with one photon in it.
This is the problem of "the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space, .. with one photon in it". This leads to the interpretation of "free energy" in the "zero point field". This is not the "whole picture", something is obviously wrong.
QUOTE
Although there is only one electronic transition from the excited state to ground state, there are many ways in which the electromagnetic field may transition from ground state to a one-photon state. That is, the electromagnetic field has infinitely more degrees of freedom, corresponding to the directions in which the photon can move off in.
Before the FIRST act of quantization, the parameters are LIMITED. AFTER the SECOND quantization, they are INFINITE. I can not agree with this approach.
regards,
T.Roc
LL,
I just can't type fast enough to keep up with you !!
I think we may have had a "non-conversation"; I was just talking about my TELEVISION, not my monitor.
My TV picture has MAJOR problems reproducing certain frequencies, WHILE maintaining the same quality picture.
My computer monitor has an EXTRA power source (transformer?) in the cable itself. This was not the case about 10 years ago. I think I remember a similar "loss of quality" in the OLD computer monitors, but I could be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model
If the definitions of RGB are "tweaked" to include some violet (indigo, for instance), I have no problem with the effectiveness of RGB. However, AS STATED, RGB can NOT produce all colors MOST effectively.
T.Roc
I just can't type fast enough to keep up with you !!
I think we may have had a "non-conversation"; I was just talking about my TELEVISION, not my monitor.
My TV picture has MAJOR problems reproducing certain frequencies, WHILE maintaining the same quality picture.
My computer monitor has an EXTRA power source (transformer?) in the cable itself. This was not the case about 10 years ago. I think I remember a similar "loss of quality" in the OLD computer monitors, but I could be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model
QUOTE
The RGB color model itself does not define what is meant by ‘red’, ‘green’ and ‘blue’, and the results of mixing them are not exact unless the exact spectral make-up of the red, green and blue primaries are defined.
If the definitions of RGB are "tweaked" to include some violet (indigo, for instance), I have no problem with the effectiveness of RGB. However, AS STATED, RGB can NOT produce all colors MOST effectively.
T.Roc
TRoc,
I don't want you to get the impression that we are "out to get you" ,
it is just that we/I am questioning your line of logic as it pertains to the
DSE experimental results.
HHmmmm, If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the
beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general
location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy. (same with a laser)
HHmmmm, If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the
beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general
location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy. (same with a laser)
This is the problem of "the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space, .. with one photon in it". This leads to the interpretation of "free energy" in the "zero point field". This is not the "whole picture", something is obviously wrong.
Text QUOTE
Although there is only one electronic transition from the excited state to ground state, there are many ways in which the electromagnetic field may transition from ground state to a one-photon state. That is, the electromagnetic field has infinitely more degrees of freedom, corresponding to the directions in which the photon can move off in.
Before the FIRST act of quantization, the parameters are LIMITED. AFTER the SECOND quantization, they are INFINITE. I can not agree with this approach.
This relates perfectly to the PM on the atomic "lattice" that I sent to you last week.
Yes, the instantaneous position of the electron in its orbit is uncertain. Its
dipole relationship to the nucleus is in constant motion, so it can emit a photon
in any perpendicular direction to the dipole moment at the instant of energy
level transition to a lower level. IMO, surface photon emissions are the only ones
that couple to free space. In general, internally generated photons stimulate the atomic
matrix structure surrounding them, until they "migrate" to the "skin" of the
surface layer, where they couple to space in all directions and radiate away.
Even inside a laser, there are photons that escape thru the sides of the laser
media and are not part of the laser beam generated in the cavity between the
mirrors. There is not 100% energy coupling efficiency or lossless photon laser beam
generation. Much loss is thru heat and spurious random light leakage.
Time for that HDTV set that you've been eyeing???
LL
I don't want you to get the impression that we are "out to get you"
,it is just that we/I am questioning your line of logic as it pertains to the
DSE experimental results.
QUOTE
That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated.
HHmmmm, If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the
beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general
location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy. (same with a laser)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated. |
HHmmmm, If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the
beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general
location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy. (same with a laser)
This is the problem of "the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space, .. with one photon in it". This leads to the interpretation of "free energy" in the "zero point field". This is not the "whole picture", something is obviously wrong.
Text QUOTE
Although there is only one electronic transition from the excited state to ground state, there are many ways in which the electromagnetic field may transition from ground state to a one-photon state. That is, the electromagnetic field has infinitely more degrees of freedom, corresponding to the directions in which the photon can move off in.
Before the FIRST act of quantization, the parameters are LIMITED. AFTER the SECOND quantization, they are INFINITE. I can not agree with this approach.
This relates perfectly to the PM on the atomic "lattice" that I sent to you last week.
Yes, the instantaneous position of the electron in its orbit is uncertain. Its
dipole relationship to the nucleus is in constant motion, so it can emit a photon
in any perpendicular direction to the dipole moment at the instant of energy
level transition to a lower level. IMO, surface photon emissions are the only ones
that couple to free space. In general, internally generated photons stimulate the atomic
matrix structure surrounding them, until they "migrate" to the "skin" of the
surface layer, where they couple to space in all directions and radiate away.
Even inside a laser, there are photons that escape thru the sides of the laser
media and are not part of the laser beam generated in the cavity between the
mirrors. There is not 100% energy coupling efficiency or lossless photon laser beam
generation. Much loss is thru heat and spurious random light leakage.
QUOTE
My TV picture has MAJOR problems reproducing certain frequencies, WHILE maintaining the same quality picture.
Time for that HDTV set that you've been eyeing???
LL
Hi TRoc,
I think you might have found the key to Pandora's box that yquantum mentioned a while back .
If a photon were confined to a box it would it not have have modes .. resonances .. whatever you wish to call it. Could it be that the only single mode cavity is one with no walls? .. infinite? .. still the one quantization .. just ...
!
Best wishes,
-C2.
I think you might have found the key to Pandora's box that yquantum mentioned a while back
. If a photon were confined to a box it would it not have have modes .. resonances .. whatever you wish to call it. Could it be that the only single mode cavity is one with no walls? .. infinite? .. still the one quantization .. just ...
!Best wishes,
-C2.
C2
Ashfar experiment controversy.
TRoc is saying that there cannot be loss of energy. Makes sense.
Does all the energy show up at the "light" spots?
I don't think TRoc is saying that. Something needs to be explained.
Comments??
jal
Ashfar experiment controversy.
TRoc is saying that there cannot be loss of energy. Makes sense.
Does all the energy show up at the "light" spots?
I don't think TRoc is saying that. Something needs to be explained.
Comments??
jal
TRoc, jal, Laserlight, Confused2, all,
I have read and the more it seems to show signs of QM weirdness in replies. No insult intended so please do not become upset with me, OK?
Would this be a accurate statement without bringing in my background that would come across esoteric for sure.
Guys, for example, it turns out that there is a fundamental limit about how much you can know about a subatomic particle. A physicist named Heisenberg worked out the math of this, and discovered that the more you know about one aspect of a particle (say, its position in space) the less you can know about some other aspect (like its velocity).
The closer you look at something, the harder it is to pin down. This idea is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
So let's say you are looking at an electron.
It seems to all of you the closer you look at it, the fuzzier it gets; you have a harder and harder time knowing exactly where it is. It's almost as if the electron is in many places at the same time, and at any given time you can't be sure just where it is. For any given moment, there is a probability that the electron is in a certain place, but not a certainty. Mathematically, you can describe the position of the electron using what is called the "probability function".
When you talk/type about something this small how can anyone put it into classical terms.
Just a question that needs attention.
Duality/Lisa
I have read and the more it seems to show signs of QM weirdness in replies. No insult intended so please do not become upset with me, OK?
Would this be a accurate statement without bringing in my background that would come across esoteric for sure.
Guys, for example, it turns out that there is a fundamental limit about how much you can know about a subatomic particle. A physicist named Heisenberg worked out the math of this, and discovered that the more you know about one aspect of a particle (say, its position in space) the less you can know about some other aspect (like its velocity).
The closer you look at something, the harder it is to pin down. This idea is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
So let's say you are looking at an electron.
It seems to all of you the closer you look at it, the fuzzier it gets; you have a harder and harder time knowing exactly where it is. It's almost as if the electron is in many places at the same time, and at any given time you can't be sure just where it is. For any given moment, there is a probability that the electron is in a certain place, but not a certainty. Mathematically, you can describe the position of the electron using what is called the "probability function".
When you talk/type about something this small how can anyone put it into classical terms.
Just a question that needs attention.
Duality/Lisa
QUOTE (jal+)
Does all the energy show up at the "light" spots?
I have done a very tedious graphical count on the single photon experiment we've been looking at .. within the limits of my counting the total count of the interference pattern shows the same number of of photons counted as the sum of the two slits taken individually. I'm not sure TRoc is ready for that .. it means photons from one slit moved from where they were landing to the bright bits because the 'other' slit was opened. I'm not sure I was entirely ready for it myself.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I have done a very tedious graphical count on the single photon experiment we've been looking at .. within the limits of my counting the total count of the interference pattern shows the same number of of photons counted as the sum of the two slits taken individually. I'm not sure TRoc is ready for that .. it means photons from one slit moved from where they were landing to the bright bits because the 'other' slit was opened. I'm not sure I was entirely ready for it myself.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Confused2
We have been saying that the "dark spots" is because the high and the low of the wave have been cancelling each other out.
In mid flight?
No?
Then a mechanism is acting on the electrons in the "dark spots".
The high is supose to make the electron go to a different orbit and go back down and emit a photon.
Is the low of the wave stopping the electron from going to that higher orbit and releasing a photon?
Is the action happening at the surface with the electrons?
What happened to the energy?
jal
We have been saying that the "dark spots" is because the high and the low of the wave have been cancelling each other out.
In mid flight?
No?
Then a mechanism is acting on the electrons in the "dark spots".
The high is supose to make the electron go to a different orbit and go back down and emit a photon.
Is the low of the wave stopping the electron from going to that higher orbit and releasing a photon?
Is the action happening at the surface with the electrons?
What happened to the energy?
jal
A simple question.....well maybe not so simple...
If a single photon is represented by a single EM sine wave, which represents
the energy transition of the electron from a high energy level back to its
"ground" state. What is a constantly oscillating sine wave where the
electron is rising and falling periodically without interruption? Is it 1 photon or a
constant stream of individual but coherently phase connected photons, a ray?
2nd question, can this even occur?
I would say, no, it cannot occur. IMO, a ray is comprised of individual photon
EM fields that combine their discrete energy, in phase, and the result is an
amplitude increase.
In the regard that a single, self contained, photon of EM energy is discrete, it
can be considered a particle that propagates and reacts with matter as a wave.
In the presence of matter, EM fields can be combined/mixed.
LL
If a single photon is represented by a single EM sine wave, which represents
the energy transition of the electron from a high energy level back to its
"ground" state. What is a constantly oscillating sine wave where the
electron is rising and falling periodically without interruption? Is it 1 photon or a
constant stream of individual but coherently phase connected photons, a ray?
2nd question, can this even occur?
I would say, no, it cannot occur. IMO, a ray is comprised of individual photon
EM fields that combine their discrete energy, in phase, and the result is an
amplitude increase.
In the regard that a single, self contained, photon of EM energy is discrete, it
can be considered a particle that propagates and reacts with matter as a wave.
In the presence of matter, EM fields can be combined/mixed.
LL
Hi all,
I have found the "Y" in the path that momentarily separated us (on the RGB deal).
First, the color TV uses "electron beams". (matter~matter, not light~matter)
Second, it fires SIMULTANEOUSLY at Red and (dark) Blue to create Magenta.
So my statement can stand: it takes "some violet" to make violet.
No problems there. One of the "pairs" that I think are Primary, is the Cyan/Violet pair. Your "dark blue" is the superposition of them both.
One down.
Nest, to LL's flashlight question:
and
and
If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy
OK, let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
The DSE is light "split up", the flashlight example is NOT.
The answer to your DIRECT question is NO. I would not expect energy outside of the area lit up by the flashlight.
IF, however, you rephrase the question to MATCH the DSE, IE. you SPLIT the light with a "red" plastic filter, I WOULD expect some energy to be "in between" the bright spots on the wall.
This might be MUCH easier to grasp if we increase the frequency to, say x-ray energy levels. Now, we have no problem whatsoever realizing that there is energy reaching the screen that has passed through the "tooth" of the DSE, or more practically, your hand, which is commonly NOT transparent.
"Colored shadows" are a "clue" to some part of the nature of light, that we can not see, but is fundamental to the process.
regards,
T.Roc
Thanks guys,
I am going down to the basement and dig up some recent papers that are not slanted only towards the QM mindset, sure there must be some from another perspective that can add to this post.
Have my Starbucks and will return unless I fall asleep?
D/L
I have found the "Y" in the path that momentarily separated us (on the RGB deal).
First, the color TV uses "electron beams". (matter~matter, not light~matter)
Second, it fires SIMULTANEOUSLY at Red and (dark) Blue to create Magenta.
So my statement can stand: it takes "some violet" to make violet.
No problems there. One of the "pairs" that I think are Primary, is the Cyan/Violet pair. Your "dark blue" is the superposition of them both.
One down.
Nest, to LL's flashlight question:
QUOTE
..it is just that we/I am questioning your line of logic as it pertains to the DSE experimental results
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..it is just that we/I am questioning your line of logic as it pertains to the DSE experimental results |
and
If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy
OK, let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
The DSE is light "split up", the flashlight example is NOT.
The answer to your DIRECT question is NO. I would not expect energy outside of the area lit up by the flashlight.
IF, however, you rephrase the question to MATCH the DSE, IE. you SPLIT the light with a "red" plastic filter, I WOULD expect some energy to be "in between" the bright spots on the wall.
This might be MUCH easier to grasp if we increase the frequency to, say x-ray energy levels. Now, we have no problem whatsoever realizing that there is energy reaching the screen that has passed through the "tooth" of the DSE, or more practically, your hand, which is commonly NOT transparent.
"Colored shadows" are a "clue" to some part of the nature of light, that we can not see, but is fundamental to the process.
regards,
T.Roc
Guys,
This is not ego......well, maybe it is!
I believe the model that I have proposed for how the DSE operates is 98% correct.
I will leave some room for improvement...
I will reiterate it step by step.
1. The slits are geometric "energy cavities" that harmonically mix the incoming
EM phase angle "instantaneous" energy.
2. The energy of the arriving photons add energy to the cavity(ies), which resonates
and creates a "phase timing delay" to the energy of the photons. Oscillations
take time....thus the phase delay. This is the EM "signal" phase mixing area.
3. The instantaneous phase angle of the arriving photon(s) determines its "apparent"
energy at the point of entry into the cavity. That "apparent" energy component
varies according to the EM field amplitude, and phase relationship, upon entry into
the cavity. (TRoc called it "signal clipping", I think it is the right description)
4. The amount of energy added to the cavity(ies) by the arriving photon varies
the power of its harmonic oscillations, which affects its phase "delaying"
characteristics and the resultant energy added to the photon passing thru.
5. The fixed physical geometry of the cavities is reacting with the
variable energy geometry of the arriving photons, harmonically. This changes
their phasing and energy level and determines the trajectory of the photons as
they leave the confines of the slit cavities.
6. All harmonic mixing, phasing delays, and energy transfer takes place in the
cavities of the slits. The energy recombination and phasing delay, caused by the
cavities, determines the photon "projection" trajectories toward the screen.
7. If a photons EM field entered the slit cavity during the positive phase of its
EM field "rotation" it is projected to the right of the screen centerline. If the
photon entered during the "negative" phase of the EM field development it
is projected to the left of the screen centerline, when looking thru the slit
cavities toward the screen. (this may be reversed)
8. The amount of energy or rotational phase delay, contributed by the oscillating
harmonics introduced by the slit cavities, affects the photons momentum and its
angle of departure from the slits.
9. The instaneous "uncertainty" of the phase angle, as the photon enters the slit
cavity(ies), is what gives the bright bands their diffused area "spread". Notice that
they are never just a single clear smooth line, they appear as "diffused" lines.
Phase and timing uncertainty of the arriving photons is thus illustrated.
Comments, differences of opinion, clearer explanation, welcomed.
LL
This is not ego......well, maybe it is!
I believe the model that I have proposed for how the DSE operates is 98% correct.
I will leave some room for improvement...
I will reiterate it step by step.
1. The slits are geometric "energy cavities" that harmonically mix the incoming
EM phase angle "instantaneous" energy.
2. The energy of the arriving photons add energy to the cavity(ies), which resonates
and creates a "phase timing delay" to the energy of the photons. Oscillations
take time....thus the phase delay. This is the EM "signal" phase mixing area.
3. The instantaneous phase angle of the arriving photon(s) determines its "apparent"
energy at the point of entry into the cavity. That "apparent" energy component
varies according to the EM field amplitude, and phase relationship, upon entry into
the cavity. (TRoc called it "signal clipping", I think it is the right description)
4. The amount of energy added to the cavity(ies) by the arriving photon varies
the power of its harmonic oscillations, which affects its phase "delaying"
characteristics and the resultant energy added to the photon passing thru.
5. The fixed physical geometry of the cavities is reacting with the
variable energy geometry of the arriving photons, harmonically. This changes
their phasing and energy level and determines the trajectory of the photons as
they leave the confines of the slit cavities.
6. All harmonic mixing, phasing delays, and energy transfer takes place in the
cavities of the slits. The energy recombination and phasing delay, caused by the
cavities, determines the photon "projection" trajectories toward the screen.
7. If a photons EM field entered the slit cavity during the positive phase of its
EM field "rotation" it is projected to the right of the screen centerline. If the
photon entered during the "negative" phase of the EM field development it
is projected to the left of the screen centerline, when looking thru the slit
cavities toward the screen. (this may be reversed)
8. The amount of energy or rotational phase delay, contributed by the oscillating
harmonics introduced by the slit cavities, affects the photons momentum and its
angle of departure from the slits.
9. The instaneous "uncertainty" of the phase angle, as the photon enters the slit
cavity(ies), is what gives the bright bands their diffused area "spread". Notice that
they are never just a single clear smooth line, they appear as "diffused" lines.
Phase and timing uncertainty of the arriving photons is thus illustrated.
Comments, differences of opinion, clearer explanation, welcomed.
LL
Hi all,
To C2's last post:
Perfect! This is not a problem, and actually supports what I have said.
Somewhere back in this thread what a link that was from an experiment where the "lateral" movement of energy was looked at, rather than the perpendicular.
This is a form of conservation of energy, IMO.
SOMETHING pushes or pulls this energy present in the dark bands into the light bands. This is the "polarity" I am speaking of.
When you look at the "picture" of light cast through a slit, and onto a screen
go to this link, to see the diagrams:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-55/iss-7/c...ns/p43cap2.html
you get "# c" from above. Dark background, with a light "slit image" near the center.
This produces a very specific pattern of colors, when view directly through the prism.
When you ADD a SECOND slit, you put these "polarities" together. In affect, you RECOMBINE 2 magnets. You now have "one magnet", or one "phenomenon".
You set the stage for Violet and Red to be "next to each other", and you GET a dark band. Where the Yellow and Cyan come next to each other, you GET a light band.
This is a "directly observable" (albeit through a prism) EXPLANATION of the light and dark band pattern in the SSE, and DSE.
SSE = R-Y__C-V__R-Y__C-V__ R-Y__C-V
where the space between Y__C (__) = light, and
the space between V__R = dark
the slit provides the interaction zone, and the angles produce 3 images.
in the DSE, you just get more of the same, again, with intensity dropping off at the outside edges.
If you "BLOCK" one of these slits now, you REDUCE the space between these "fundamental color pairs" to this:
R-(Y-C)-V, or RGB which ALSO make "white" light.
Now you have JUST ONE "spot" on the wall.
I have done this experiment, and it works.
any better?
T.Roc
To C2's last post:
QUOTE
I have done a very tedious graphical count on the single photon experiment we've been looking at .. within the limits of my counting the total count of the interference pattern shows the same number of of photons counted as the sum of the two slits taken individually. I'm not sure TRoc is ready for that .. it means photons from one slit moved from where they were landing to the bright bits because the 'other' slit was opened. I'm not sure I was entirely ready for it myself.
Perfect! This is not a problem, and actually supports what I have said.
Somewhere back in this thread what a link that was from an experiment where the "lateral" movement of energy was looked at, rather than the perpendicular.
This is a form of conservation of energy, IMO.
SOMETHING pushes or pulls this energy present in the dark bands into the light bands. This is the "polarity" I am speaking of.
When you look at the "picture" of light cast through a slit, and onto a screen
go to this link, to see the diagrams:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-55/iss-7/c...ns/p43cap2.html
you get "# c" from above. Dark background, with a light "slit image" near the center.
This produces a very specific pattern of colors, when view directly through the prism.
When you ADD a SECOND slit, you put these "polarities" together. In affect, you RECOMBINE 2 magnets. You now have "one magnet", or one "phenomenon".
You set the stage for Violet and Red to be "next to each other", and you GET a dark band. Where the Yellow and Cyan come next to each other, you GET a light band.
This is a "directly observable" (albeit through a prism) EXPLANATION of the light and dark band pattern in the SSE, and DSE.
SSE = R-Y__C-V__R-Y__C-V__ R-Y__C-V
where the space between Y__C (__) = light, and
the space between V__R = dark
the slit provides the interaction zone, and the angles produce 3 images.
in the DSE, you just get more of the same, again, with intensity dropping off at the outside edges.
If you "BLOCK" one of these slits now, you REDUCE the space between these "fundamental color pairs" to this:
R-(Y-C)-V, or RGB which ALSO make "white" light.
Now you have JUST ONE "spot" on the wall.
I have done this experiment, and it works.
any better?
T.Roc
guys,
The last set of students have gone home for a long and deserved break.
I know I have not been able to be apart of this DSE & I will confess I see no solution but everyone amazes me more than I could express in your passion.
I am tried of trying to help Zephir on the other post I really wanted him to see there was good and bad in this ideas. I am done. (I think?)
May I have permission not to monitor your post but become apart of it. I must confess I have doubts due to many years of not indoctrination but of experience in this field.
How does it go, NEVER say NEVER! I am most likely younger than most of you but I do not want to come across as a know it all.
It is you call, if I am to late or you think I am just a young woman with nothing better to do, then your wrong it is just we are here till the snow accumulates to about four feet or so.
Duality/Lisa:rolleyes:
The last set of students have gone home for a long and deserved break.
I know I have not been able to be apart of this DSE & I will confess I see no solution but everyone amazes me more than I could express in your passion.
I am tried of trying to help Zephir on the other post I really wanted him to see there was good and bad in this ideas. I am done. (I think?)
May I have permission not to monitor your post but become apart of it. I must confess I have doubts due to many years of not indoctrination but of experience in this field.
How does it go, NEVER say NEVER! I am most likely younger than most of you but I do not want to come across as a know it all.
It is you call, if I am to late or you think I am just a young woman with nothing better to do, then your wrong it is just we are here till the snow accumulates to about four feet or so.
Duality/Lisa:rolleyes:
TRoc,
Sorry, I'm not buying it. It just doesn't fit the SSE or DSE results using
monochromatic laser light or single "green" photons. There is always an energy
pattern of bright bands. There is no energy in the dark areas, no black color
mixing, nada. It is a shadow area of non-energy. Think of the dead "nodes"
of standing waves. An ant can survive in a microwave if he is located in a
non-energy node, however, if he wanders into a bright zone........
.
.
.
.
ZAP!
Crispy ant!
LL
QUOTE
You set the stage for Violet and Red to be "next to each other", and you GET a dark band. Where the Yellow and Cyan come next to each other, you GET a light band.
This is a "directly observable" (albeit through a prism) EXPLANATION of the light and dark band pattern in the SSE, and DSE.
any better?
This is a "directly observable" (albeit through a prism) EXPLANATION of the light and dark band pattern in the SSE, and DSE.
any better?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. It just doesn't fit the SSE or DSE results using
monochromatic laser light or single "green" photons. There is always an energy
pattern of bright bands. There is no energy in the dark areas, no black color
mixing, nada. It is a shadow area of non-energy. Think of the dead "nodes"
of standing waves. An ant can survive in a microwave if he is located in a
non-energy node, however, if he wanders into a bright zone........
.
.
.
.
ZAP!
Crispy ant!
LL
Lisa,
Everyone can contribute. No one has a monopoly on ideas or discussion.
Jump right in there GIRL! We will be gentle!
LL
Everyone can contribute. No one has a monopoly on ideas or discussion.
Jump right in there GIRL! We will be gentle!
LL
duality!
You gave me enough to read for a couple of days.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/xml2html.cgi?section=em
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/Astro...ctrumPiano.html
for example
Piano
The visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum is represented by less than an octave of the keys; UV, IR, and microwaves are also indicated.
Your last post .... yea! I read the double slit too ... yep .... still weird
But I think that we are making progress.
Want to help us make music? A la TRoc or A la LL
jal
You gave me enough to read for a couple of days.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/xml2html.cgi?section=em
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/Astro...ctrumPiano.html
for example
Piano
The visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum is represented by less than an octave of the keys; UV, IR, and microwaves are also indicated.
Your last post .... yea! I read the double slit too ... yep .... still weird
But I think that we are making progress.
Want to help us make music? A la TRoc or A la LL
jal
LL,
Again, in the REAL DSE, we are using a laser, and the color NAMES I am using have no significance.
What I want you to do, is look at the light and dark pattern through a prism. This is from "white light", so you get "spectral colors".
THEN, we can extrapolate this pattern onto the frequency used in a real DSE. Then, we will get the SAME PATTERN, in the SAME RATIOS, but with a new set of frequencies.
Do you follow?
T.Roc
QUOTE
Sorry, I'm not buying it. It just doesn't fit the SSE or DSE results using
monochromatic laser light or single "green" photons.
monochromatic laser light or single "green" photons.
Again, in the REAL DSE, we are using a laser, and the color NAMES I am using have no significance.
What I want you to do, is look at the light and dark pattern through a prism. This is from "white light", so you get "spectral colors".
THEN, we can extrapolate this pattern onto the frequency used in a real DSE. Then, we will get the SAME PATTERN, in the SAME RATIOS, but with a new set of frequencies.
Do you follow?
T.Roc
Thanks guys,I am going down to the basement and dig up some recent papers that are not slanted only towards the QM mindset, sure there must be some from another perspective that can add to this post.
Have my Starbucks and will return unless I fall asleep?
D/L
TRoc,
Keep going. What you are proposing is interesting, but I'm not sure how
relevant it is to the DSE discussion. I just can't connect the dots, or the
bright lines.
Keep in mind the nature of the universe is a function of opposites. The
Ying-Yang duality of harmony. Consider it a binary relationship, 1 and 0.
LL
Keep going. What you are proposing is interesting, but I'm not sure how
relevant it is to the DSE discussion. I just can't connect the dots, or the
bright lines.
Keep in mind the nature of the universe is a function of opposites. The
Ying-Yang duality of harmony. Consider it a binary relationship, 1 and 0.
LL
TRoc, LL, jal, Confused2, yq - [stepping out of the box for a few], Good Elf, all,
Before I descend down into the archives I wanted to share this with you all.
The mathematical theory of quantum mechanics is now 75 years old and continues to describe a huge variety of empirical observations with great precision and without anomaly.
No controversies exist about its basic validity. On the other hand, no consensus has developed on how quantum mechanics should be interpreted metaphysically.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Niels Bohr in the 1930s and largely accepted as convention until recent years, says nothing about consciousness.
However, it left the door open to misinterpretation with its positivist insistence that only what is measured can have any meaning. As is often heard in physics classrooms, "the electron has no position until that position is measured."
Technically, this just means that we cannot include the electron's position in any theoretical equation until that position is measured. However, this unfortunate wording has led some to the logically fallacious inference that the electron does not exist as a real, localized particle until the performance of a conscious act of measurement.
Alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed over the last several decades so you guys are on the same journey.
The trouble is no one leaves much space for consciousness, however some open the door for further ideas and where they might come from, my suspicions is from the most unlikely places.
You never know, but use fundamental laws to support your ideas, or you will fall into the trap we all have one time or the other in our careers.
Duality/Lisa
Before I descend down into the archives I wanted to share this with you all.
The mathematical theory of quantum mechanics is now 75 years old and continues to describe a huge variety of empirical observations with great precision and without anomaly.
No controversies exist about its basic validity. On the other hand, no consensus has developed on how quantum mechanics should be interpreted metaphysically.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Niels Bohr in the 1930s and largely accepted as convention until recent years, says nothing about consciousness.
However, it left the door open to misinterpretation with its positivist insistence that only what is measured can have any meaning. As is often heard in physics classrooms, "the electron has no position until that position is measured."
Technically, this just means that we cannot include the electron's position in any theoretical equation until that position is measured. However, this unfortunate wording has led some to the logically fallacious inference that the electron does not exist as a real, localized particle until the performance of a conscious act of measurement.
Alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed over the last several decades so you guys are on the same journey.
The trouble is no one leaves much space for consciousness, however some open the door for further ideas and where they might come from, my suspicions is from the most unlikely places.
You never know, but use fundamental laws to support your ideas, or you will fall into the trap we all have one time or the other in our careers.
Duality/Lisa
D/L,
I've had this old box for over thirty years .. any help to get it open would be greatly appreciated..
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc, GE, jal, LL et al .. I can't make any progress without you .. it would be empty. I hope that is at least understandable.
I've had this old box for over thirty years .. any help to get it open would be greatly appreciated..
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc, GE, jal, LL et al .. I can't make any progress without you .. it would be empty. I hope that is at least understandable.
LL..with good nature you do not ask a second time for comments...
1. Energy cavities ..??? No storage properties previously known or described.. more detail please.
2. As 1.
3. See ripple tank (same mathematics) .. both slits are in phase
4. Harmonic oscillations .. same frequency as source? Delay .. energy ADDED .. ??
5. Randomisation .. ok.
6. 'Projection' .. sounds like both slits must cooperate or photons would just get lost completely ???
7. see 3.
8. see 3?
9. see 6.
The ball is returned.
Best wishes,
-C2.
1. Energy cavities ..??? No storage properties previously known or described.. more detail please.
2. As 1.
3. See ripple tank (same mathematics) .. both slits are in phase
4. Harmonic oscillations .. same frequency as source? Delay .. energy ADDED .. ??
5. Randomisation .. ok.
6. 'Projection' .. sounds like both slits must cooperate or photons would just get lost completely ???
7. see 3.
8. see 3?
9. see 6.
The ball is returned.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi all,
Ditto on you being totally welcome here, Lisa.
Don't ever take offense to any critique I make of the problems in QM.
In case you missed this statement before, I and everyone here, will all agree that the "correctness" of QM or S/GR can not be argued against.
Just some "refinements" to models and definitions. But we all agree that any "final answer" one of us may come up with MUST match the empirical data.
LL has inspired me for a "binary" explanation for what I am trying to say. That way, "colors" wont get in the way.
The last link, provided by Lisa, and commented on by Jal: the piano, and the octave of light. I have said before, and it's a good time to say again, that SEVEN parts, with EIGHT steps did NOT work good enough. Music was ALLOWED to progress into the "classical" era through discreet quantization. (rather ironic use of words)
12 parts works MUCH better, because of the symmetry it provides. Prior to the 12 root of 2 to define the steps, they were UNEQUAL. Very hard to work with.
12 parts gives a "top and bottom", that are NEUTRALS (green and magenta), and 5 parts for each side of the circle.
You can see the problem, even in the "out of the box" example of the piano, with 7 keys from RED to VIOLET. We all know that Red is NOT the "same" as Violet, and green is in the center of the visible spectrum. So, in that example, you see that green is NOT in the center. In terms of what we can see, UV and IR are the same: "dark". They are the full octave, and the 1:2 ratio.
So, for LL's binary explanation, let me set the parameters.
R__Y = 1,0
V__C = 1,0
When you have 1...1 (R__V) you get a dark band,
when you have 0...0 (C__V) you get a light band.
For the narrower slit
When you have 1,1 (R+V) you get magenta (however, this is impossible from the frame of reference of the screen)
when you have 0,0 (C+Y) you get green
So, 1,0,0,1 is the "normal" spectrum (R-G-V), and
0,1,1,0 is the inverse. (Y-M-C) The inverse only happens with multiple images on the screen, like this
1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 (light/dark/light/dark, etc) for BOTH SSE & DSE
When you block one slit in the DSE, you "squeeze" the pattern to this
1,0,0,1 which is an additive triad, and sums to white light
regards,
T.Roc
Ditto on you being totally welcome here, Lisa.
Don't ever take offense to any critique I make of the problems in QM.
In case you missed this statement before, I and everyone here, will all agree that the "correctness" of QM or S/GR can not be argued against.
Just some "refinements" to models and definitions. But we all agree that any "final answer" one of us may come up with MUST match the empirical data.
LL has inspired me for a "binary" explanation for what I am trying to say. That way, "colors" wont get in the way.
The last link, provided by Lisa, and commented on by Jal: the piano, and the octave of light. I have said before, and it's a good time to say again, that SEVEN parts, with EIGHT steps did NOT work good enough. Music was ALLOWED to progress into the "classical" era through discreet quantization. (rather ironic use of words)
12 parts works MUCH better, because of the symmetry it provides. Prior to the 12 root of 2 to define the steps, they were UNEQUAL. Very hard to work with.
12 parts gives a "top and bottom", that are NEUTRALS (green and magenta), and 5 parts for each side of the circle.
You can see the problem, even in the "out of the box" example of the piano, with 7 keys from RED to VIOLET. We all know that Red is NOT the "same" as Violet, and green is in the center of the visible spectrum. So, in that example, you see that green is NOT in the center. In terms of what we can see, UV and IR are the same: "dark". They are the full octave, and the 1:2 ratio.
So, for LL's binary explanation, let me set the parameters.
R__Y = 1,0
V__C = 1,0
When you have 1...1 (R__V) you get a dark band,
when you have 0...0 (C__V) you get a light band.
For the narrower slit
When you have 1,1 (R+V) you get magenta (however, this is impossible from the frame of reference of the screen)
when you have 0,0 (C+Y) you get green
So, 1,0,0,1 is the "normal" spectrum (R-G-V), and
0,1,1,0 is the inverse. (Y-M-C) The inverse only happens with multiple images on the screen, like this
1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 (light/dark/light/dark, etc) for BOTH SSE & DSE
When you block one slit in the DSE, you "squeeze" the pattern to this
1,0,0,1 which is an additive triad, and sums to white light
regards,
T.Roc
Everyone should love this paper, I think?
I am going to take a break now, but I think I found you something down at the bottom of the pile, you might enjoy reading this paper and it is free and updated.
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...nt-ph%2F0506199
Be careful not to jump into a false security, but YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
Bonus it is going to give both sides of the problem of measurement due to QM personality's.
Duality/Lisa
Must get some sleep, it has been a very busy day!
BTW, check into the GRW theory!
This you would have to pay for but you can at least read the abstract.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhDT........34L
I am going to take a break now, but I think I found you something down at the bottom of the pile, you might enjoy reading this paper and it is free and updated.
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...nt-ph%2F0506199
Be careful not to jump into a false security, but YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
Bonus it is going to give both sides of the problem of measurement due to QM personality's.
Duality/Lisa
Must get some sleep, it has been a very busy day!
BTW, check into the GRW theory!
This you would have to pay for but you can at least read the abstract.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhDT........34L
C2,
I am authoring the answers to your questions and will post them when
done.
LL
I am authoring the answers to your questions and will post them when
done.
LL
C2 and All,
Thanks for raising the questions about my DSE model. I will
endeavor to answer them clearly and simply.
1. Slits being energy cavities:
The geometry of the slits are cavities with an
atomic vibrational"energy signature" all of their own. All matter
"radiates" vibrational energy due to atomic movement of its
micro structure. This is its EM energy signature. This is
how we can visually discern different materials by how they reflect
light from their surface. Each material vibrates at a different
frequency and light reflects from each "surface" differently.
Since the slits have close order geometric surfaces (edges) they
are coupling their vibrating radiating energy EM fields into
the cavity area.
Typically, sharp edges, because they have a 270 degree exposure area,
are high density energy areas relative to a normal 180 degree
flat surface plane. (I know this from working with sub-micron
scale geometries in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.)
A thin wall then, has two each 270 degree exposure surfaces (=540 degrees
per corner) radiating energy into the immediate area of the cavity. That is
50% more exposure surface area that is radiating/vibrating energy
than would be coming from two 180 degree flat planar surfaces from
a single wall. Now consider that we have 4 sides (8 corners) to the slit, that is
around 200% more available vibrational energy than 2 flat wall
surfaces radiate for the same area density.
External energy entering each "energy cavity" increases/changes
the natural vibrating "ambient" energy of the cavities. I
think this is where TRoc's harmonics come into play. The
cavity "rings" with the addition of external energy above
its normal ambient level. This is where the instantaneous photon phase angle
adds its energy component, which is the instantaneous energy applied to
the "cavity". When photon energy comes into phase with atomic
vibrational energy, energy transfer/modification should occur.
1. Slits being energy cavities:
The geometry of the slits are cavities with an
atomic vibrational"energy signature" all of their own. All matter
"radiates" vibrational energy due to atomic movement of its
micro structure. This is its EM energy signature. This is
how we can visually discern different materials by how they reflect
light from their surface. Each material vibrates at a different
frequency and light reflects from each "surface" differently.
Since the slits have close order geometric surfaces (edges) they
are coupling their vibrating radiating energy EM fields into
the cavity area.
Typically, sharp edges, because they have a 270 degree exposure area,
are high density energy areas relative to a normal 180 degree
flat surface plane. (I know this from working with sub-micron
scale geometries in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.)
A thin wall then, has two each 270 degree exposure surfaces (=540 degrees
per corner) radiating energy into the immediate area of the cavity. That is
50% more exposure surface area that is radiating/vibrating energy
than would be coming from two 180 degree flat planar surfaces from
a single wall. Now consider that we have 4 sides (8 corners) to the slit, that is
around 200% more available vibrational energy than 2 flat wall
surfaces radiate for the same area density.
External energy entering each "energy cavity" increases/changes
the natural vibrating "ambient" energy of the cavities. I
think this is where TRoc's harmonics come into play. The
cavity "rings" with the addition of external energy above
its normal ambient level. This is where the instantaneous photon phase angle
adds its energy component, which is the instantaneous energy applied to
the "cavity". When photon energy comes into phase with atomic
vibrational energy, energy transfer/modification should occur.
2. As 1.
2. Oscillations of the cavities "resonating".
The EM fields of the arriving photons inductively couple to the fields of the
cavities, and resonance takes place. The intensity of the resonance
is directly proportional to the phase amplitude of the EM wave as it
enters the cavity fields. The instantaneous amplitude of the arriving
photon's EM field adds a specific amount of energy to the ambient
fields. This energy coupling is a electrical transformer on an atomic
scale. When energy harmonically couples between fields, there is a
phase timing delay. Photon EM energy is coupled to the energy
of the cavities and is then coupled/reflected back into the energy
of the passing photon, but its phase timing has been shifted, The
slight phase mismatch changes the energy of the photon's fields,
its momentum, and its trajectory.
Once clear of the slit EM fields, the photon's EM fields reestablish
symmetry and the photon travels on its new deviated trajectory path
to the screen.
3. Signal clipping of the photon's energy fields has to do with its
proximity to the sidewalls (and top and bottom) of the cavity and
its phase relationship at that instantaneous point in time.
Since the arriving photons can either travel down the center of
the cavity, or very close to any cavity wall, its waveform EM fields that
are in closest proximity to the nearest wall will be distorted by
the interaction of the fields of the cavity. This is where the biggest
influence on flight path deflection takes place, IMO.
Keep in mind that the EM waveform can be in the positive or negative 1/2
of the EM wave cycle. This is the "instantaneous uncertainty" of exactly
where, and at what energy point, the angular phase rotation the EM field
is at as it enters the cavity. Depending upon which 1/2 of the wave the
photon is in will determine which side of the screen "centerline" it will
deflect toward.
In all cases, the resultant screen waveform centerline splits the physical
center of the slit geometries.
IMO, this proves the phase matching aspect of the resonance of the cavities
with the rotational phase of the photons. There is balance/symmetry
on both sides of the resultant screen waveform.
As the phase delayed and distorted EM fields reestablish waveform symmetry,
upon departing the cavities, the photon continues along its new directional
path to the screen.
3. Signal clipping of the photon's energy fields has to do with its
proximity to the sidewalls (and top and bottom) of the cavity and
its phase relationship at that instantaneous point in time.
Since the arriving photons can either travel down the center of
the cavity, or very close to any cavity wall, its waveform EM fields that
are in closest proximity to the nearest wall will be distorted by
the interaction of the fields of the cavity. This is where the biggest
influence on flight path deflection takes place, IMO.
Keep in mind that the EM waveform can be in the positive or negative 1/2
of the EM wave cycle. This is the "instantaneous uncertainty" of exactly
where, and at what energy point, the angular phase rotation the EM field
is at as it enters the cavity. Depending upon which 1/2 of the wave the
photon is in will determine which side of the screen "centerline" it will
deflect toward.
In all cases, the resultant screen waveform centerline splits the physical
center of the slit geometries.
IMO, this proves the phase matching aspect of the resonance of the cavities
with the rotational phase of the photons. There is balance/symmetry
on both sides of the resultant screen waveform.
As the phase delayed and distorted EM fields reestablish waveform symmetry,
upon departing the cavities, the photon continues along its new directional
path to the screen.
4. Harmonic oscillations .. same frequency as source? Delay .. energy ADDED .. ??
4. Answered in 1 and 2 above.
5. Ok
5. Ok
6. 'Projection' .. sounds like both slits must cooperate or photons would just get lost completely ???
6. Each slit is its own harmonic vibrating cavity. There could be some energy
cross coupling to departing photons if they are within the vibrating
proximity of the EM fields. The physical symmetrical geometry of the slits,
plus the fixed geometry of the gap spacing, and the variable geometry of
the arriving photons comprise the relationship of the formula that you posted
previously. The formula works to describe the result of the geometrical
relationships.
7. See answer to item 3 above.
7. See answer to item 3 above.
8. see 3?
8. See answer in items 2 and 3 above.
9. See details about wave symmetry in 3 above.
Comments, discussion, disagreement, questions welcomed.
LL
Thanks for raising the questions about my DSE model. I will
endeavor to answer them clearly and simply.
QUOTE
1. Energy cavities ..??? No storage properties previously known or described.. more detail please.
1. Slits being energy cavities:
The geometry of the slits are cavities with an
atomic vibrational"energy signature" all of their own. All matter
"radiates" vibrational energy due to atomic movement of its
micro structure. This is its EM energy signature. This is
how we can visually discern different materials by how they reflect
light from their surface. Each material vibrates at a different
frequency and light reflects from each "surface" differently.
Since the slits have close order geometric surfaces (edges) they
are coupling their vibrating radiating energy EM fields into
the cavity area.
Typically, sharp edges, because they have a 270 degree exposure area,
are high density energy areas relative to a normal 180 degree
flat surface plane. (I know this from working with sub-micron
scale geometries in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.)
A thin wall then, has two each 270 degree exposure surfaces (=540 degrees
per corner) radiating energy into the immediate area of the cavity. That is
50% more exposure surface area that is radiating/vibrating energy
than would be coming from two 180 degree flat planar surfaces from
a single wall. Now consider that we have 4 sides (8 corners) to the slit, that is
around 200% more available vibrational energy than 2 flat wall
surfaces radiate for the same area density.
External energy entering each "energy cavity" increases/changes
the natural vibrating "ambient" energy of the cavities. I
think this is where TRoc's harmonics come into play. The
cavity "rings" with the addition of external energy above
its normal ambient level. This is where the instantaneous photon phase angle
adds its energy component, which is the instantaneous energy applied to
the "cavity". When photon energy comes into phase with atomic
vibrational energy, energy transfer/modification should occur.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Energy cavities ..??? No storage properties previously known or described.. more detail please. |
1. Slits being energy cavities:
The geometry of the slits are cavities with an
atomic vibrational"energy signature" all of their own. All matter
"radiates" vibrational energy due to atomic movement of its
micro structure. This is its EM energy signature. This is
how we can visually discern different materials by how they reflect
light from their surface. Each material vibrates at a different
frequency and light reflects from each "surface" differently.
Since the slits have close order geometric surfaces (edges) they
are coupling their vibrating radiating energy EM fields into
the cavity area.
Typically, sharp edges, because they have a 270 degree exposure area,
are high density energy areas relative to a normal 180 degree
flat surface plane. (I know this from working with sub-micron
scale geometries in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.)
A thin wall then, has two each 270 degree exposure surfaces (=540 degrees
per corner) radiating energy into the immediate area of the cavity. That is
50% more exposure surface area that is radiating/vibrating energy
than would be coming from two 180 degree flat planar surfaces from
a single wall. Now consider that we have 4 sides (8 corners) to the slit, that is
around 200% more available vibrational energy than 2 flat wall
surfaces radiate for the same area density.
External energy entering each "energy cavity" increases/changes
the natural vibrating "ambient" energy of the cavities. I
think this is where TRoc's harmonics come into play. The
cavity "rings" with the addition of external energy above
its normal ambient level. This is where the instantaneous photon phase angle
adds its energy component, which is the instantaneous energy applied to
the "cavity". When photon energy comes into phase with atomic
vibrational energy, energy transfer/modification should occur.
2. As 1.
2. Oscillations of the cavities "resonating".
The EM fields of the arriving photons inductively couple to the fields of the
cavities, and resonance takes place. The intensity of the resonance
is directly proportional to the phase amplitude of the EM wave as it
enters the cavity fields. The instantaneous amplitude of the arriving
photon's EM field adds a specific amount of energy to the ambient
fields. This energy coupling is a electrical transformer on an atomic
scale. When energy harmonically couples between fields, there is a
phase timing delay. Photon EM energy is coupled to the energy
of the cavities and is then coupled/reflected back into the energy
of the passing photon, but its phase timing has been shifted, The
slight phase mismatch changes the energy of the photon's fields,
its momentum, and its trajectory.
Once clear of the slit EM fields, the photon's EM fields reestablish
symmetry and the photon travels on its new deviated trajectory path
to the screen.
QUOTE
3. See ripple tank (same mathematics) .. both slits are in phase
3. Signal clipping of the photon's energy fields has to do with its
proximity to the sidewalls (and top and bottom) of the cavity and
its phase relationship at that instantaneous point in time.
Since the arriving photons can either travel down the center of
the cavity, or very close to any cavity wall, its waveform EM fields that
are in closest proximity to the nearest wall will be distorted by
the interaction of the fields of the cavity. This is where the biggest
influence on flight path deflection takes place, IMO.
Keep in mind that the EM waveform can be in the positive or negative 1/2
of the EM wave cycle. This is the "instantaneous uncertainty" of exactly
where, and at what energy point, the angular phase rotation the EM field
is at as it enters the cavity. Depending upon which 1/2 of the wave the
photon is in will determine which side of the screen "centerline" it will
deflect toward.
In all cases, the resultant screen waveform centerline splits the physical
center of the slit geometries.
IMO, this proves the phase matching aspect of the resonance of the cavities
with the rotational phase of the photons. There is balance/symmetry
on both sides of the resultant screen waveform.
As the phase delayed and distorted EM fields reestablish waveform symmetry,
upon departing the cavities, the photon continues along its new directional
path to the screen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. See ripple tank (same mathematics) .. both slits are in phase |
3. Signal clipping of the photon's energy fields has to do with its
proximity to the sidewalls (and top and bottom) of the cavity and
its phase relationship at that instantaneous point in time.
Since the arriving photons can either travel down the center of
the cavity, or very close to any cavity wall, its waveform EM fields that
are in closest proximity to the nearest wall will be distorted by
the interaction of the fields of the cavity. This is where the biggest
influence on flight path deflection takes place, IMO.
Keep in mind that the EM waveform can be in the positive or negative 1/2
of the EM wave cycle. This is the "instantaneous uncertainty" of exactly
where, and at what energy point, the angular phase rotation the EM field
is at as it enters the cavity. Depending upon which 1/2 of the wave the
photon is in will determine which side of the screen "centerline" it will
deflect toward.
In all cases, the resultant screen waveform centerline splits the physical
center of the slit geometries.
IMO, this proves the phase matching aspect of the resonance of the cavities
with the rotational phase of the photons. There is balance/symmetry
on both sides of the resultant screen waveform.
As the phase delayed and distorted EM fields reestablish waveform symmetry,
upon departing the cavities, the photon continues along its new directional
path to the screen.
4. Harmonic oscillations .. same frequency as source? Delay .. energy ADDED .. ??
4. Answered in 1 and 2 above.
QUOTE
5. Randomisation .. ok.
5. Ok
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. Randomisation .. ok. |
5. Ok
6. 'Projection' .. sounds like both slits must cooperate or photons would just get lost completely ???
6. Each slit is its own harmonic vibrating cavity. There could be some energy
cross coupling to departing photons if they are within the vibrating
proximity of the EM fields. The physical symmetrical geometry of the slits,
plus the fixed geometry of the gap spacing, and the variable geometry of
the arriving photons comprise the relationship of the formula that you posted
previously. The formula works to describe the result of the geometrical
relationships.
QUOTE
7. see 3.
7. See answer to item 3 above.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 7. see 3. |
7. See answer to item 3 above.
8. see 3?
8. See answer in items 2 and 3 above.
QUOTE
9. see 6.
9. See details about wave symmetry in 3 above.
Comments, discussion, disagreement, questions welcomed.
LL
Hi Duality, Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, Jal et al,
I have not left work yet so I would like to start the discussion but not finish it yet. I note with agreement that there is nothing wrong with Quantum Mechanics as far as it goes. What I think some of us want to say (at least me) is that it is a "three dimensions plus time" theory of quantum processes. It was never designed to describe higher dimensions... never ever and cannot proceed without a lot of revision beyond that "box" that is designed into it right from the start. The Universe that Quantum Mechanics has no limit to the space it exists inside and that is the source of a fundamental problem since we have identified that there is a real phenomena that is related to 'limited available dimensional space".
Now consider the dual slit experiment with the slit itself as a "source" as noted by Laserlight. There is absolutely no point in discussing "resonant cavities" near that slit when we are dealing with an almost ideal Einsteinian flatspace... Do you see that you are trying to use "higher dimensional" lingo while still trying to describe everything as if it was on the flat. Atoms cannot reside in real cavities, open space does not resonate as if in a cavity simply because it is not confined to a higher dimensional cavity unless space itself has higher dimensions. That is why Confused2's ripple tank continues to have "propagating or traveling" waves which are non-physical and can be shown to be that way with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.
You just cannot have standing waves in places where there are no cavities. This includes the dark space where we have placed the screen. Resonance and interferences leading to standing waves just cannot occur in the dimensional box of choice ... three dimensional flatspace plus time. There are no vast gravity fields here to distort spacetime into the requisite closed higher geometry. That is fantasy and you can forget it... this is not standard theory it is a "Quantum Theory" with all its attendant "postulates". Lets admit it... you have already made unsubstantiated postulates (like it or not) when Quantum Mechanics says "lets have stationary states". That is not physics it is a "cold assumption based on nothing more than a need to justify the analysis".
None of us can afford the luxury to be so slack in our analysis to mix our metaphors and use this "doublespeak". If you want to use the language of Spacetime and Quantum Physics you are forbidden to use higher dimensions (above 4) to describe these "cavities". I can show you the cavities so we have a paradox here. I have maintained from the start you need extra dimensions to adequately describe these "energy free dynamics" of non-exchange of energy while in the state. You may argue that you do not need those dimensions and use parameters but you then MUST explain "cavity" resonances and interferences without the cavities if you are to use physics as I have done.
Those are the rules. In Quantum Mechanics you just have to make a "postulate" that this is the cavity you are having when there are no cavities. There is no answer in Quantum Mechanics for this it is a simple postulate you must make to start this "ball rolling". what I am saying is once you have done that and accepted this improbable state and see everything on the flat, then you are disallowed to see any phenomena in any more dimensions. That is a BOTTOM LINE to all arguments. Quantum Mechanics is a "Ptolemaic System" where Mechanism is not known but the results are excellent as long as we continue to work on the flat. On the flat it is a Lagrangian System with ordinary dynamics and energy conservation. Quantum Physics breaks this rule by having "stationary states"... in fact it is one big sucker of a stationary state. Think about what a stationary state means... no energy exchange... then ask why!!!
What I say is unless you concede that the mechanism is "higher dimensions" then you cannot adequately work with this problem and not before. You are all having two cents either way and not able to accept that you must leave the box before you can account for any extra physics that must be outside the box. We have discussed this all before and talked about the inner products but then the water becomes muddied by discussing traveling waves mixing in space and so on. Standing waves on the other hand requires confinement in a "box"... a "dimensional box". That is what makes this thing "go". Schroedinger's Equation describes cavities or wells... where are your cavities or wells around atoms in almost perfect "flatspace". The answer is it is not flatspace but a higher dimensional space. Everything flows from there....
Even Zephir and the Loop Quantum Gravity People (as crazy as it is it can only work in a confined state... they do it with gravity... lots and lots of gravity and gravitons... warping spacetime and quantizing it at the same time) understand that you must have confinement to enable the Physics. There are one or two major problems with this and that is all.
I must leave to go home now but think about this and comment on it please... I respect all of your opinions but we need to be "flexible". I will come back to it later.
Cheers
I have not left work yet so I would like to start the discussion but not finish it yet. I note with agreement that there is nothing wrong with Quantum Mechanics as far as it goes. What I think some of us want to say (at least me) is that it is a "three dimensions plus time" theory of quantum processes. It was never designed to describe higher dimensions... never ever and cannot proceed without a lot of revision beyond that "box" that is designed into it right from the start. The Universe that Quantum Mechanics has no limit to the space it exists inside and that is the source of a fundamental problem since we have identified that there is a real phenomena that is related to 'limited available dimensional space".
Now consider the dual slit experiment with the slit itself as a "source" as noted by Laserlight. There is absolutely no point in discussing "resonant cavities" near that slit when we are dealing with an almost ideal Einsteinian flatspace... Do you see that you are trying to use "higher dimensional" lingo while still trying to describe everything as if it was on the flat. Atoms cannot reside in real cavities, open space does not resonate as if in a cavity simply because it is not confined to a higher dimensional cavity unless space itself has higher dimensions. That is why Confused2's ripple tank continues to have "propagating or traveling" waves which are non-physical and can be shown to be that way with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.
You just cannot have standing waves in places where there are no cavities. This includes the dark space where we have placed the screen. Resonance and interferences leading to standing waves just cannot occur in the dimensional box of choice ... three dimensional flatspace plus time. There are no vast gravity fields here to distort spacetime into the requisite closed higher geometry. That is fantasy and you can forget it... this is not standard theory it is a "Quantum Theory" with all its attendant "postulates". Lets admit it... you have already made unsubstantiated postulates (like it or not) when Quantum Mechanics says "lets have stationary states". That is not physics it is a "cold assumption based on nothing more than a need to justify the analysis".
None of us can afford the luxury to be so slack in our analysis to mix our metaphors and use this "doublespeak". If you want to use the language of Spacetime and Quantum Physics you are forbidden to use higher dimensions (above 4) to describe these "cavities". I can show you the cavities so we have a paradox here. I have maintained from the start you need extra dimensions to adequately describe these "energy free dynamics" of non-exchange of energy while in the state. You may argue that you do not need those dimensions and use parameters but you then MUST explain "cavity" resonances and interferences without the cavities if you are to use physics as I have done.
Those are the rules. In Quantum Mechanics you just have to make a "postulate" that this is the cavity you are having when there are no cavities. There is no answer in Quantum Mechanics for this it is a simple postulate you must make to start this "ball rolling". what I am saying is once you have done that and accepted this improbable state and see everything on the flat, then you are disallowed to see any phenomena in any more dimensions. That is a BOTTOM LINE to all arguments. Quantum Mechanics is a "Ptolemaic System" where Mechanism is not known but the results are excellent as long as we continue to work on the flat. On the flat it is a Lagrangian System with ordinary dynamics and energy conservation. Quantum Physics breaks this rule by having "stationary states"... in fact it is one big sucker of a stationary state. Think about what a stationary state means... no energy exchange... then ask why!!!
What I say is unless you concede that the mechanism is "higher dimensions" then you cannot adequately work with this problem and not before. You are all having two cents either way and not able to accept that you must leave the box before you can account for any extra physics that must be outside the box. We have discussed this all before and talked about the inner products but then the water becomes muddied by discussing traveling waves mixing in space and so on. Standing waves on the other hand requires confinement in a "box"... a "dimensional box". That is what makes this thing "go". Schroedinger's Equation describes cavities or wells... where are your cavities or wells around atoms in almost perfect "flatspace". The answer is it is not flatspace but a higher dimensional space. Everything flows from there....
Even Zephir and the Loop Quantum Gravity People (as crazy as it is
it can only work in a confined state... they do it with gravity... lots and lots of gravity and gravitons... warping spacetime and quantizing it at the same time) understand that you must have confinement to enable the Physics. There are one or two major problems with this and that is all.I must leave to go home now but think about this and comment on it please... I respect all of your opinions but we need to be "flexible". I will come back to it later.
Cheers
Hi GE,
It is past midnite here so I will comment briefly. I am not quite sure what you
are driving at when you say I'm using multi-dimensional descriptions and
applying them to our space time (flat space?). There is nothing metaphysical
in any physical description that I used in my explanation.
Do you agree that the slit "cavities" are basically miniature "waveguides",
when compared to the wavelength of light?
As "waveguides", which are nothing more than extended cavities, they have
inherent physical and geometric properties that affect the way that energy
acts within their "confines". True, they are not exactly "tuned" to the photon
wavelengths that pass thru them, but you must concede that they can
have dramatic influence on electro-magnetic fields due to proximity field effects.
Isn't this how diffraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering work. It is
energy interaction on an atomic scale.
Do you agree or disagree with the idea that matter vibrates/resonates at the
frequency of the dynamics operating at the atomic level?
Do you agree that 90 degree angled corners have a different natural energy
distribution than a flat surface because of the angle of exposure?
There is nothing extra-dimensional or metaphysical in these concepts, they are
well characterized natural phenomena existing in our space time.
That is basis of my explanation. I will be glad to debate you after some much
needed rest.
It is easier to respond to, and debate, direct questions. It takes far less energy
than trying to interpret veiled commentary with hidden innuendo.
I will read your commentary again, in the morning. Perhaps I will better
understand what you are trying to say then.
Regards,
LL
It is past midnite here so I will comment briefly. I am not quite sure what you
are driving at when you say I'm using multi-dimensional descriptions and
applying them to our space time (flat space?). There is nothing metaphysical
in any physical description that I used in my explanation.
QUOTE
You just cannot have standing waves in places where there are no cavities. This includes the dark space where we have placed the screen. Resonance and interferences leading to standing waves just cannot occur in the dimensional box of choice ... three dimensional flatspace plus time.
Do you agree that the slit "cavities" are basically miniature "waveguides",
when compared to the wavelength of light?
As "waveguides", which are nothing more than extended cavities, they have
inherent physical and geometric properties that affect the way that energy
acts within their "confines". True, they are not exactly "tuned" to the photon
wavelengths that pass thru them, but you must concede that they can
have dramatic influence on electro-magnetic fields due to proximity field effects.
Isn't this how diffraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering work. It is
energy interaction on an atomic scale.
Do you agree or disagree with the idea that matter vibrates/resonates at the
frequency of the dynamics operating at the atomic level?
Do you agree that 90 degree angled corners have a different natural energy
distribution than a flat surface because of the angle of exposure?
There is nothing extra-dimensional or metaphysical in these concepts, they are
well characterized natural phenomena existing in our space time.
That is basis of my explanation. I will be glad to debate you after some much
needed rest.
It is easier to respond to, and debate, direct questions. It takes far less energy
than trying to interpret veiled commentary with hidden innuendo.
I will read your commentary again, in the morning. Perhaps I will better
understand what you are trying to say then.
Regards,
LL
Hi LL et al,
The reason I keep posting the DSE equation is that we know this describes the result .. the explanation becomes (simply?) a matter of reverse engineering
I think a classical explanation would be along the lines of ..
1/Plane wave hits slits (see Maxwell EM wave for details)
2/ Huygens causes each slit to act as a new source with no phase change
3/ For interference pattern see ripple tank and/or DSE equation.
Comparing the above with LL's post here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156668
LL clarifies a point here http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156789
The EM fields of the arriving photons inductively couple to the fields of the cavities, and resonance takes place. The intensity of the resonance is directly proportional to the phase amplitude of the EM wave as it enters the cavity fields. The instantaneous amplitude of the arriving photon's EM field adds a specific amount of energy to the ambient fields. This energy coupling is a electrical transformer on an atomic scale. When energy harmonically couples between fields, there is a phase timing delay. Photon EM energy is coupled to the energy of the cavities and is then coupled/reflected back into the energy of the passing photon, but its phase timing has been shifted, The slight phase mismatch changes the energy of the photon's fields, its momentum, and its trajectory.
One (obvious?) point is that unless the phase of the 'wave' exiting the slit/cavity is shifted by 0,360,720.. degrees LL's explanation will fail. A challenge is to show that this condition is met .. or can somehow be evaded whilst still giving the same result.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The reason I keep posting the DSE equation is that we know this describes the result .. the explanation becomes (simply?) a matter of reverse engineering
I think a classical explanation would be along the lines of ..
1/Plane wave hits slits (see Maxwell EM wave for details)
2/ Huygens causes each slit to act as a new source with no phase change
3/ For interference pattern see ripple tank and/or DSE equation.
Comparing the above with LL's post here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156668
LL clarifies a point here http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=156789
QUOTE (LL+)
The EM fields of the arriving photons inductively couple to the fields of the cavities, and resonance takes place. The intensity of the resonance is directly proportional to the phase amplitude of the EM wave as it enters the cavity fields. The instantaneous amplitude of the arriving photon's EM field adds a specific amount of energy to the ambient fields. This energy coupling is a electrical transformer on an atomic scale. When energy harmonically couples between fields, there is a phase timing delay. Photon EM energy is coupled to the energy of the cavities and is then coupled/reflected back into the energy of the passing photon, but its phase timing has been shifted, The slight phase mismatch changes the energy of the photon's fields, its momentum, and its trajectory.
One (obvious?) point is that unless the phase of the 'wave' exiting the slit/cavity is shifted by 0,360,720.. degrees LL's explanation will fail. A challenge is to show that this condition is met .. or can somehow be evaded whilst still giving the same result.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi!
A quick comment ... got to run....
If we cannot measure it/see it .... do we call it a "hidden variable"?
My model uses a 2d surface. To describe what is happening do you need 12 dimensions?
Need to understand what is dimension in doing a proper description.
jal
A quick comment ... got to run....
If we cannot measure it/see it .... do we call it a "hidden variable"?
My model uses a 2d surface. To describe what is happening do you need 12 dimensions?
Need to understand what is dimension in doing a proper description.
jal
A while back D/L (last heard of heading for the archives) posted this applet
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
(Click automatic calculation)
See the funny sinewavey things. TRoc (I think) suggested we needed a bit of uncertainty to make the peaks a bit blurry. Could the funny sinewavey things BE the uncertainty principle in action? Just a thought.
Best wishes,
-C2.
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
(Click automatic calculation)
See the funny sinewavey things. TRoc (I think) suggested we needed a bit of uncertainty to make the peaks a bit blurry. Could the funny sinewavey things BE the uncertainty principle in action? Just a thought.
Best wishes,
-C2.
C2, Good Elf, TRoc, LL, "THEY", "2, et al,
This is a very simple explanation of why we have to deal with such a large problematic issues as in measurement dealing with the DSE.
The UCP/T, entanglement, etc., is something we will need to live with until our experiment's/technology improves.
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Lisa, did you fall into a snow bank.
ciao_
yquantum
BTW, Merry Christmas if it applies or just Happy Holidays if not. I hope to have a great Christmas and hope you do as well.
This is a very simple explanation of why we have to deal with such a large problematic issues as in measurement dealing with the DSE.
The UCP/T, entanglement, etc., is something we will need to live with until our experiment's/technology improves.
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Lisa, did you fall into a snow bank.
ciao_
yquantum
BTW, Merry Christmas if it applies or just Happy Holidays if not. I hope to have a great Christmas and hope you do as well.
Hi C2,
I think you need to consider that a photon can be at any phase angle as
it enters and exits the slit "cavity". Remember that the mapped energy
of the EM fields is a sine wave. A photon can enter/exit the cavity at any
point of the 360 degree "circle" (any phase) of the sine wave. That means it can
arrive or depart during the positive part of the wave or the negative part of the
sine wave, but is "phase shifted" from its original entry phase angle due to the
energy coupling delays mentioned in the conceptual mechanics of the process.
Notice that a single slit prescribes a 360 degree phase circle on the screen evenly
split down the waveforms centerline. The width of the slit determines the
amount of diffraction (phase shifiting/delay). A narrower slit phase shifts (delays)
part of the wave more than a wide slit, and wave "scattering" occurs as viewed on the
screen. A wider slit has less phase shifting (more unshifted energy gets thru
without a delay) and a narrower wave pulse is projected, centered on the screen.
The dual slit experiment prescribes 2x the set of possible solutions. 1/2 of the
solutions always fall on 1 side of the screen centerline, or the other, according
to which 1/2 of the phase that they are in. There is always equal balance of
solutions on each 1/2 of the screen centerline.
Remember, the photon's EM field is still "rotating" as it propagates thru the cavity.
The frequency of the wave's rotation, and the physical "length" of the cavity, will
determine at which point in the rotational cycle that the delayed (phase shifted)
EM energy is added to the propagating wave function. This is the induced
phase delay, of the EM energy, by the cavity's electrically coupled harmonic
"transformer".
The induced harmonic signal timing delays, from the out of phase wavefunction,
that is created by the cavity, is either constructively or destructively added to the
propagating EM wave as it continues its angular rotation thru the geometry of the
cavity. This is the signal mixing point where phase addition or cancellation takes
place, IMO.
I can conceptually visualize the process in my mind, but trying to accurately
describe the "mechanics" is difficult to put into words so that others can also
visualize how it functions. Case in point. How do you describe the concept of
the color "red" to a blind man? It is very difficult, if not impossible. LOL!
I wish I could show it as a movie, then it would be clearly shown and readily
obvious.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
One (obvious?) point is that unless the phase of the 'wave' exiting the slit/cavity is shifted by 0,360,720.. degrees LL's explanation will fail. A challenge is to show that this condition is met .. or can somehow be evaded whilst still giving the same result.
I think you need to consider that a photon can be at any phase angle as
it enters and exits the slit "cavity". Remember that the mapped energy
of the EM fields is a sine wave. A photon can enter/exit the cavity at any
point of the 360 degree "circle" (any phase) of the sine wave. That means it can
arrive or depart during the positive part of the wave or the negative part of the
sine wave, but is "phase shifted" from its original entry phase angle due to the
energy coupling delays mentioned in the conceptual mechanics of the process.
Notice that a single slit prescribes a 360 degree phase circle on the screen evenly
split down the waveforms centerline. The width of the slit determines the
amount of diffraction (phase shifiting/delay). A narrower slit phase shifts (delays)
part of the wave more than a wide slit, and wave "scattering" occurs as viewed on the
screen. A wider slit has less phase shifting (more unshifted energy gets thru
without a delay) and a narrower wave pulse is projected, centered on the screen.
The dual slit experiment prescribes 2x the set of possible solutions. 1/2 of the
solutions always fall on 1 side of the screen centerline, or the other, according
to which 1/2 of the phase that they are in. There is always equal balance of
solutions on each 1/2 of the screen centerline.
Remember, the photon's EM field is still "rotating" as it propagates thru the cavity.
The frequency of the wave's rotation, and the physical "length" of the cavity, will
determine at which point in the rotational cycle that the delayed (phase shifted)
EM energy is added to the propagating wave function. This is the induced
phase delay, of the EM energy, by the cavity's electrically coupled harmonic
"transformer".
The induced harmonic signal timing delays, from the out of phase wavefunction,
that is created by the cavity, is either constructively or destructively added to the
propagating EM wave as it continues its angular rotation thru the geometry of the
cavity. This is the signal mixing point where phase addition or cancellation takes
place, IMO.
I can conceptually visualize the process in my mind, but trying to accurately
describe the "mechanics" is difficult to put into words so that others can also
visualize how it functions. Case in point. How do you describe the concept of
the color "red" to a blind man? It is very difficult, if not impossible. LOL!
I wish I could show it as a movie, then it would be clearly shown and readily
obvious.
Regards,
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Do you agree that the slit "cavities" are basically miniature "waveguides",
when compared to the wavelength of light?
when compared to the wavelength of light?
Agreed... But what about atoms? These can be "solutions" of Schrodinger's Equation for a potential well.
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
There is nothing extra-dimensional or metaphysical in these concepts, they are well characterized natural phenomena existing in our space time.
I never said there was anything "metaphysical" about atomic cavities. I think they would be standard science. But there is something already "metaphysical" in the "stationary states" which you have already accepted. You must admit that is a tad "spooky" don't you agree?
What I really disagree with is these cavities are in place because of permanent static charges on the atomic particles and have some other reason in free and open space. Two separate systems do you agree, when I would be expecting one and the same phenomena? One standing wave system appears to be the result of electrons and protons in space and the other occurs in the vacuum between the stars. In the charges explanation for these "cavities" theoretically (classically) they would simply continuously radiate energy away and the electrons would spiral into the nucleus if that is all they were. It just does not happen. Atoms would not be able to trap single photons either. I am focusing on the photons that are not "scattered" to lower frequencies by passing through the slots and being dephased. The ones I am interested in are the ones that continue on in the pristine quantum state. These are the ones that are part of the interference pattern on the screen. The others are not the "signal" but the "noise".
What I am attempting to convey is the "optics" of the propagation of the photon in time against the background of "cavities"... standing patterns in the space. For this one photon ... one at a time that remains in this quantum state, this pattern is fixed if the source and the sinks are static and the photon which may be spreading but retaining its temporal extension on the wavefront is internally "dynamically" inert due to time dilation. From the point of view of Special or General Relativity this space is very flat indeed so what actually exists between those "edges" and the screen. If we were to plot it like Confused2 would like to you will find the spatial volume filled with nodes and anti-nodes very much like this.
In the nodes the photon cannot be detected at any time for the many of the photons that pass through them. Dephased photons might pass these points but that is another story. At the anti-nodes a photon may be located if a detector was placed there. Now do each of these points represent an instantaneous flux of equivalent energy or do the photons by-pass these regions altogether. Another option is the photons are not actually there at all. They are in a separate space to the "obstructions". They can even pass around these obstructions in higher dimensions if the obstruction is less than 1/2 a wavelength and in some cases even more.
Answering my own question the "particles" of light in "cavities" have one explanation, that is a resonance with the primal uncharged photons moving in "cavities". In the case of atoms ... atomic cavities not electrostatic charges in standing waves at all but EM waves in space. In the frame of the circulating "particles of light" there is no charge at all, there are no permanent sources of charge. In the case of pure propagation, waves of EM stressors. Sure we see charges but this is a topological effect seen in our "non-inertial" frame of reference where we see acceleration on the "charges". Charge is not the primary reason for the "stationary state". This is...
In "free space" there are no charges to create this phenomena yet "stationary states" are there as well. It seems reasonable to say that all explanations for "stationary states" is a continuum from this Schrodinger Solution seen above on large cavities (up to the size of the Universe) to a similar Schrodinger Solution (for the same reasons) within the cavities of "tiny" atoms. In the end ... no such things as "permanent charge" only photons propagating in "vacuoles".
Cheers
What I really disagree with is these cavities are in place because of permanent static charges on the atomic particles and have some other reason in free and open space. Two separate systems do you agree, when I would be expecting one and the same phenomena? One standing wave system appears to be the result of electrons and protons in space and the other occurs in the vacuum between the stars. In the charges explanation for these "cavities" theoretically (classically) they would simply continuously radiate energy away and the electrons would spiral into the nucleus if that is all they were. It just does not happen. Atoms would not be able to trap single photons either. I am focusing on the photons that are not "scattered" to lower frequencies by passing through the slots and being dephased. The ones I am interested in are the ones that continue on in the pristine quantum state. These are the ones that are part of the interference pattern on the screen. The others are not the "signal" but the "noise".
What I am attempting to convey is the "optics" of the propagation of the photon in time against the background of "cavities"... standing patterns in the space. For this one photon ... one at a time that remains in this quantum state, this pattern is fixed if the source and the sinks are static and the photon which may be spreading but retaining its temporal extension on the wavefront is internally "dynamically" inert due to time dilation. From the point of view of Special or General Relativity this space is very flat indeed so what actually exists between those "edges" and the screen. If we were to plot it like Confused2 would like to you will find the spatial volume filled with nodes and anti-nodes very much like this.
In the nodes the photon cannot be detected at any time for the many of the photons that pass through them. Dephased photons might pass these points but that is another story. At the anti-nodes a photon may be located if a detector was placed there. Now do each of these points represent an instantaneous flux of equivalent energy or do the photons by-pass these regions altogether. Another option is the photons are not actually there at all. They are in a separate space to the "obstructions". They can even pass around these obstructions in higher dimensions if the obstruction is less than 1/2 a wavelength and in some cases even more.
Answering my own question the "particles" of light in "cavities" have one explanation, that is a resonance with the primal uncharged photons moving in "cavities". In the case of atoms ... atomic cavities not electrostatic charges in standing waves at all but EM waves in space. In the frame of the circulating "particles of light" there is no charge at all, there are no permanent sources of charge. In the case of pure propagation, waves of EM stressors. Sure we see charges but this is a topological effect seen in our "non-inertial" frame of reference where we see acceleration on the "charges". Charge is not the primary reason for the "stationary state". This is...
In "free space" there are no charges to create this phenomena yet "stationary states" are there as well. It seems reasonable to say that all explanations for "stationary states" is a continuum from this Schrodinger Solution seen above on large cavities (up to the size of the Universe) to a similar Schrodinger Solution (for the same reasons) within the cavities of "tiny" atoms. In the end ... no such things as "permanent charge" only photons propagating in "vacuoles".
Cheers
C2,
IMO, the uncertainty is the phase angle relationship of the rotating EM field.
It will be a different value for every photon that enters the cavities of the slits.
The geometry of the slits is constant. The screen is constant. All physical
geometries are constant. The only variable is the rotational phase angle of the
propagating EM wave energy.
The relationship of geometries can be measured and mathematically computed.
The geometry of the wavefunction varies with time. It is the variable, the
"uncertainty".
LL
QUOTE
See the funny sinewavey things. TRoc (I think) suggested we needed a bit of uncertainty to make the peaks a bit blurry. Could the funny sinewavey things BE the uncertainty principle in action? Just a thought.
IMO, the uncertainty is the phase angle relationship of the rotating EM field.
It will be a different value for every photon that enters the cavities of the slits.
The geometry of the slits is constant. The screen is constant. All physical
geometries are constant. The only variable is the rotational phase angle of the
propagating EM wave energy.
The relationship of geometries can be measured and mathematically computed.
The geometry of the wavefunction varies with time. It is the variable, the
"uncertainty".
LL
Hi GE,
I'm rested and ready to continue the discussion/debate.
I think it is spooky because no one has described a conceptual model, which
is what I am attempting to do. If you can understand why something occurs the
spookiness goes away, but then the arguments begin.
I think it is spooky because no one has described a conceptual model, which
is what I am attempting to do. If you can understand why something occurs the
spookiness goes away, but then the arguments begin.
What I really disagree with is these cavities are in place because of permanent static charges on the atomic particles and have some other reason in free and open space. Two separate systems do you agree, when I would be expecting one and the same phenomena? One standing wave system appears to be the result of electrons and protons in space and the other occurs in the vacuum between the stars.
Are they really permanent static charges or are they better described as
dynamic localized energy fields? Atomic "motion" varies in time to maintain
a quasi-balanced energy association between atoms. Each atom vibrates in
tandem with its neighbors, they must have some phase relationship.
Call it atomic "harmony". A bit beyond my depth, but I think I understand the
basic mechanism.
I think standing waves are a function of the macro environment that they are
operating in. Perhaps it is only a matter of scale or geometry. An angle of
30 degrees is the same whether the physical geometry is atomic scale or
galactic scale. So why can't standing waves of energy exhibit similar properties?
I think we need to consider how the wave propagates as its EM fields "oscillate"
in their sinusoidal phase rotation. Consider a beam of laser light projected onto
the screen without having passed thru the slits. The waveform is perfectly
reproduced on the screen. If we could visualize the exact point of wavefunction
"collapse" it should fall equally on both sides of the waveform centerline, according
to what phase angle polarity the collapsing wave was in at the time of collapse.
In other words, was the wavefunction in the positive 1/2 of its polarity or the
negative 1/2 of its polarity as it collapsed? I don't think it is possible for the
wavefunction to collapse all on one side of the centerline of the wavefunction, since
there is a timing delay offset associated with each arriving wave. JMHO.
I think we need to consider how the wave propagates as its EM fields "oscillate"
in their sinusoidal phase rotation. Consider a beam of laser light projected onto
the screen without having passed thru the slits. The waveform is perfectly
reproduced on the screen. If we could visualize the exact point of wavefunction
"collapse" it should fall equally on both sides of the waveform centerline, according
to what phase angle polarity the collapsing wave was in at the time of collapse.
In other words, was the wavefunction in the positive 1/2 of its polarity or the
negative 1/2 of its polarity as it collapsed? I don't think it is possible for the
wavefunction to collapse all on one side of the centerline of the wavefunction, since
there is a timing delay offset associated with each arriving wave. JMHO.
In "free space" there are no charges to create this phenomena yet "stationary states" are there as well.
Remember my "belief" that higher forms of energy propagate along the
boundaries of lower forms of energy. Perhaps this is an extra dimension that you
are professing. Maybe we are not in total theoretical conflict. I think we both
agree that the "vacuum" of any space indeed has background energy "fluxing"
thru it, and higher energy levels propagate along these lower energy levels,
though the correct conceptual mechanism is yet to be formalized.
LL
Not completely sure what you mean unless you are referring to interference or decoherence?
Maybe these sites will help you decide?
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/research/qo...oms-and-photons
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmec...res/node20.html
Let me know then we can proceed, Laserlight.
Lisa
I'm rested and ready to continue the discussion/debate.
QUOTE
I never said there was anything "metaphysical" about atomic cavities. I think they would be standard science. But there is something already "metaphysical" in the "stationary states" which you have already accepted. You must admit that is a tad "spooky" don't you agree?
I think it is spooky because no one has described a conceptual model, which
is what I am attempting to do. If you can understand why something occurs the
spookiness goes away, but then the arguments begin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I never said there was anything "metaphysical" about atomic cavities. I think they would be standard science. But there is something already "metaphysical" in the "stationary states" which you have already accepted. You must admit that is a tad "spooky" don't you agree? |
I think it is spooky because no one has described a conceptual model, which
is what I am attempting to do. If you can understand why something occurs the
spookiness goes away, but then the arguments begin.
What I really disagree with is these cavities are in place because of permanent static charges on the atomic particles and have some other reason in free and open space. Two separate systems do you agree, when I would be expecting one and the same phenomena? One standing wave system appears to be the result of electrons and protons in space and the other occurs in the vacuum between the stars.
Are they really permanent static charges or are they better described as
dynamic localized energy fields? Atomic "motion" varies in time to maintain
a quasi-balanced energy association between atoms. Each atom vibrates in
tandem with its neighbors, they must have some phase relationship.
Call it atomic "harmony". A bit beyond my depth, but I think I understand the
basic mechanism.
I think standing waves are a function of the macro environment that they are
operating in. Perhaps it is only a matter of scale or geometry. An angle of
30 degrees is the same whether the physical geometry is atomic scale or
galactic scale. So why can't standing waves of energy exhibit similar properties?
QUOTE
I am focusing on the photons that are not "scattered" to lower frequencies by passing through the slots and being dephased. The ones I am interested in are the ones that continue on in the pristine quantum state. These are the ones that are part of the interference pattern on the screen. The others are not the "signal" but the "noise".
I think we need to consider how the wave propagates as its EM fields "oscillate"
in their sinusoidal phase rotation. Consider a beam of laser light projected onto
the screen without having passed thru the slits. The waveform is perfectly
reproduced on the screen. If we could visualize the exact point of wavefunction
"collapse" it should fall equally on both sides of the waveform centerline, according
to what phase angle polarity the collapsing wave was in at the time of collapse.
In other words, was the wavefunction in the positive 1/2 of its polarity or the
negative 1/2 of its polarity as it collapsed? I don't think it is possible for the
wavefunction to collapse all on one side of the centerline of the wavefunction, since
there is a timing delay offset associated with each arriving wave. JMHO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am focusing on the photons that are not "scattered" to lower frequencies by passing through the slots and being dephased. The ones I am interested in are the ones that continue on in the pristine quantum state. These are the ones that are part of the interference pattern on the screen. The others are not the "signal" but the "noise". |
I think we need to consider how the wave propagates as its EM fields "oscillate"
in their sinusoidal phase rotation. Consider a beam of laser light projected onto
the screen without having passed thru the slits. The waveform is perfectly
reproduced on the screen. If we could visualize the exact point of wavefunction
"collapse" it should fall equally on both sides of the waveform centerline, according
to what phase angle polarity the collapsing wave was in at the time of collapse.
In other words, was the wavefunction in the positive 1/2 of its polarity or the
negative 1/2 of its polarity as it collapsed? I don't think it is possible for the
wavefunction to collapse all on one side of the centerline of the wavefunction, since
there is a timing delay offset associated with each arriving wave. JMHO.
In "free space" there are no charges to create this phenomena yet "stationary states" are there as well.
Remember my "belief" that higher forms of energy propagate along the
boundaries of lower forms of energy. Perhaps this is an extra dimension that you
are professing. Maybe we are not in total theoretical conflict. I think we both
agree that the "vacuum" of any space indeed has background energy "fluxing"
thru it, and higher energy levels propagate along these lower energy levels,
though the correct conceptual mechanism is yet to be formalized.
LL
GE,
I see that you added some commentary while I was responding to your earlier
post.
Vacuoles?.....lower energy state levels propagating in the vacuum? Different
dimensions? Perhaps the same thing, described differently.
LL
I see that you added some commentary while I was responding to your earlier
post.
QUOTE
In the end ... no such things as "permanent charge" only photons propagating in "vacuoles".
Vacuoles?.....lower energy state levels propagating in the vacuum? Different
dimensions? Perhaps the same thing, described differently.
LL
yquantum, NO I AM FIND just doing what you always told us to do, keep out of the box as much as possible! GooD Elf, Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, all,
I little cold but that is norm for season.
Everyone, I can see this post going on as long as the Higgs post [or longer yq hopes as well as I do], but at least you are staying on the same subject and yq. tells me that is a good sign. I do not see how in the - well let me say this different due to, "2" might be reading.
But how Laserlight do you explain this without bringing the theory of
Just a question and then I have so many more but one at a time. These post seem so long to me.
Duality/Lisa
GooD Elf, Laserlight, Confused2, TRoc, all,I little cold but that is norm for season.
Everyone, I can see this post going on as long as the Higgs post [or longer yq hopes as well as I do], but at least you are staying on the same subject and yq. tells me that is a good sign. I do not see how in the - well let me say this different due to, "2" might be reading.
But how Laserlight do you explain this without bringing the theory of
QUOTE
Atomic "motion" varies in time to maintain a quasi-balanced energy association between atoms. Each atom vibrates intandem with its neighbors, they must have some phase relationship.
Entanglement?Just a question and then I have so many more but one at a time. These post seem so long to me.
Duality/Lisa
Hello Lisa,
Entanglement? I would say yes, at the structural atomic level. Atoms share
electrons and entangled EM energy fields to maintain overall structural integrity
(balanced energy).
Do you agree, or is there a better simplified technical description?
Perhaps when photon EM fields interact with the EM fields of entangled matter
there is some dislocation or dissociation in the energy phase relationship.
I think this is why electrons can be dislocated from their ground state and
raised to a higher energy level.
My premise is that the inherent EM fields of matter can extend beyond the
physical bounds of the atomic matrix, and this is where the interaction between
the EM fields of matter and the EM fields of the photon interact.
LL
Entanglement? I would say yes, at the structural atomic level. Atoms share
electrons and entangled EM energy fields to maintain overall structural integrity
(balanced energy).
Do you agree, or is there a better simplified technical description?
Perhaps when photon EM fields interact with the EM fields of entangled matter
there is some dislocation or dissociation in the energy phase relationship.
I think this is why electrons can be dislocated from their ground state and
raised to a higher energy level.
My premise is that the inherent EM fields of matter can extend beyond the
physical bounds of the atomic matrix, and this is where the interaction between
the EM fields of matter and the EM fields of the photon interact.
LL
QUOTE
Perhaps when photon EM fields interact with the EM fields of entangled matter
there is some dislocation or dissociation in the energy phase relationship.
by Laserlightthere is some dislocation or dissociation in the energy phase relationship.
Not completely sure what you mean unless you are referring to interference or decoherence?
Maybe these sites will help you decide?
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/research/qo...oms-and-photons
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmec...res/node20.html
Let me know then we can proceed, Laserlight.
Lisa
Lisa,
Neither of your links works, but I am familiar with the concepts of
interference and decoherence. Interference being the mixing of
signals that causes disruptions in signal fidelty. Decoherence being
an out of phase, or out of timing, "relationship" between wave signals.
I agree. They are the proper terms to use for physics, mine were more
in line with chemical reactions/phenomena. Sorry for mixing terms.
We can continue.
LL
Neither of your links works, but I am familiar with the concepts of
interference and decoherence. Interference being the mixing of
signals that causes disruptions in signal fidelty. Decoherence being
an out of phase, or out of timing, "relationship" between wave signals.
I agree. They are the proper terms to use for physics, mine were more
in line with chemical reactions/phenomena. Sorry for mixing terms.
We can continue.
LL
Could the slit be similar to a concave mirror reflection of light hidden in perspective?
Oracle1,
Can you describe/elaborate on how the mechanism you are inquiring about works?
That way we can have a common basis of understanding of the phenomenon
that you are proposing.
Thanks, Glad to see you contributing!
LL
Can you describe/elaborate on how the mechanism you are inquiring about works?
That way we can have a common basis of understanding of the phenomenon
that you are proposing.
Thanks, Glad to see you contributing!
LL
There is a spherical abbarition in light reflecting from a concave sphere. The light focuses in two dirrections. One that can be seen and the other hidden in perspective
additionally there is some thought that the speed of light is impacted through quantum interference and that it slows down in water.
Hi Oracle1,
This is refraction. The propagation of light always slows down when in a
different medium than vacuum, as in observing a pencil inserted into the water
of a fish tank. It looks "offset", because of a difference of diffraction between
air and water. The speed of light is different in the two different media.
I think I see what you are getting at with your concave lens/mirror scenario. The
focal point can be changed according to the refraction/reflection of the lens. In that
regard I think that yes, the slit is acting as a kind of "lens" because it is changing
the electrical and magnetic phase (refraction) of the light wave. It is refracting
the photon wave from its normal angle of incidence. There is a difference
in photon flight path before and after the slit.
Good Elf referenced this some time ago in his pinhole aperature "camera obscura"
discussion. I defer to his expertise.
LL
QUOTE
additionally there is some thought that the speed of light is impacted through quantum interference and that it slows down in water
This is refraction. The propagation of light always slows down when in a
different medium than vacuum, as in observing a pencil inserted into the water
of a fish tank. It looks "offset", because of a difference of diffraction between
air and water. The speed of light is different in the two different media.
I think I see what you are getting at with your concave lens/mirror scenario. The
focal point can be changed according to the refraction/reflection of the lens. In that
regard I think that yes, the slit is acting as a kind of "lens" because it is changing
the electrical and magnetic phase (refraction) of the light wave. It is refracting
the photon wave from its normal angle of incidence. There is a difference
in photon flight path before and after the slit.
Good Elf referenced this some time ago in his pinhole aperature "camera obscura"
discussion. I defer to his expertise.
LL
Laserlight, oracle1 -welcome-, Confused2, Good Elf -have a question will wait till you get back, TRoc, all, (so many going to use ALL next time.
Now, all I have to say is I am on my way out for a bite to eat, warm, like Mexican food now that is the ticket.
Laserlight, will get back with you I do understand but need some time to think, everyone has me working out of the fundamental QM box of thought, which is a great exercise on occasion. I hope?
Duality/Lisa
Now, all I have to say is I am on my way out for a bite to eat, warm, like Mexican food now that is the ticket.
Laserlight, will get back with you I do understand but need some time to think, everyone has me working out of the fundamental QM box of thought, which is a great exercise on occasion. I hope?
Duality/Lisa
Hi all,
If I have to pick just one thing at a time, to keep things "short & sweet", I am going to ask this:
The Quantum interpretation is light, the "photon", interacts with matter, the electron ONLY through absorption and re-emission (of a new "photon").
SO, in terms of "transparency", why does everyone insist on using PRE-QM terms, where the model describes light as GOING THROUGH the medium.
regards,
T.Roc
If I have to pick just one thing at a time, to keep things "short & sweet", I am going to ask this:
The Quantum interpretation is light, the "photon", interacts with matter, the electron ONLY through absorption and re-emission (of a new "photon").
SO, in terms of "transparency", why does everyone insist on using PRE-QM terms, where the model describes light as GOING THROUGH the medium.
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc,
Is an extended EM energy field in the open"space" of the slits considered a
medium?
Yes, a phase timing change/shift is taking place. Are you suggesting that
the EM fields, according to QED, cannot interact without directly involving an
electron changing orbitals to generate new photon?
IMO, the photon energy is moving parallel to the sidewalls of the slit surfaces or
at a very oblique angle approaching 180 degrees.
Can a parallel, zero degree, "angle of attack" directly change an electron's
orbital position and generate a new photon?
I'm asking out of curiosity.
TIA,
LL
QUOTE
The Quantum interpretation is light, the "photon", interacts with matter, the electron ONLY through absorption and re-emission (of a new "photon").
SO, in terms of "transparency", why does everyone insist on using PRE-QM terms, where the model describes light as GOING THROUGH the medium.
SO, in terms of "transparency", why does everyone insist on using PRE-QM terms, where the model describes light as GOING THROUGH the medium.
Is an extended EM energy field in the open"space" of the slits considered a
medium?
Yes, a phase timing change/shift is taking place. Are you suggesting that
the EM fields, according to QED, cannot interact without directly involving an
electron changing orbitals to generate new photon?
IMO, the photon energy is moving parallel to the sidewalls of the slit surfaces or
at a very oblique angle approaching 180 degrees.
Can a parallel, zero degree, "angle of attack" directly change an electron's
orbital position and generate a new photon?
I'm asking out of curiosity.
TIA,
LL
Hi TRoc,
I was contemplating posting the rather Zen optical thought:-
A wave starts where it begins and stiops when it arrives. All waves do this. If it is of more than one frequency then it must be more than one wave. To say that a wave that starts and stops must be made of more than one frequency is to fail to understand the nature of a wave.
As oracle touched on (?) .. it would seem photons couple ** with particles that have mass (eg electrons) and can appear to acquire some of the properties of 'mass'.. in particular (!) they no longer travel at the speed of light. Examples of the effect being prisms and focussing lenses which create paths for a photon that may or may not converge on a particular point in space.
In the DSE we have only two paths .. this is simplifies the analysis and increases the possibility that we might one day be able to understand what is really going on.
-C2.
** 'couple' is probably a word we need to be very careful with .
I was contemplating posting the rather Zen optical thought:-
A wave starts where it begins and stiops when it arrives. All waves do this. If it is of more than one frequency then it must be more than one wave. To say that a wave that starts and stops must be made of more than one frequency is to fail to understand the nature of a wave.
As oracle touched on (?) .. it would seem photons couple ** with particles that have mass (eg electrons) and can appear to acquire some of the properties of 'mass'.. in particular (!) they no longer travel at the speed of light. Examples of the effect being prisms and focussing lenses which create paths for a photon that may or may not converge on a particular point in space.
In the DSE we have only two paths .. this is simplifies the analysis and increases the possibility that we might one day be able to understand what is really going on.
-C2.
** 'couple' is probably a word we need to be very careful with .
Hi LL,TRoc,
LL .. missed your post..
LL .. missed your post..
QUOTE (LL+)
Are you suggesting that the EM fields, according to QED, cannot interact without directly involving an electron changing orbitals to generate new photon?
It's the flying pigs problem again .. if you see them do it ..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
Best wishes,
-C2.
It's the flying pigs problem again .. if you see them do it ..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
QUOTE
Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment, or any complex external system, in such a thermodynamically irreversible way that ensures different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction can no longer interfere with each other.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi C2,
Now that's funny!
Thanks for the definition of decoherence. That is a much more comprehensive
explanation.
One of the reasons that I asked TRoc about the severely oblique angle and the
theory that photon EM fields always interact with an electron's EM fields, to emit a
new photon, was to make the point that total external reflection from an
small glancing angle may not require that process to occur.
I could be wrong about this, but they use small glancing angles to reflect
x-rays from a mirror. I'm not sure if the atoms in the mirror are
emitting a new x-ray photon. Does that violate a rule of QM or QED?
It may not even have any relevance, just a point of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_external_reflection
LL
QUOTE
It's the flying pigs problem again .. if you see them do it ..
Now that's funny!
Thanks for the definition of decoherence. That is a much more comprehensive
explanation.
One of the reasons that I asked TRoc about the severely oblique angle and the
theory that photon EM fields always interact with an electron's EM fields, to emit a
new photon, was to make the point that total external reflection from an
small glancing angle may not require that process to occur.
I could be wrong about this, but they use small glancing angles to reflect
x-rays from a mirror. I'm not sure if the atoms in the mirror are
emitting a new x-ray photon. Does that violate a rule of QM or QED?
It may not even have any relevance, just a point of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_external_reflection
LL
Hi all,
My question wasn't worded very well (it was better said as 2 questions). I was looking for someone from the QM corner (anybody) to confirm the statement and/or answer the question. The way the "photon" is absorbed, is by an electron (orbital). The way energy continues, is the re-emission of a new "photon"
Lisa thinks that talking about entanglement is important, and I just want to clear that up before we do.
LL
Don't take my question about QM for an opinion of something. You know I think closer to your way than QM's ! hehe Can we see a "photon" traveling from side to side (not on a vector that enters our eye)? I think that, and the answers to your other questions, are dependent upon HOW close, and WHAT energy level (frequency), and the angle. I don't think the official version of QM agrees with that, though.
If we are going to suggest a "change" in the status quo, we need to be very sure what that is. And, we should all be aware of, and using the same model when having this discussion. QM has several models to chose from, just like string theory, AFAIC. Neither have the "hook" of a full, and reasonable solution, derived with self consistent, fundamental principles.
ciao,
T.Roc
My question wasn't worded very well (it was better said as 2 questions). I was looking for someone from the QM corner (anybody) to confirm the statement and/or answer the question. The way the "photon" is absorbed, is by an electron (orbital). The way energy continues, is the re-emission of a new "photon"
Lisa thinks that talking about entanglement is important, and I just want to clear that up before we do.
LL
QUOTE
Is an extended EM energy field in the open"space" of the slits considered a medium?
..
Are you suggesting that the EM fields, according to QED, cannot interact without directly involving an electron changing orbitals to generate new photon?
..
Can a parallel, zero degree, "angle of attack" directly change an electron's
orbital position and generate a new photon?
..
Are you suggesting that the EM fields, according to QED, cannot interact without directly involving an electron changing orbitals to generate new photon?
..
Can a parallel, zero degree, "angle of attack" directly change an electron's
orbital position and generate a new photon?
Don't take my question about QM for an opinion of something. You know I think closer to your way than QM's ! hehe Can we see a "photon" traveling from side to side (not on a vector that enters our eye)? I think that, and the answers to your other questions, are dependent upon HOW close, and WHAT energy level (frequency), and the angle. I don't think the official version of QM agrees with that, though.
If we are going to suggest a "change" in the status quo, we need to be very sure what that is. And, we should all be aware of, and using the same model when having this discussion. QM has several models to chose from, just like string theory, AFAIC. Neither have the "hook" of a full, and reasonable solution, derived with self consistent, fundamental principles.
ciao,
T.Roc
Laserlight & Confused2, TRoc (did not see you post) , jal, all
Have you figured out your question I see your back to decoherence and I think this is the right approach.
About your other question: This could be old news but remember I do not know what all that has been covered.
http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html
Let me know will check back later or tomorrow.
Duality/Lisa
, jal, all Have you figured out your question I see your back to decoherence and I think this is the right approach.
About your other question: This could be old news but remember I do not know what all that has been covered.
http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html
Let me know will check back later or tomorrow.
Duality/Lisa
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.